If EverQuest was remade, what would you change/leave the same?

[Treefall]

I know the Classic community varies a lot. Still, I would like to get an idea of where people stand in general. Say, for the sake of argument, that Sony got wise and made a proper sequel or remake of EverQuest. What points would you concede need to be changed for a modern adaptation, and what would you firmly stand your ground on - knowing so and so thing would kill what EverQuest was (Classic-Velious)?

Here are some changes I would be for:
-Graphics, modern great, but not over-done
-In game map, but not GPS (even if people can download custom maps, we all have used atlas anyways)
-Modern UI response times and customization
-Group info: health, mana, energy, and debuffs shown
-Pet bars
-Zones in the same spirit, but not "exact" replicas (I would be okay with a seem-less world, but would not want to concede much on mob leashes)
-Raid instances (hear me out - all bosses exist in the world, but there should be instanced versions of those boss fights too so all guilds can raid - world version should be an extra loot for that boss for the guilds that tag and kill each week). Aside from raids, I would not condone instances.
-XP modifiers for classes (I am ok with modifiers for races, but I think the class modifiers are pointless, aside from a bonus for classes that absolutely cannot solo well rogue/war)

Pretty much everything else I would leave in tact, untouched.

However, I would also be in favor of two server ruletypes. One that plays more like WoW for the people that don't enjoy the challenges we enjoy, and the other with everything that makes classic great in-tact. I won't make a list of those variances, but I think it should be an option.

[fishingme]

I think the only way everquest would ever be good is to have it absolutely classic, working like a charm, and a gm service 24/7 and more publication. Can't fix what isn't broken, that's what "classic everquest" is.

I wouldn't say WoW was a terrible game, it did capture a lot of players and before there were any expansions it was really fun. The thing that ruined WoW imo, was the frequent urge of the devs to make every class do pretty much anything. I did not like it when paladins ended up becoming literal gods of healing, while completely making a priest worthless.

[Sirken]

nm, merry christmas!

[Treefall]

I think the only way everquest would ever be good is to have it absolutely classic, working like a charm, and a gm service 24/7 and more publication. Can't fix what isn't broken, that's what "classic everquest" is.

I wouldn't say WoW was a terrible game, it did capture a lot of players and before there were any expansions it was really fun. The thing that ruined WoW imo, was the frequent urge of the devs to make every class do pretty much anything. I did not like it when paladins ended up becoming literal gods of healing, while completely making a priest worthless.

I agree with you on just about all points, definitely related to WoW. Though WoW being its own game, I wouldn't want EQ to emulate those points.

I know Classic EQ is the best it will be. Still, my hope is to someday have a modern game that plays almost identically. Personally, graphics don't bother me, but there's been a couple of friends I just couldn't get to pick up P99 solely because of graphics...so maybe that skews me a bit.

As far as the NM, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas to you too!

I have no problem with people ripping me a new butthole! So I hope you didn't edit out something juicy.

[Knuckle]

I know the Classic community varies a lot. Still, I would like to get an idea of where people stand in general. Say, for the sake of argument, that Sony got wise and made a proper sequel or remake of EverQuest. What points would you concede need to be changed for a modern adaptation, and what would you firmly stand your ground on - knowing so and so thing would kill what EverQuest was (Classic-Velious)?

Here are some changes I would be for:
-Graphics, modern great, but not over-done
-In game map, but not GPS (even if people can download custom maps, we all have used atlas anyways)
-Modern UI response times and customization
-Group info: health, mana, energy, and debuffs shown
-Pet bars
-Zones in the same spirit, but not "exact" replicas (I would be okay with a seem-less world, but would not want to concede much on mob leashes)
-Raid instances (hear me out - all bosses exist in the world, but there should be instanced versions of those boss fights too so all guilds can raid - world version should be an extra loot for that boss for the guilds that tag and kill each week). Aside from raids, I would not condone instances.
-XP modifiers for classes (I am ok with modifiers for races, but I think the class modifiers are pointless, aside from a bonus for classes that absolutely cannot solo well rogue/war)

Pretty much everything else I would leave in tact, untouched.

