EverQuest Producer’s Letter April 2023

Truebox does not put everyone on an even footing. It separates those who can afford multiple machines from those who cannot. If you think this prevents an individual from "camping everything", you will be disappointed in the reality of the situation.

Ya like the random goblin in Sol A that gets stuck under the world and you cant hit him or cast spells but he can slowly take your group out or force you to zone? They still havent fixed this. Also the infinite mana pool of nearby healers that are not agro >.>

Full Disclosure/Disclaimer: I've played EQ for less than two weeks, so it's completely within rights to disregard everything said below as my context has only been gleaned from Live play + reading on the forums. I have no illusions about not necessarily being fully informed on the 25 year history of EQ; however, I have been playing MMOs for nearly two decades and, from basically an "outsider's" perspective, I do have some feedback/thoughts regarding the TLP announcement. I'm also a game dev myself, so I took the day to think about Oakwynd and here's what I've got.

Preamble

First, a little context on why I'm even bothering to type this up in the first place. The whole reason I even started playing EQ—and was interested in finally experiencing this game after so long—was the idea of a TLP. My friend and I were discussing WoW Classic and he mentioned that he thought EQ had done something similar years beforehand. So, I started doing some research and found TLPs. After several days of digging through information I decided to start playing Live to better understand the game before diving head-first into the TLP in May. My anticipation / hype for this TLP was pretty strong, but also tempered. I knew there was a chance that the more popular TLPs would be "saved" for the 25th anniversary TLPs and that maybe I'd skip this years. I'm going into a TLP fully planning on a 5-year engagement. I want to go Classic -> Live, so the ruleset feels more impactful because I'm not interested in TLP hopping (or, at least, I don't think I am). So yeah, with two paragraphs of preamble out of the way. Let's talk Oakwynd.

I've read through this entire thread (and a smattering of another thread) and I see a lot of talk about DPG/DBG not listening to the player base or ignoring the data they must have access to or not reading the forums, etc. etc. A common misconception I see a lot seems to be "We keep asking for X, why do we not receive X?" (A good example of this is the fairly common "Mischief Clone"). In pretty much any GaaS/Live Service title, when User Researchers/Game Designers/Community Managers are soliciting feedback they are very often not looking for "what to fix", but rather, they are looking specifically at customer sentiment and that affects the game more broadly. More often than not, the players rarely know how to solve a problem they have. One of my favorite examples of this is from Call of Duty. There was an issue one year where a particular shotgun was constantly getting feedback that it wasn't powerful enough, that it needed a buff, etc. So the "request" was for the gun to be more powerful/get buffed. The "sentiment" was that the players felt like the gun wasn't competitive. The solution? The developers made the gun louder. That's right. They changed nothing about how the gun actually functioned. Instead, they made the gun feel more impactful and the player base was satiated (until the next day when a different issue inevitably arose ). Now, obviously, in an MMO there are a lot more numbers that your average player is looking at so these types of solutions wouldn't always work. But I bring this up because when I look at the different aspects of Oakwynd my first thoughts are:
1) What sentiment is this change addressing?
2) How is this meant to change player behavior and/or the overall player experience?
3) What impact does this have on existing systems that are part of the "fabric" of EQ?

I'm gonna skip the more obvious starting point of FTE and instead start with the system that I think probably offers the most potential upside / is potentially more interesting:

Legacy Characters

From what I can extrapolate, Legacy Characters are the "solution" to a few different prevailing issues. (As well as just being an interesting idea, IMO.) First, an issue with pretty much any MMO is player activity in starting zones. As more players get to max level and are focused on raiding, there's less and less people milling about in the "leveling" content zones, which can result in a poor player experience for a number of different player demographics. New players who are just starting the game, players who aren't able to invest as much time in leveling as quickly as the more "core" audience, and players whose focus isn't strictly on getting "raid ready" as soon as possible (ie: RPers, theme parkers, etc.) are all different types of players that don't necessarily get to experience a thriving leveling experience. So, by incentivizing those in the "core" audience to create multiple characters—thus creating an influx of characters at various levels in the world—there's a better chance to have higher population densities outside of the "end game" hubs. Additionally, it's primarily these "core" players who would want to create multiple character anyways. This extra incentive to do so is a great "freebie" in the sense that players who want multiple characters now are rewarded by playing the way they already would have been playing anyways. That's dope!

