How did they get this game so right?

[Zendir]

Originally Posted by roks1 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'd say the biggest reason EQ stands out is that the developers didn't just remove and nerf all the mechanics in the game when players figured out all the many many MANY tricks that devs didn't intend to happen. Split pulling with feign death when FD was just a skill meant to prevent a monk from death in a bad spot, it became much more than it's initial design. Same with kiting, fear kiting, swarm kiting, you name it, all things that players sussed out that while sometimes devs would tone something down if it was way out of hand, they rolled with the blue prints the players came up with.
Not only did they carve out more mechanics for the stuff players figured out but instead of just nerfing, removing, streamlining and turning the game into modern MMO rotation/script slop they would also use the power of itemization as a much more rewarding manner of steering the players into new roles that weren't there before. by using items and developing around players learning new exploits / tricks / weird behaviors in the game, they managed to keep players engaged trying to figure out new shit. How many raid strategies are possible for alot of the old shit? people who raided in the past wouldn't even recognize the raid scene (even before all the "enhancements") because we evolved raid strategy using unconventional strats to get to mobs of choice in premium time due to racing. How many modern mmo shitslops have raids that people can adapt to in a way that the devs didn't intend but its allowed? can't think of any.

Sandbox >>>> Instanced conveyor belt roboraids (and their uninspired itemizations)

Its the devs of the emu servers that now nerf out the tricks that classes use to be OP.

[Rygar]

Love the game for sure. Do wish more worthwhile quests were implemented. Didn't like that kunark vastly increased melee dps weapon ratios. Melee too overpowered in late game/grouping, needed balance.

Would have liked to see more curse weapons, such as great ratios but they can proc 500dd on you, dispell buffs, etc.


Never liked that all weapon types were equal. Would have been great if certain creatures were affected more by blunt weapons but had additional mitigation to slash/pierce. Would have been big opportunity to favor non lazy melee who swapped during fights.

[Jimjam]

Playing PQ the pets absolutely blow melee and wizards out the water (though I’m not sure how close to classic the pq/takp interaction of pets and NOCs actually is). I can kinda see why VI improved weapons, but I agree the jump feels too much.


I vaguely remember blunts being better against skeletons … was that an old dnd thing? Does modern dnd still have that kind of thing.

[Evia]

daoc had the system with blunt, pierce, slash all getting + or - bonuses vs certain armor types. it was one of the bright spots of the game as well as melee attack abilities! coming from eq's 'auto-attack for 60 lvls' it was refreshing. although i dont think daoc aged as well as eq did.

[aussenseiter]

On rolemaster that's called AvD and you can electrocute plate armor wearers easily.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I vaguely remember blunts being better against skeletons … was that an old dnd thing? Does modern dnd still have that kind of thing.

To answer your question, this is from the Baldur's Gate EE manual, which I think is 3rd edition, and the retro EE sequels are 3.5 edition.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[aussenseiter]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[maxtorps]

Originally Posted by Tushy_master [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It had to be luck right? Or was Brad a genius?

They were basically just ripping of DnD and MUDs. But so many other mmorpgs sucked ass.

They had a passion for the game that wasn't unduly affected by the efforts of marketing to wring every last drop of money from customers until later. So you had no microtransactions, no pay to win, no easy paths (so called QoL) to attract a wider, perhaps more needy audience.

Instead, you had a rich variety of landscapes, mobs and lore. An emphasis on the social aspect of the game by introducing slowdown points so that players could genuinely make friends.

[Jimjam]

There was recently some 25th anniversary stuff out about Valve / Halflife, contemporary to EverQuest. I wondered how similar the design and development process was. Another game of similar vintage was Pocket Monsters / Pokémon which seemed to have a similar development workflow to Halflife.

These games had these huge well thought out worlds in which games happened with a focus put on fun and the psychology of the game. Were they just of that era? I don’t know, but there just seemed to be so much scope and magic in the games of the late 90s.

[knottyb0y]

Originally Posted by maxtorps [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They had a passion for the game that wasn't unduly affected by the efforts of marketing to wring every last drop of money from customers until later. So you had no microtransactions, no pay to win, no easy paths (so called QoL) to attract a wider, perhaps more needy audience.

Instead, you had a rich variety of landscapes, mobs and lore. An emphasis on the social aspect of the game by introducing slowdown points so that players could genuinely make friends.

This!

You can tell EQ was a passion project. Still, even back then the subscription model proved to be VERY lucrative. I often miss the days of no micro transactions in games.