However, I would also be in favor of two server ruletypes. One that plays more like WoW for the people that don't enjoy the challenges we enjoy, and the other with everything that makes classic great in-tact. I won't make a list of those variances, but I think it should be an option.

you are a scumbag, instanced raids

[Arclyte]

I would leave it mostly like it is except:

Remove XP penalty from classes
Make Archery for Rangers viable dps
Give Rogues the ability to make traps
Give Rogues actual traps to detect and disarm in the game world
Have more doors require Lockpick
Give warriors a Block skill that requires a shield
Give warriors more abilities / take kick/bash off the same timer + buff bash damage with a shield
Buff Wizard nuke damage and mana ratio (and maybe give them spell crits, or nerf mage nuke dmg/ratio)

Not a whole lot really. The farther the game got from its DnD roots the worse it became imo.

edit: also, with modern AI, I wouldn't have dragons/gods acting like stupid mobs who just stand there and get beat on. Spoony says it better than I could: http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/09/11/counter-monkey-circle-strafe/

[stormlord]

I know the Classic community varies a lot. Still, I would like to get an idea of where people stand in general. Say, for the sake of argument, that Sony got wise and made a proper sequel or remake of EverQuest. What points would you concede need to be changed for a modern adaptation, and what would you firmly stand your ground on - knowing so and so thing would kill what EverQuest was (Classic-Velious)?

Here are some changes I would be for:
-Graphics, modern great, but not over-done
-In game map, but not GPS (even if people can download custom maps, we all have used atlas anyways)
-Modern UI response times and customization
-Group info: health, mana, energy, and debuffs shown
-Pet bars
-Zones in the same spirit, but not "exact" replicas (I would be okay with a seem-less world, but would not want to concede much on mob leashes)
-Raid instances (hear me out - all bosses exist in the world, but there should be instanced versions of those boss fights too so all guilds can raid - world version should be an extra loot for that boss for the guilds that tag and kill each week). Aside from raids, I would not condone instances.
-XP modifiers for classes (I am ok with modifiers for races, but I think the class modifiers are pointless, aside from a bonus for classes that absolutely cannot solo well rogue/war)

Pretty much everything else I would leave in tact, untouched.

However, I would also be in favor of two server ruletypes. One that plays more like WoW for the people that don't enjoy the challenges we enjoy, and the other with everything that makes classic great in-tact. I won't make a list of those variances, but I think it should be an option.
My response could go on forever. There's so much.

Here're some things off the top of my head:

- Travel: Binds, Gates

..... The travel system in classic Eq (and in the more modern version) is not stimulating. What I'd like is for there to be more bind spots in the different zones and multiple binds per player and for the ability to choose whichever one you want to spawn at after you gate or die. I'd also like for there to be the ability to buy bind potions in towns so you can bind yourself without other players. This doesn't mean that getting a bind from other players won't be beneficial. It all depends on circumstances. If you design it right then players can buy bind potions AND receive binds from other players. Players have to think. This is a lot of work right here, excluding anything else. But it's worth it, in my opinion. Games that have interesting travel systems that make you get involved are -better- games. The key is that they make you think and this is critical to it being fun.

- Non-Player Characters: Interaction and Conversation

..... One thing I like about classic Eq is that the cities have many scripted non-players that will roam around the city from one place to another. There're even wandering merchants or some that will close shop at particular times. It's very interesting to find out all the things the non-players know about each other. There're so many little things you can learn about places and things that make it special. And this is above and beyond the lore that you might learn too. Classic EQ non-players act more like they're -in- that world.

..... That's all good and great, but it's not enough. It was just a stab in the dark long ago pre-21st century; back before we twittered; back when party like it's 1999 was still in swing; back before Bieber.

..... First of all, the non-players that move around don't pause long enough when you're talking to them. At least, this is how it was on p1999 when I tried it. I had to constantly Hail them to read through what they say and respond and sometimes I had to chase them down. There're probably other examples of how roaming non-players or non-players that close shop and do other things will act too quickly or inflexibly.