The second thing I think it's attempting to solve is the player sentiment that TLPs generally tend to "die" over time. There's lots of TLP hopping when a new server drops, a fair contingent of the player base seems to only enjoy up to certain expansions, and there seems to be an air of "burnout" on any given TLP after the first 18 months or so. Which, in a 60 month experiment is a fairly large concern. By incentivizing additional characters they're naturally increasing player investment in this particular server, as well as allowing for potential catch-up mechanics if people drop and come back or new players filter in post-launch. (This last part is more solved by the expansion "Evolutions", but I think it also applies here as well.)

However, I think the biggest misstep here is that Legacy Characters (as presented) don't do anything to incentivize players who wouldn't otherwise create a second character. The bonus that's applied to your character's EXP is only applicable to any subsequent character you create and is also immediately erased upon a new level increasing expansion. For a player that only wants to run a single character, or is maybe on the fence about multiple characters, there's virtually no incentive to do so. The phrasing of the current system indicates that there's an "account wide" EXP buff of 10% for every character you get to max level. So, even if this applies to AA EXP, is the 10% additional buff from fully maxing a second character worth it from a time/cost benefit perspective when you already have a 10% buff from your main? I personally don't think it's that compelling. Especially when the buffs reset every 3-4 expansions.

My suggestions:
1) Rather than the buff resetting globally, your first/main character receives whatever the maximum buff you obtained during the previous leveling window until the next leveling window.

• Reasoning: I gravitated toward this change because I think it can incentivize players that maybe wouldn't normally play alts. The idea is partially inspired by the "funneling" system that notably Korean MMO "Lost Ark" employs. In Lost Ark, you raiding gear is leveled up entirely by RNG rolls that are paid for with a specific currency. Your main character can only earn so much currency per week. However, if you have alts, you can bring your alts basically to the beginning of "end game" and then funnel all of those resources to your main. Once your main hits cap, you can waterfall that same idea down your entire account. Lost Ark is one of the few games I've ever created alts on as I generally tend to prefer things like FFXIV, ESO, OSRS where all you need is one character because they can freely swap between classes/builds/etc.
• Example: It's currently PoP and the Level Cap is 65. The Player has reached cap on 5 characters and is currently experiencing a 50% EXP bonus account wide. When OoW drops and the cap increases to 70, the first/main character on the account keeps the 50% bonus. This same Player decides that they're not going to get any of their other 4 characters to 70. When TSS launches their first/main character would drop back down to the flat EXP rate.
• Potential Issues: I've heard lots of talk about how the codebase to EQ is even more spaghetti than people's hands are sweaty, so I can understand that there's a certain logic in keeping things "account wide" and not specifying specific characters within the account itself. I'm unsure what tools EQ has to identify a specific character, but I do have a few solutions.
• Solution A: Lock the semi-permanent EXP buff to the first character that's created on the server and/or the character with the earliest "Created" date currently still active in the case of a deleted character. This solution is maybe the least intensive, but also the least elegant. I also think it would negatively impact players who main Classes / Races that aren't available at launch.
• Solution B: Create a bespoke item—let's call it the "Amulet of Expeditious Adventuring"—that can track how many max level characters you have on a particular account. Upon hitting Max Level for that expansion the player can purchase this item from a vendor. Each subsequent Max Level character can then purchase a "Expeditious Adventuring Charge" from the same vendor. Both the Amulet and the Charges would be Heirloom so they could be freely moved around your account. Each Charge would give the Amulet the flat 10% boost of Experience and the Amulet would have to be re-charged after each expansion with a new level cap. Whichever character is wearing the amulet when the new expansion is dropped is who it's attuned to until the new level cap is released, so as to avoid trading it around to apply the semi-permanent buff to every character.

2) Reduce the amount of characters to hit 100% from 10 to 8 and change the scaling from a flat percentage increase to front-end stacked with gradual deterioration.

