Thott on Kunark

[yorumi]

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

A classic EQ 'style' game, sure. But Classic EQ? Where you lose 20-40 minutes of your play-time every time you die? Where you can spend 2-4 hours looking for a group as a warrior while soloing for pitiful xp? That shit don't fly no more [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're kind of taking out a lot of classic eq there, there's certainly more that made eq great than this but when you say solo for good exp and have a relatively meaningless death penalty we're fast approaching wow. I'm not denying that a large majority of modern gamers are losers that can barely figure out how to turn a game on without a walkthrough, just that I think a game like eq that has a slow leveling pace and punishes you when you die can still be successful. I mean we're all here so it obviously flies with some part of the gaming community.

The closest attempt at classic eq I'd say was ffxi, it's got name recognition so it's hard to say but solo was all but impossible and death stung quite a bit. Given that and p99 here, a private server with no formal advertising, I'm not convinced it wouldn't work. You don't have to pull wow number to still make quite a bit of profit.

[Dr4z3r]

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

Don't forget that EQ back then didn't have any kind of competition. Nowadays, the attention-span of a game is radically shorter and you need to pack a punch in the time you're given to make a lasting impression. If EQ was released now, with newer graphics but the gameplay of 1999, we'd laugh at it and call it utter shit. The time invested does not warrant the rewards (xp/loot), that's why EQlive steered away from the original.

Don't forget that McQuaid based EQ pretty much on AD&D. There you level once every so many sessions, while a computer has to reward you each time you play. In 1999 they had the luxury to succeed with this approach, in 2011 such an approach is destined to fail.

I think you're way off about attention span. The difference is that companies like Blizzard have realized that the most lucrative demographic to attract is one that is employed and has a family, and so wants to make significant progress even if they can only play 2-3 hours a week.

It is by catering to that demographic with the leveling and questing system, and others with PvP and hardcore raiding, that WoW has achieved its level of success.

[casdegere]

I'm not sure that Kunark was a mistake. When it was released EQ was booming and people seemed to eat up its difficulty compared to other games. Contested zones, camps and loot. Traveling still took time/danger vs. coin and corpse recovery could be dangerous. What they added with Kunark was almost mandatory grinding on top of it all. But some people always had/have time and energy to login for vast hours upon hours of EQ even still. It held their attention, it certainly held mine more then any other game I have ever played.

Before rotations on raid mobs the guilds with the most people that barely worked or slept were the ones that got the kills. People were addicted to the point of divorce and/or financial ruin. I even remember cases where wives, girlfriends...moms/dads deleted characters of insanely addicted EQ players and there were suicides and/or violent repercussions afterward.

On Rift, people had maxed out their level and crafting professions in 1-2 weeks. Doubtful there is enough content made for that game besides PVP to keep them satisfied for very long. To have seen level 60, 70, 80, 85th level characters in EQ soon after their perspective content add-on was a much bigger deal than 1-2 weeks of play. I mean, someone could grind on through, xping almost nonstop and do it fairly quickly but everything else will not be getting developed. Equipment, spells, crafts etc. would nearly have to be ignored. Banks and/or sellers have to be traveled to at some point as well. In these new games things like sellers, portals etc. to get back and forth to convenient places are built into the game from the start.

[Toony]

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

A classic EQ 'style' game, sure. But Classic EQ? Where you lose 20-40 minutes of your play-time every time you die? Where you can spend 2-4 hours looking for a group as a warrior while soloing for pitiful xp? That shit don't fly no more [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It fly's just fine over here. I like the fact that there are consequences for mistakes. And as far as grouping, shrug whats worse, looking for a group longer than you'd like on instantly getting one full of mouth breathers?

[Supreme]

The XP to go from 60-65 was the same as gaining 44 AA.

The XP to go from 50-60 was 211 AA.

Old numbers i remember.

[mwatt]

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

Vanguard, but that failed due to a rushed release/bugs more than anything.

I fell in love with VG. It was sheer torture to watch what happened. First SOE "saved it", like fishing a drowning butterfly out of a swimming pool. Then they proceeded to pull off it's legs and wings, one by one.

[Elissa]

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

I think that whether one will agree or disagree with the main premise of this article is based upon one's basic approach to this type of game. There are two basic "types" of people in the MMO world:

A) People who don't consider that they have "won" the game until max level. They want to reach max level so the "real" game can begin, which is more or less "raiding", or in some scenarios, "PVP".

B) People who "win" every level because they appreciate the game for the journey, as much or more than they appreciate it for the end game.

Most gamers, at least these days, probably belong to camp "A". So for correctness based upon sheer numbers, the article probably espouses a real truth of sorts. I belong to camp "B". I suspect that simply by virtue of being here, so do many of the other players in Project 1999. It is a sadness to me that there are so many players in the world who would fit into camp "A".

You're right but I think there's also a little more to it. Why is "max" level so enticing in this game or other games? Lots of reasons, I'm sure, but there is definitely the aspect of having access to and getting the best or nearly the best available gear.

Classic EQ was fun before max level for a lot of reasons, but not the least of which was that, in most cases, you simply didn't quickly outlevel rewards you obtained while making your journey to 50. I might get a sweet item leveling up in my teens that I could very reasonably continue to wear into my 30s (or higher). Sure, you can argue this is because there weren't too many equipment options, but there are enough. I always hated WoW's loot system... finding better gear within a couple level's time at most (which was only a matter of hours of playing). Conversely, in EQ I remember feeling absolutely incredible wearing a full set of bronze... BRONZE. Not saturating the market with tons of new equipment that rapidly scales with level is highly preferable to me. EQ rewards max level players with the best items, but they're not (in many cases) leaps and bounds ahead of what you could have obtained at an earlier level.

Of course, this system (I believe) can only work when leveling is hard. If it's easy, it would be silly to have amazing items obtainable at level 25 that are still great at 50.

[Gnar]

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

60-65 was miserable for me also, I think I spent most of my time in Bastion of Thunder and Plane of Valor.

Think of how fun it would have been fighting off other players bro? NPCs suck at PVP, makes the game more fun

[garyogburn]

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

I fell in love with VG. It was sheer torture to watch what happened. First SOE "saved it", like fishing a drowning butterfly out of a swimming pool. Then they proceeded to pull off it's legs and wings, one by one.

Me too. I played a blood mage and had a blast. Couldnt make it past 30ish though. I remember in one dungeon when you pulled one mob, it trained the ENTIRE ZONE onto you lol. Could of been great though.

I think the whole leveling debate is kinda moot. What makes EQ awesome isnt about the long leveling times, its what happens while you are leveling. You interact with other players in ways you just cant in other games. You really get to know people and rely on them so you dont get screwed over by the crazy death penalties :P

[Bruno]

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

Vanguard, but that failed due to a rushed release/bugs more than anything.

Vanguard was very hardware intensive. I actually bought a new computer just to be able to play it. There was also not much to do at level 50 except pvp, which was ridiculously imbalanced. Phoenix shaman were just insane. I thought the crafting system was pretty neat though.

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

60-65 was miserable for me also, I think I spent most of my time in Bastion of Thunder and Plane of Valor.

I'm always in the minority when I say I loved PoP. Flagging and clearing time was probably up there with my favorite raids in EQ. I will never forget the rathe council.