...... Second of all, and most importantly, the developers of EQ never really added to the experience. They just left it alone and it got old and dry. That's too bad. Maybe their excuse was the content was old so they ignored it, but the fact of the matter is they did worse and worse with NEW non-players. They used more and more Task Windows and dummy NPCs. Instead of NPCs that were part of the environment and roamed around and were halfway interesting and had unique names and family histories, the NPCs seemed to either become item dispensers or quest dispensers and in both cases they almost never moved around. Even in EQ2, the NPCs that move around are just dummy NPCs that don't really do anything other than move around and look pretty. So it's not that the developers saw no worth in working on old content to expand on it, but it's that the very nature of their thoughts pertaining to non-player characters changed over the years and lost its potential depth.

...... Lastly, I'd like to see the whole interaction with non-players be more involved. I'd like it to matter HOW I speak to them and WHAT I speak about and WHEN (even). I want it to be more like a game of chess where I have to think more carefully. I'd also like there to be some form of natural language. Too many games go the dialog window route and everything is hardcoded with preset questions/responses. While those things are nice and should be part of the game, I think that a natural language engine should also be present and that non-players need a more general intelligence to facilitate natural language interaction. I'd go so far as to say that a game which only uses natural language would be a very worthwhile experiment. I don't think we're at that stage yet, but it's a worthy pursuit. This is obviously not something that's easy and is not the wise choice for somebody who's going to add a complex conversation engine that plays like a game of chess. The reason I say this is that preset questions/responses lend themselves to chess-type games. Natural language questions/responses are more tricky because in order to fit into the scheme they have to be understood exactly. For example, the difference between "Give me your friendship, a**hole!" and "I ask for your friendship, sir." is important, but a natural language engine might be unable to discriminate on details this fine.

..... PS: If the future of gaming is this blank-faced dummy non-player then I want no part of it. I think that if I were on a beach I'd draw a line in the sand and stand on one side of it; proudly; boldly.

I could go on and on and on and on.

Will stop for now. Maybe make some more posts and put them here.

[Acrux Bcrux]

Make Archery for Rangers viable dps

[eqravenprince]

After death, respawn with your equipment, in the same zone, and same spells memmed.

Add player boats so I don't have to wait on boat to go between continents.

Remove item/money weight

Remove need to eat and drink

Everyone gets SoW speed naturally

Remove hybrid/racial penalty

Get skills/spells automatically when you hit appropriate level

[Treefall]

you are a scumbag, instanced raids

So you think the raiding system in EverQuest is perfectly fine? That's about the only negative drama I've read that exists on this server is not being able to raid because so and so guild has everything on lock down.

Why do you think my option is not a good compromise?

All bosses exist in the world for competition and the best of the best guilds to compete for more loot.

I still think that guilds of working adults that can play from say 7pm to 10pm have a chance to raid something. Even if the best, most elite gear comes off the world bosses.

[Snagglepuss]

Change
*Archery as a viable dps for rangers.
*FD for rogues. Think as a deception.
*Horses or mounts in classic (As graphically possible...)
*Druids evocation being impacted by weather
*Resists modifiers for players by zone climate / location ie Oasis lowers heat, Everfrost lowers cold. Barbarians don't do well in hotter climates whereas Iksars would need high cold resists in snowy cold zones.
*Mobs being chained to areas (They regen when they run back). Why would a guard leave their post if they chased you away?

Same

*Travel and sandboxy feel.
*Boats!
*Non-instanced content, but maybe faster spawns in certain areas.
*Racial and class penalties. Hybrids have both magic and melee skills so they take longer to master their craft.


I took a break from p99 and played Vanguard for a bit this fall when it went F2P. I really liked the game. It felt like the ideal mix between what made EQ great and some WoWesque features that makes the game marketable to a newer MMORPG generation. They addressed a lot of the issues that are brought up here.

[eqravenprince]

They already made this game. It's called World of Warcraft.

A bit of a stretch don't you think. Very different games even with these minor changes.