• Reasoning: From my understanding, even with All Access you are only allotted six additional character slots. Meaning that someone who wanted to get the 100% buff would have to purchase an additional two slots to accomplish this. (I believe 3 slots are purchasable via Loyalty Coins, but from what I can tell that's not available at launch?) I'm also hard pressed to believe that that many people actually would want to level 10 characters. Plus, 8 is half of 16! I also think by front loading the experience some it would nudge the aforementioned players that wouldn't normally create alts.
• Example: New EXP Bonus Percentages would be something like 20%, 20%, 15%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 5%, 5%.
• Potential Issues: There's a certain cost/benefit fall-off here where I'm sure players would really be hard pressed to be that 7th and 8th character at only 5% EXP bonus; however, I like that it moves at a more static pace and still remains front-ended.
• Solution A: Raise the cap of bonus EXP from 100% to 110% and change the percentages to 20%, 20%, 15%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%. This still gives a 70/40 EXP buff split to the front-half of your account, but means that your back half is effectively the same stepping stone. Furthermore, is 110% really that different than 100%?
• Solution B: Front-end the percentages even more and have a steeper fall-off. 25%, 15%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%. This changes the front half of your account to 60/40, but heavily emphasizes the first two characters rather than the entire front half.

3) Implement a way to allow the application of the buff to different "boxes", so that alts aren't limited to the same account.

• Reasoning: I've seen a LOT, and I do mean a L O T of discussion around "boxing" in EQ. 2-box, 3-box, 6-box. I thought 6-boxing was only for boosting Seriously achievements on Gears of War! (Does that joke land here at all?) It seems to me that there is a healthy appreciation, and acceptance, of boxing from >50% of the community as well as DPG/DBG themselves. This should be evident by them implementing the relaxed boxing into Oakwynd's ruleset from the jump. (Or, them relaxing it on... Corinav? Whichever TLP is getting rushed into Live.) I think that, if you had to ask most people who are going to create alts, they would say that it's more advantageous to use a second account with a single character than it is to use a second character on a single account. Since this is part of the fabric of EQ now I'd say it'd be best to design any character incentives to include this playstyle rather than "punishing" (using that term lightly) multi-boxers.
• Example: For this suggestion, I'm going to pull on my experience with another decades old MMO here: OldSchool RuneScape. To those that don't know, in OSRS your account is restricted to a single character. The account effectively is the character. Now, in OSRS, you can do literally anything with one character, so the reasons for creating alts are more in the vein of money-making, interesting play restrictions, etc. In OSRS, much like EverQuest, if you want to want to experience the full game you need to purchase a subscription. So, if you want a full fledged alt, you're paying for two subs. OSRS also allows for multiple characters to be played at the same time from the same computer. In fact, the system I'm referencing for this idea is specifically engineered to help connect multiple OSRS accounts; and that system is "Jagex Accounts". Jagex, the developers of OSRS, are right now rolling out what is effectively "parent" accounts for OSRS. These new "Jagex" account exist outside the framework of just OSRS and you can have multiple "OSRS Accounts" tied to one "Jagex Account". It's a fantastic way to tie players' disparate accounts together, increase the security posture for all players (Jagex Accounts allow for advanced 2FA features as well as better password support; OSRS account passwords are notoriously simple due to restrictions from 20 years ago), and streamline their log-in solution. Now, DPG/DBG kinda already has this with the "Daybreak Games" account you create and having All Access apply across their entire portfolio of games. That being said, I think a "linking" mechanism between various DBG accounts isn't entirely out of the scope of engineer resources. I would say that linking is a permanent / irreversible action to avoid abuse.
• Potential Issues: I'm aware this one would take a significant back-end overhaul from the game level perspective. It leaves lots of open questions about how the DBG account linking translates to in-game level code. I have little doubt that DPG/DBG probably have some sort of IP / machine level tracking to know which accounts are logged in at the same place for tracking ban evasions, hacking, etc. So, I don't think the top-level account linking would be too cumbersome (obviously, relatively speaking), but when it comes to translating that linkage to the actual game itself is probably where the biggest issue arises from an engineering perspective.
• Solution A: I honestly don't really have a good solution for this one since I have virtually no idea what the code for EQ, the database architecture for DBG accounts, etc. looks like. I do know that OSRS is written in Java and they've had similar issues with "code limitations" across the years, so I think it can be done. But also, I believe that Jagex has more active devs / resources in general than DPG/DBG so this one is definitely something a PM/Producer would like at and be like, "How many sprints would this take to implement?" To which I assume this would become a more "long-term" investment and probably not realistically changed for this TLP.