[stormlord]

Here is Part 2 of my change-list:

- Skills and Classes: Group and Solo play

..... One thing I've recently thought about in relation to classic EQ is its group vs solo gap. One of the problems it has is that it divides the two and legitimizes the idea of either/or. I would change this so that all classes have two modes: specialized and balanced. In specialized-mode, a player is granted access to their primary class abilities, while losing an equivalent amount of generic abilities. In balanced-mode, players gain generic abilities with some secondary class abilities, while losing their primary class abilities. There should be a cool-down timer with condition(s) so that a player cannot switch between balanced and specialized during combat and/or other activities. This ensures that players still have to strategically plan their group ahead of time so that they strike the right balance. But no choice they make will be permanent. The benefit of all this is that it doesn't matter what class you select in character creation with relation to its ability to solo or group. All classes have the ability to solo in balanced-mode and to group in specialized-mode. While class-specific secondary abilities will have to be balanced to ensure that classes have equal opportunity as soloers, the effect of incorrect balancing is less since in balanced-mode it's the generic abilities that will gain priority over the others.
..... An additional concern in all this is how it's done. For example, one of the reasons I like the necromancer or the druid or the ranger is because the gameplay is mixed and demands concentration. If a MMORPG that implements balanced-mode and specialized-mode feels that the balanced-mode needs to be simplistic and undemanding then it would fail to meet my needs as a player, since I don't like necromancers or druids or rangers only for their soloing ability. One method to resolve this would be to create a couple classes with more demanding setups. These classes should not be any more powerful than other classes. Their main difference is that they will require more concentration and/or knowledge and/or reflexes. Their primary abilities should not be so needed in groups that people who do not like this kind of gameplay feel they -must- play these classes in order to meet a certain need. One way to resolve this is to ensure that problems in the game can be solved in more than one way and thus other classes can fill for classes that're absent (or popularly unliked).

- Maps: Individual Knowledge and The Game

..... One of the special things about classic EQ is the lack of in-game maps. I've always enjoyed it because I like the feeling of immersing in the world and knowing how to traverse it quickly. However, I know that many others do not share my appreciation for this. And I also know that new players and/or people new to certain areas can be lost and angry if they're needed quickly and/or feel they must travel in new areas. This is why I think that in-game maps should be implemented. Where I differ is that I believe there should be no GPS. GPS tells you where your group members are. It's like radar. Many games have an in-game "radar" that shows you the position of nearby creatures. This I would not include in my vision of the remade classic EQ.
..... One thing that the in-game map system on EQ-live failed to do was to allow players to trade in-game maps in-game. This I always saw as a severe shortsight. Over the years I had the chance to overhear many frustrated players that failed to download the maps and install them correctly. This even happened with me a few times. It was a chore and this is not a responsibility that players should have to bare. So I'd allow maps to be traded and download in the game itself so that no outside technical knowledge is required.
..... Since players cannot see where they're on the map, this would complicate how to draw the map in proper proportions. However, I feel that this is an added feature because it demands more skill from the map maker.
..... There's also the issue of whether the in-game map viewer/editor should be 3d. It was commonly experience on EQ-live that 3d dungeons were difficult to read in the map window because if the map window shows everything then what happens is that layers of the world both below and above stack onto each other and obscure what's there so it cannot be seen. The method to solve this was crude and involved changing the height values so that it was restricted. The viewer itself was 2d and caused this issue.
..... On the whole, I probably would avoid a 3d map editor/viewer. I would probably keep things as simple as I can and just allow players to manually draw the map. I also think that it's more in-tune with the fantasy. Too many tools and gadgets just removes the player from the world and makes the fantasy fake.
..... I would create default maps with minimal details.
..... I know some people will disagree with me, some greatly, but this is what I'd probably do. I know that it would limit my playing audience and would cause many to flame and insult and spread hate towards me. But I can't please everyone. In fact, I couldn't, if this is what I chose to do. I don't want to, either.
..... PS: Keep in mind that by supplying a summoning ability to more classes I could avoid the issue where players -must- travel through new areas to return to their group. So don't think linearly. And for new playes, as well, I could design it so they're not required to travel long(er) distances until later on.

I'll end it there, until next time.

[Toehammer]

I always thought these would be really cool:

New High Level Classic Zone: Goblin/Orc Caves

I remember thinking back when I discovered High(pass) Keep and Runnyeye Citadel that there should be some underground caves (think Lord of the Rings abandoned dwarf tunnels... Mines of Moria I think?) that CONNECTS the two zones. I think classic was really missing one more cool dungeon to get exp/loot other than Kedge, Sol B, and Lower Guk. Sol B sort of functioned like this... but I was thinking a mountain dungeon setting as opposed to fire dungeon. I actually thought that it HAD to exist and explored Runnyeye and Highkeep to try to find it. Also, Kedge not being that utilized really killed a potentially awesome high level dungeon... for most people it is either Sol B or LGuk. Goblin caves would have been the place for mithril-type armor/weapons to drop.

First Item to Drop from a Monster/Quest is an "Artifact"

I think that it would have been cool to give the first item to drop/quested on each server to be unique... like 10% better. For example, Hooded Black Cloak (AC10 STR5 HP45) would go to (AC11 STR6 HP50). It would make the game seem a little cooler and more "realistic" to me... in EQ there is neither enough penalty for death nor gain from risk taking. Finding something new should be REALLY cool, and not fully repeatable. Did Ivandyr really make 1000s of hoops? No... most likely just one! Are all Crown of the Froglok Kings really The King's crown... hell no. Should be something special...

this goes along with...

More Artifacts and GM events

Would give the world a more "realistic" fantasy feeling. I only played DnD a couple times, but each adventure felt unique and involved. EQ can be somewhat formulaic. More unique things would break this grind.

More Development/Depth of Classes

I played a warrior main tank for a guild, and always thought it stupid how limited a warrior was. I thought they should get refreshable abilities (think Mend timers) like a hit that snares an opponent (attacking the leg), slows their attack a little (blow to the arm), or decreases their stats (blow to the head/concussion). Actually, EQ2 got this right, and I LOVED playing my berserker, even more than my warrior in EQ1... was so surprised that EQ2 devs read my mind! Each class could get things like this. Rangers could get a focus shot ability or something. I mean it never made sense to me that monks got like 5 (dunno the #) unique attack abilities and warriors (the masters of general combat skills) get... bash? Nope paladins/sks get it too. AA abilities sort of tried this... but to me it was too late.

I played a spell class (shaman) on p1999 specifically because how repetitive a less versatile class like warrior was back in '99.

Town Maps and Less Killing a Moss Snake 50x

I was hesitant to roll a troll shaman on P1999 cause I had never actually been to Grobb. Back in 2010 P1999 had town/newbie zone maps. It made things so much smoother. I love a super-hard EQ as much as anyone else, but I remember wanting to try Dark Elf back in 1999 and having to find a guild master deep in neriak Z or wtf ever it was and was like screw that! My Dwarf Warrior had enough trouble trying to find the bank lol. Don't even get me started on Kelethin. I mean I don't want maps or even a mapping skill for the outside world, but inside towns, even make a map buyable for like 2gp from a vendor closest to the newbie yard trash mobs. The initial hurdle/wall in EQ can be paper thin, but looks opaque and very thick. Lots of players quit because the world can seem too open.

Also, killing a moss snake 50 times sucks... at least have different snakes in the same zone. Make level 2 snakes 10% bigger than level 1 snakes... something for variety. Change the color a little? These are simple changes!

More Quests that Give Exp

EverQuest was more EverGrind. I remember exploring a lot and thinking, man a quest here would have been perfect. Going back to my first suggestion (high level goblin/orc dungeon) imagine if after handing in 100 left goblin ears, that Captain Bosec told you, now worthy of a harder task, that there is an ancient passage to some abandoned tunnels that had been used as a trade route to bypass the undead infestation in Kithicor Forest? Recently there had been sounds emanating from the old barred-up entrance in Highkeep. That would have been AWESOME, maybe a treasure map quest to find the location. Do something simple like a key found from Princess Lenya/another NPC in the secret place upstairs.

SO MANY cooler quests could have been done. Give more exp for adventuresome people too!

Variety of Zones/Climates

I actually think they got this one just about perfect. They could have added in more climates/diverse landscapes. I know mountains were difficult to code back in 1999 with 3D graphics cards. But I am thinking a Frontier Mountains sort of size scale... like Plains of Karana size, but mountainous. Maybe a couple more islands too.

a big one:
Better Implementation of Religion/Race

Factions TRIED to do this, but sorta failed. I admittedly have no good solution to this. Maybe just make deity choice more restrictive as to what you are able to do? I dunno. Perhaps tying character progression into the way your character fits into his religion or starting city? For example a Troll Shaman must sacrifice a creature (bring a level 20 creature corpse) to his hometown before he can ding 20... I dunno. Druids/Rangers get faction/deity points for protecting/healing animals. Race/religion becomes not too too important in EQ... fine. But for character development/uniqueness I think it should be central. I mean come on, how different are trolls and gnomes... but both are similar if shadowknights (besides stats lol).