4) Change No Trade items to Heirloom.

• Reasoning: I think this is probably feels like the most obvious change, which is why I left it for last. If the idea of Legacy Characters is to incentivize more plays on more characters, then, in the same way that leveling is relaxed by the EXP bonus, the gear grind should be relaxed for subsequent characters by allowing some movement of items. I think this solves an inherent problem with the current method while still assuaging the very real concern that a completely Free Trade server could potentially cannibalize Mischief based servers.
• Example: N/A
• Potential Issues: I actually can't immediately identify an "issue" with this change as it contains the items within the account itself rather than allowing for free flowing trades across the server. Really, the only change this creates, is that personal advancement is a little faster. So maybe the "end-game" gets sped up on subsequent characters? I'll say this one is also somewhere I definitely don't have enough "hands-on" info from the game itself to truly be able to appraise where niche issues might arise.

5) Make Agent of Change no longer account-wide.

• Reasoning: I'll be honest. I have no clue what AoC actually is or how it functions within the broader scope of the game. What I do know is that it apparently locks certain content on a timer, account-wide, which is completely antithetical to the idea of Legacy Characters. Well, I suppose not completely antithetical. Perhaps the intent is to simply "level" all of your alts, but not "gear" them. IMO, that would be a shortsighted plan and would negatively impact people who do want to gear these alts. But since the AoC mechanics exist on servers without Legacy Character bonuses, it doesn't make anything more difficult if it's not changed.
• Example: AoC lockouts would apply at the character level vs. the account level.
• Potential Issues: Again, not being familiar enough with the system in question I can't adequately address what this change would do to the overall game, but I will say that this particular mechanic already exists in the game and is account-wide. Ergo, the logic for its existence must have been, at some point, somewhat sound.

Whew! Okay, enough about Legacy Characters. There's zero chance anyone's reading all of this now, but I've committed to the bit, so I can't quit now! Let's move on to something much easier to analyze.

Expansion Evolutions

IMO, this is the coolest part of the TLP announcement. I actually think this is a really cool and good implementation of a catch-up mechanic as well as benefitting both longtime and new, post-launch players for continuing to play on the server. Again, a common complaint that I've seen from the community is player attrition on TLPs. I think a major part of this year's TLP ruleset was specifically created to combat some of the issues DPG/DBG believe are contributing to this attrition. I think the amount of posts that say something to the effect of "Remove FTE, Add Mischief Loot" are a good indication that DPG/DBG definitely nailed the intent behind this part of the ruleset.

The most common complaint I've seen regarding the "evolutions" is that certain bonuses aren't necessarily beneficial enough for when those systems are introduced to the game. IE: The 25% extra AAs. Honestly, I don't necessarily have enough deep experience on the all of the different systems that these bonuses are affecting to really be able to make an informed decision on if the bonuses are enough / placed correctly; however, a few things to take into consideration. First, this is something that I think is very smartly not front-loaded. This evolution system appears to be built entirely around the concept of server longevity. The players who are going to server hop (refreshers, I think is the parlance) are naturally going to call for better bonuses from early expansions, but I think—perhaps controversially—that they've made the right call here to have a gradually more appealing set of evolutions.

That being said, a complaint I do have is just with the way that the bonuses are laid out in the letter. If EQ delivers traditionally delivers values like this, then I suppose everyone is used to it, but IMO, there's a technical difference between "125% modifier" and "25% bonus"; the latter being what Accendo clarified was the actual value. 25% bonus is a 1.25x increase in whatever currency/loot/faction level/etc. is being adjusted, but a 125% modifier (which is how it's phrased in the letter) would indicate to be a 2.25x differential between "normal". I know it's a minor complaint and it's really only about the way the information itself was presented, but just thought I'd mention it.