Those are most of my ideas that I can remember... I had a list going back in 2001 or so of things I would like to see. EQ2 got a lot right, like getting exp/crappy armor for TONS of fun newbie quests, various combat skills for more classes than just monk, the ability to customize your character (the skill trees were cool). However the game wasn't as hard as EQ1... so not as fun!

[Csihar]

Less blacks.

[stormlord]

I think the only way everquest would ever be good is to have it absolutely classic, working like a charm, and a gm service 24/7 and more publication. Can't fix what isn't broken, that's what "classic everquest" is.

I wouldn't say WoW was a terrible game, it did capture a lot of players and before there were any expansions it was really fun. The thing that ruined WoW imo, was the frequent urge of the devs to make every class do pretty much anything. I did not like it when paladins ended up becoming literal gods of healing, while completely making a priest worthless.
This doesn't get said enough.

If you look at most MMORPGs, they're about as defined as a shape in a cloud. They're always changing and shifting gears and meeting the latest trends. What's worse about all this is that these games mudflate like crazy. They're driven by bigtime financiers who're afraid to take risks and obsess about $$$.

Thing about p1999 is it stays in one place. It's not driven by desires for profit; it's essentially non-profit. Mudflation is capped at velious and expansion release dates are sparse. The thing about all this that's nice is you can come back to the game you love and it won't be something else.

I routinely play old games because I like them. Too bad MMORPGs aren't like that. The sad thing about it is that in the future these MMORPGs won't be remembered as they're today unless they have emulators. The companies themselves that make the games are too busy changing them to retain their history. The only evidence that they ever existed will be random bits of leftover code, lots and lots of screenshots and chat logs and media. Bottom line is that if a game isn't stored and retained as it was then its memory fades. They might be good memories, but you won't be able to play it. You'll be lost in a ocean of untouchable memories.

I am extremely grateful that p1999 exists. It allowed me to come back and reexperience this game as closely as is practical to its original state. I re-familiarized to things I once loved. I came away with a new appreciation for what made it work back then for me. It has shaped me into somebody that has a deeper understanding of games and online worlds just simply because some random people worked extremely hard to dig up and polish an old game out of love and an understanding for the finer things in this life.

If p1999 is a real life person then bigtime commercial mmorpg giants are mannequins. They're mannequins because mannequins can be anything. They're too afraid to lose $$$ to stick to one thing. We're talking about the difference between an old man and his old house by a small lake and some lovely pine trees that glimmer in the sun and give shade to his old eyes and a bulldozer that just got ordered to flatten the old mans house because it has been foreclosed. Quite naturally, it's business as usual and everything is rosy.

Don't get too caught up in it all. Just remember, it's only $$$. After it's all said and done, it's the love in our hearts and the devotion and dreams we have that adds meaning to this life, not the $$$.

[Tecmos Deception]

More raid bosses, such that instancing is hardly needed in the first place.

Empower the downtrodden classes in theme-appropriate ways (rangers get archery awesomeness sooner, druids are made more impressive in groups by perhaps creating short-duration and super-nice damage shields and regen spells, etc.)

Some kind of revamp of proc system. Perhaps a system where procs aren't random, but where you have a "regeneration" rate on procs based on dex (100 dex = regen 1 ppm, 200 = 2 ppm, etc.) and you "store up" procs to a maximum of your ppm regen rate + 1 for your mainhand and equal to your ppm regen rate for your offhand. And then you can choose to use those procs when you want. This would be such an incredibly huge change in the game though... so getting it right without having to rebalance weapon procs and classes themselves would be tricky. Would also be very interesting to see how this would work out tactically for casters, too. Of course we know how warriors and rogues would benefit from control of their procs (depending on how weapon switching affects this system), but it would be fun to see what kind of off-the-wall combos different casters manage with proccing weapons.

Sensible xp penalties and bonuses. Races with hide, stun immunity, or regen? Penalty. Most races? No penalty. Maybe humans? Bonus. Classes that are especially reliant on groups? Bonus. Enchanters and shamans? Huge penalty. Stuff like that.

Given the way things work out on p99, with so many people having so much knowledge and skill compared to what we had in original EQ, I think that while more zones would not be in order for fear of changing the game too much, I would at least want to add on content to the depths of current dungeons. Content that is truly for groups. Not content that is for the average group but that tends to be dominated by a sk/monk/war+sham/cle duo, or a solo ench or sham, etc. But content that you truly do need a full and reasonably-balanced group to handle.

[sulious]

After death, respawn with your equipment, in the same zone, and same spells memmed.

Add player boats so I don't have to wait on boat to go between continents.

Remove item/money weight

Remove need to eat and drink

Everyone gets SoW speed naturally

Remove hybrid/racial penalty

Get skills/spells automatically when you hit appropriate level

Hate! I just want my compass back!

[godlovesninjas]

TI've been wondering actually if they're using the same game engine.

Smedley said back in 2011 that the engine developed for Planetside 2 would be the platform for all SOE MMOs going forward.

[bionicbadger]

Make it the original continent only.

Every week have the loot tables and spawn tables randomized so that people couldn't just go use a walkthrough and camp stuff.

[stormlord]

Make it the original continent only.

Every week have the loot tables and spawn tables randomized so that people couldn't just go use a walkthrough and camp stuff.
I like the idea somewhat.

Camping in classic EQ was probably the thing I hated the most. I can live with the death penalty. I can live with corpse runs. I can live without the map. As a matter of fact, I kind of like those things. But camping is the one thing I always hated.

This was an idea I've had for a while for open worlds to reduce camping. The problem is that dungeons or areas in open worlds tend to have persistence even moreso than instances and similarly tend to have a hierarchy of creatures from the lowest to the highest which is somewhat predictable. Even if you randomize the loot, players will still "camp" areas for bosses and/or special loots. One example I can think of that's somewhat relevant were the randomized dungeons in Diablo II. Even though they were randomized, bosses still tended to be distributed in predictable ways. For instance, there was a boss (or string of semi-bosses) at the end of Act 1 and Act 2 and Act 3 and Act 4. So players would rush through an act to get to them. There also tended to be bosses on particular levels of certain places, so players would also "camp" those too. Thus, you can see that even randomizing loot probably won't prevent camping. The lesson is that players will camp whatever is predictable and will also grant them a significant reward.

It's my argument that you can't completely eliminate camping, but you can spread it out. And this is a good thing. The goal is to keep the player moving and not stuck in one place.

I made a post here on p1999 recently and it's related:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?p=773284

I made a post on another site and wrote this:
In instancing you have the same set of circumstances each time. You get better and better quicker. There're still random things like random breaks in a spell or a random critical. In open environments, the mob might not even be there because another player killed it. You might get a train. You might find that somebody else is doing it.

Instances are more controlled environments. And they're infinite.

To make open environments competitive you have to work a lot harder.

So the answer probably is a rethink if what open environment means.

1) Named and mobs that players camp for items and experience

Problem: In open environments players tend to camp named or mobs. They do this over and over to get certain items or experience. Many players didn't like this because it clogged traffic and prevented them from taking part as somebody else had gotten their first.

Instances solved this problem by creating duplicate copies of the zone which contain the named and any other mobs. Players could enter any number of these so camping anything became redundant.

How to solve this in an open environment? Well, think dynamic open environment interactive content.

Named:
One way is to randomize the spawn point of the named so it moves around. This gives others a chance to kill it. Another is to have all possible named items drop on all named. This way all you need to do is find out where a named is and kill it. This would spread players out so they use all possible options. The only downside is that you can't plan which items you'll get. One way to alleviate this, but not solve it, is to randomize which area or zone a named will spawn in. This way if you see a particular named you will know what they drop, but you still can't say for sure where the named will spawn unless that's not random.