Expansion Unlock Schedule

I think I'm probably going to be in the vast minority here, but given that I've never experienced a TLP before and my main goal in experiencing them is to play through the eras of EQ (mostly) as they were in the past, compressing certain expansions even further is something I'm not necessarily a fan of. I totally understand the concerns I've read about the "70s slog" or how certain expansions are guaranteed to drop a portion of the player base or how everyone is begging to have Kunark at start. But I think that's mostly from the perspective of people who have not only experienced the original EQ timelines, but also those that have experienced the TLP schedule as well. I'm fully willing to admit my naivety here might be causing me to look at this incorrectly. But as someone who is completely unseasoned in the "meta" of each of the expansions, who might be floundering area in a zone or trying to do a raid that everyone has already passed, I think there some value loss in compressing the amount of time that players have to experience certain content. Understandably, for those of you who have played everything before, there's a certain "I want to get to X place sooner," feeling that I just don't have. I'm also willing to admit that I have no conception of what the player acquisition numbers look like for TLPs. I know that it's obviously a revenue driver because it's tied to All Access, but what's the rate of players that would be considered "new" that are playing on TLPs? If that number isn't significant, then I can totally see changes in the schedule being made to accommodate the more veteran community. But if there is a non-trivial amount of new players being fed into the broader EQ ecosystem via TLPs, I think you'd be doing them a disservice by truncating certain expansions beyond a particular threshold (and combining any expansions would definitely be lame, IMO).

Looting Rulesets

I've mentioned up above some (IMO) compelling reasons to change this server to having certain No Trades be Heirlooms instead, but I think there's a pretty vocal outcry for having Free Trade and/or Random Loot, aka: Mischief-clone. In reading through the threads, I think the people stating that the intent is to not cannibalize Mischief with another similar ruleset soon are probably in the correct ballpark. The common response there is, "Well they haven't cared about it previously," while in the same breath bemoaning how DPG/DBG never "listens to the community". From my perspective, if the decision to not implement a Mischief-esque ruleset stems from an attempt to stop player attrition from what seems to be a very popular server, then I think that's probably a good decision. Additionally, I think the decision to not release another server beside Oakwynd that is Oakwynd + Mischief is probably because for the 25th anniversary they're going to do some sort of "Best Of" TLP servers and might even release three at the same time rather than the standard 1 or 2 and they want to save on resources this year. It also would taint any sort of efficacy data they could derive from the experimental aspects of Oakwynd and since they've outright stated that Oakwynd's ruleset will have potential implications for Live, I think they need to make sure the data is as pure as possible.

That being said, I do think having this server be completely "No-Trade" sort of flies in the face of some of the main objectives for other parts of this server's ruleset so it is a little perplexing that they didn't alter the loot mechanics to better prop-up those changes.

Truebox Settings

Obviously, if Legacy Characters are somehow able to be implemented across accounts rather than just a single account, then the entire idea of "Truebox" flies out the window. As it stands, I don't feel particularly strongly about truebox vs. infinite boxing either way. However, I do think that relaxing the boxing stipulations throughout the lifespan of the TLP makes an incredible amount of sense given, again, what I believe their main objective with Oakwynd to be: player retention / investment for a longer period of time. This somewhat lessens the impact of natural attrition by allowing those players who are still on the server to play multiple boxes and thus infuse the player base numbers (even if somewhat artificially).

Encounter Locking / First To Encounter

((I hit the character limit so FTE is getting it's OWN POST.))

Oh, boy. Here it is. 4,200 words and I still haven't even talked about what is apparently the most controversial change for Oakwynd. The change that's making EQ "modern", that's changing EQ->EQ2, that's causing Oakwynd to be DoA, that proves DPG/DBG don't understand the game, and any other number of doomsaying that I've seen across the forums and other community spaces. I'm being glib, I know. But I think the reaction to this change really speaks to my third point from way, way back up this post.

What impact does this have on existing systems that are part of the "fabric" of EQ?

From all the impassioned posts I've read, there seems to be a single through line to the resistance against FTE. It doesn't feel like EverQuest. Now, as I've reiterated throughout this whole post, I'm probably the least qualified person to comment on what feels like EverQuest. However, what I can do is empathize with the feeling that something you love is losing its unique identity. And EQ is in no shortage of uniqueness. EQ was the first fully 3D MMO and it's still going. It's original expansions are so important that there are officially supported servers that do everything possible to keep that experience going. There was corpse running, there were obtuse quest designs with virtually no hand-holding. EQ has consistently set a tone for the type of experience it wants to give players and though that tone might not be as severe as it was in 1999, I believe it's still there in spades. But as the slow, inexorable march of time moves forward, there is but one constant: things change. Humans, by nature it would seem, are oftentimes resistant to this change; particularly when its something that they value. Or something that makes up a part of their identity. There are people playing EverQuest who have characters that have exited on servers longer than their kids who can buy cigarettes. It's an indefatigable part of people's lives. To change parts of EverQuest might change the very core of themselves.