But developers shouldn't make the mistake of making the process too linear. For example, in diablo we would rush to level 3 to kill the named butcher. Where he was on level 3 was random, but he was always on level 3. It ruined the feeling of adventure on levels 1 and 2 since we spent our time in a rush looking for the stairwells that went down below. It made it all feel like a chore. A better way to do it would have been to put the butcher on any level between 1 and 3 or maybe have a named on every level with a smaller reward. This would encourage us to play the game as it's meant to be played. Emphasis -should- be put on the normal adventuring activities. This way it doesn't get ignored. Being ignored inevitably proves the belief that players have that the normal adventuring is too boring. If enough players are doing the normal adventuring then it will receive attention and the developers will have to make it funner.

Experience mobs:
One thing I can think of is to increase the spawn rate of mobs with increased player counts in the area. So, the more players there're the faster they spawn. This would help to keep players occupied and from not having anything to do because there's no where else to go. With enough thought put into it you could determine the amount of population an area can serve at max allowable limits.

Another idea is to have dungeon entrances that're outposts of a main dungeon. These dungeons entrances are mini-dungeons that're fed by the primary dungeon. These would be like instances in that they'd sometimes be off limits. They would, however, be open environment in that players would compete for spawns. Player would not be able to enter them when they're empty. When the primary dungeon is high in player population it starts to 'feed' the mini-dungeons. They start to fill up. When they're full they can be entered. Perhaps a deafening roar is heard in the region as cries and shouts of green forest ogres can be heard as they claim a new outpost in their conquest to reclaim land. Now the mini-dungeon can be entered. The catch is that the mini-dungeon will slowly empty if the primary dungeon is not filled up with players. This should be kept track of. In theory, if players did not kill anythying in the mini-dungeons then they would stay full indefinitely regardless of player populations.

Keep them moving:
This idea is more experimental in that so few have ever tried it. The idea is to give declining experience returns the longer a player stays in a particular area. So at some point a player is encouraged to find a new area because they will get more experience that way. Perhaps after 3 hours they get declining returns. Perhaps this is stored for 24 hours before returning to normal. This will keep players moving around. It can't ensure that players will move around, but it will increase the possibility. In so doing it will allow players who might want to try an area to have a greater chance to try it. A bonus effect is that it reduces the grind. But this assumes, ofc, that players have a reason to camp. If camping is substantially reduced because it's ineffective then this change is redundant.

Last comments:

I can't keep writing here in the post. I have to stop somewhere. So I'll stop here. The whole idea is that we need to address the biggest problem with open environments: finity and predictability. They're finite. And they're predictable. Thus far. This has to be changed if we hope to solve any problems.
And there's this:
Basically, why does it seem that dungeon crawling happens so easily in instances, yet not so easily in non-instanced content? It's my thesis that this is because normal, non-instanced everquest is one giant camp. In other words, the content is designed in such a way that players assume a safe spot and grind themselves into the ground until they level up. Whereas, in instances, the task requires you go perform many things in order to level up. This usually means acheiving subgoals, killing trash, and ultimately, slaying the baddy or saving the prisoner.

Yes, I admit, in the broadest sense, doing an instanced task over and over is not much different than forming a camp for experience and/or reward purposes. However, you must admit yourself that I have a point. If you cannot do that, then we cannot work together to figure out what all this means. There -is- a difference between instanced tasks where you delve into a dungeon to slay a baddie and a simple camp where you're killing the same mob(s) over and over!!! In one, the experience is much more diverse and open to interpreation. In the other, barring outside interference, you're killing the same ph over and over until the named pops. How is that adventerous? That's the confounding dilemma.

Here's a thought experiment... What would happen if mobs respawned in 1 to 3 hour intervals???

What would happen if named mobs no longer spawned in a single place, yet randomly spawned all over the zone in random time intervals? What would happen if we were to eliminate the need to camp a single place for hours and hours for efficiency purposes. What if it was more efficient to move around and adventure?

How do we reward people for NOT doing the same thing over and over?? Why reward this kind of behaviour????

[Randarn]

Lol best answer incoming! -.- (thinking...)

oh! Well first..I'd allow Trys' to port instantly anywhere he thought. So then he didn't have to do the shuffle from here to there. And....start Trys' off with a skelly illusion neck instead of a sword* . Not much else. =D ...

oH! We could have a tube network like the jetsons. That would be cool.

Happy New Year!
-Trys