Perhaps I'm being hyperbolic, perhaps my (partial) English degree is getting the better of me as I've waxed philosophic for the last few hours, but I really do understand that feeling of dread around something changing that you truly love.

Now, none of that really addresses the broader issue of whether or not FTE is a net good or net bad or even neutral change to TLPs. I think the naysayers have some powerful anecdotal support with things like helping a random newbie (hey, that's me!) not get massacred by an overpull, allowing for OOG spells and what have you to benefit the main group as they're leveling, and some more nuanced discussions around moving mobs in dungeons/raids to make thing easier for killed Named NPCs. These all seem like reasonable things to be saddened that are ending. By the same token, the people that have posted positively regarding FTE talk about its impact on power leveling, kill stealing, camping, etc. On the surface, I can see why DPG/DBG would want to curb some of the more toxic / more detrimental to the overall player experience actions and this seems like a reasonable option to try and mitigate that. I can see the logic behind both viewpoints.
(Though one thing I will note is that the "DPS Race" idea changing to a "First-Hit Race" doesn't necessarily functionally change anything in terms of different groups vying for the same mobs. It just changes the way in which they compete from a metacontextual perspective. Oh, and additionally, the complaints around griefing seem possibly overblown to me as an outsider; albeit, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be massively wrong here. Griefers are gonna find a way to grief no matter what systems exist in a game. There's a reason why any game that allows players to draw/design in game has a colloquial "TTP" metric. That stands for "time to pe—" well, I'm sure you can figure out the rest.)

So how do we fix / change / come to some sort of accord?
My suggestions:
1) Implement some way to course correct if Encounter Locking goes horribly, horribly wrong.

• Reasoning: Should probably be self-explanatory, but the reaction to FTE has been MASSIVE. But if the DPG/DBG truly believe in this idea as a concept, then there should be both a path forward and a path backwards. I think it's perfectly fine to implement this as a potential new path forward or even just as an experiment, but not to the detriment of an entire server's worth of players that might feel the effects of the change for five years with no resource.
• Example:I can think of two different ways this could work.
  • First, if it's possible within the current codebase, you could release with FTE and then do evaluations based on player feedback to keep it. Kinda like how that one TLP server voted on when to unlock expansions. Keep FTE in for the entirety of Classic and then have a server-wide vote to see if people want to keep it for Kunark; remembering to keep an option open for a "no-vote" or "ambivalent" player. To me, this would be the most optimal solution because it gives DPG/DBG hard data on player sentiment regarding the change. There would need to be some stipulations regarding like, one vote per account, accounts must have logged at least X hours (or obtained Y item/achievement/etc.) on server before vote, etc. to make sure it wasn't easily gamed.
  • Second, perhaps "easier" in implementation, would be to just open an identical server to Oakwynd sans FTE. Theoretically, you could do some analysis on player numbers when there's only a single variable difference to determine preference; however, it's certainly not ideal to actually get meaningful, actionable feedback on the mechanic itself since everyone might just ignore that server given the choice.
• Potential Issues: As stated above, this could impact data collection and analysis on the mechanic and not allow for enough metric tracking to make a determination about whether or not this mechanic needs to be iterated on, scraped, or implemented in other servers. There's obviously some risk either way. Move full steam ahead without any sort of contingency plan and it could spell disaster for Oakwynd; over-correct and there's no meaningful data from the experimentation.

2) Limit the Encounter Locking mechanic to only a specific subset of NPCs.

• Reasoning: I think this is a commonly requested adjustment to make the idea of FTE more digestible and I believe it's a solid middle ground to still be able to accurately test the mechanic itself. I'm not sure the game demonstrably changes by locking down a single "young hare" in a forest, so there's definitely a law of diminishing returns on the overall impact of Encounter Locking every single NPC.
• Example: Only make Named NPCs or raid NPCs or dungeon NPCs Encounter Locked.
• Potential Issues: The only drawback to this change that I can think of is that if DPG/DBG fully wanted to implement FTE into Live servers this would limit data collection for those purposes. That being said, I think the response has been so vociferous when it comes to FTE that it might be a change akin to "Evolution of Combat" in RuneScape. Which, if you know anything about RuneScape lore, you'll know EoC was an absolutely catastrophic decision that imploded the player base. Side Note: Maybe MMOs should stay away from the word "Evolution"?

And that's it! I think if DPG/DBG truly want to implement FTE then they will, and the suggestions should be around mitigating the potential harm / being able to adjust mid-sprint if needed based on player feedback. There are probably better ways of implementing it as a mechanic that I can't think of just based on unfamiliarity with EQs core systems.

Whelp. There it is. I really didn't expect this to end up quite as long as it is, so if you're reading this and all the subsequent words... what is wrong with you? But actually, on a more serious note, thanks! It was fun to try and put my "design brain" on the task of tackling some of these problems even with my limited scope. So, if anything, this was a neat exercise in MMO shenanigans. For everyone who is scrolling past this massive wall of text to read the next post.

TL;DR

1) Play EQ for two weeks and get really excited reading the TLP Producer Letter.
2) Spend 5 hours writing a 5,500 word long manifesto about the changes.
3) Post so late at night that no one will ever end up reading it.
4) ???
5) Profit.

If my opinion even matters.. the ruleset needs to stay on tlp servers don't try something there to just infect the live servers.. people powerlevel all the time on live with this its gonna be impossible to do that... if someone is upset on people doing that its our characters not theirs.. if you dont wanna see people powerlevel then this TLP server is a perfect home for you.. the devs seem to focus all time and resources on TLP b/c lets face it rn thats what people want.. i only play on the servers that benefit my char on live... like Vaniki if ya do certain things you'll be rewarded on live... please keep rulesets on ruleset servers and not pollute us we have enough bugs and limited playstyle as it is... and reading that players threw a fit over raid unlocks on EQ2 I for one would love to see that introduced to EQ.. it is a choice of people wanna pay to win... if you don't think its fair life isn't fair get over it

the only way id be ok with any of it is if we get the bonus too with max chars on same account

Imagine Locked Encounters + PVP

Those people working on Monsters & Memories need to hurry up .... if FTE makes it to live servers we may need a new home .

Imagine some pulling an entire zone, and some bug coming that lock the entire zone

Ok, here comes my 2 pence.

The more I think about this TLP, the more disappointed I become.

Firstly, FTE:
This isn't a theme for a TLP, it's an attempt to address aspects of griefing (camp stealing/name stealing/PLers). Addressing these things isn't interesting in and of itself - if we didn't have toxic players we simply wouldn't need this mechanic. Whether it works well or turns out to be a bin fire remains to be seen. So, let's put FTE to one side and think about the actual theme itself.

Looking at the stacking/growing expansion unlock bonuses, which really feels like the theme.

# Classic / Launch
If you geto to 50, and are bored, you can level up a 2nd character with a 10% bonus. 10%. That's right. 10%. Then, when that's 50, you can level up a third with 20%. So on so forth, until Kunark unlocks. Then it resets to 0 until you level up each character to 60 to get your XP bonus back.
This just sounds like way too much work (if the idea of FTE is to remove PLers from the game). Who seriously is going to keep more than a couple of chatacters at max level on the same account? And why? You're going to get them all locked out when one of them raids anyway.
## For the first 3 months, you're not really getting anything. And, for expansions with no level increase, you'll get nothing new for having those extra characters anyway, except for some more time to level them, since 50% of all expansions don't actually increase the level cap.


# Kunark
25% more loot.
Vaniki (double loot) and Mischief had better than this at launch.

# Velious
25% more faction.
I couldn't be less excited about the faction boost. The time it takes to flip dragon/dwarf/giant faction wasn't ever huge. You could just tag mobs for faction hits and it was super simple. However, the FTE mechanic breaks that. So, you've made it more work for faction, but compensated with a tiny modifier. This is a net negative.

# Luclin
25% more AA xp. Does this even stack with the legacy character buff if you have it? If not, this is a small bonus, if it is, it's still a small bonus if you're only playing one or two characters. And you're not going to be working seriously on AA for more than one character on the same account anyway - why? It's not like you're raiding with them all every week.

We're now 9 months in to the server, and the first meaningful bonus, albeit small, is the AA xp mod.

# POP
50% more coin? This is a pretty pointless modifier. It'll just inflate prices for krono traders and the bazaar.

# Ykesha
Assuming it still unlocks with PoP, respawn times are reduced by 15%.

We're now 1 year in, we have 25% extra AA and 15% reduced respawn times. This really isn't amounting to something to get excited about.

Also - we've got new TLPs coming - how many people are going to jump ship if they're at all interesting?

#LDoN
50% extra alt currency.

So, instead of having to run 400 ldons, you have to run 266. This is still painful. Instead of kicking us in the nuts 400 times, you're doing it 266 times.

#GoD
Double tribute.

Who seriously has tribute issues, ever? Who ever had to farm items for tribute? Anyone? Nope. Me neither.

We're not quite 18 months-ish in to the TLP. And still the only meaningful bonuses feel like the 25% AA and 15% reduced respawn timers.

#OOW
Double Rare Spawns.
This is excellent, combined with the reduced spawn timers actually feels big. But given Vaniki had double loot fro day one, this seems way too late to save the server.

How would I fix it: Embrace the Legacy Character theme!

1) Free Trade or everything is Heirloom (and I mean everything). Free trade is successful, we know this as Mischief has proven. But all items are heirloom would be truly "experimental" (I'm not sure anything like this has been done before?) and would be different to Mischief. Either approach really supports the Legacy Character theme, since loot can be shared on the same account.
2) Legacy Character raid lockouts must be per-character or the lockout duration massively reduced, period. Also, the XP bonus should be +50%, +35%, +15%, up to capped at 100%, and the gains on the first character are greatest, with diminishing returns. So if you want more raid opportunities, make more characters, on the same account and level them up. But, you only need to have 3 max level characters to hit the bonus when levelling the forth.
3) On unlocking Kunark: rare spawn modifier 200%. Epic quests launch and this will support it. It also helps when you combine it with Free Trade or Everything Heirloom as you can hand over epic quest items to your alts, which is great, because you're encouraging alts with the Legacy Character theme.
4) Get rid of the AA xp modifier and just make the Legacy Character xp modifier work as the AA XP bonus too. At this point, you're probably not going to be griding AA with all your alts on the same account. So, you only need to get them to max level again to get the AA bonus on your main for that expansion. If you're a real hardcore try hard, then you can AA xp all of your alts too, at double XP.
5) Make the non-XP modifiers much bigger. Embrace the theme and assume everyone will be playing 2 or more characters on the same account on this server.
6) Review the unlock schedule - some expansions aren't fun for 2-3 months. There's plenty of feedback about this.

I'll duck for cover now.

Honestly all of these do a better idea of embracing the "Legacy" theme than what we've got, and I say that having no real issues with Oakwynd (until we see it in action lol). My only real issue with the bizarre push by the community for yet another FT server is the fact that FT is provedly good for Krono farms and bots. "Everything is Heirloom" is better in most cases but it does promote SLR, an experience I originally thought was EQ2-specific but XIV and WoW have clearly made me naïve

Hope the devs consider at least some of these changes.

Just make this new server Free-Trade or add a normal Free-Trade TLP alternative and the masses will be happy!

Please at least give us a little of what we've been asking for all year. People who are so opposed to Free-Trade can go play the new FTE server. Only people who will be so oppose to this are Mischief players.

Thanks Darkpaw

I like the heirloom idea

I'm not a fan of the unlock times, it takes far to long to get to Luclin, not really interested in playing any other class than beastlord and by the time this server gets there it will be almost time for the next TLP.

Account bonuses aren't great if you don't play more than 1 char on an account and if your short on playtime this isn't going to help. Really not sure about the increased spawn rates, some zones are really fast spawns already and it is hard to clear some dence areas on dungeon crawls and back spawn can catch you out. Knock a few minutes off that and things will get nasty fast.

Never understood AoCs sharing accout lockouts, I'd like to see that vanish on all servers.

Not seeing any benefit with the FTE system only issues, which have been covered more than enough in this thread.

Kunark start
Focus effects on
Random loot
Free trade
Game on!

Better would be a strictly enforced 3 box limit. I have played on servers that allow boxing and while I don't prefer it never felt forced to.

Not a huge fan of this 'heirloom' idea. It's better than free trade, but people are still going to quit when their main gets out-dkp'd for alt gear.

This should be an interesting year on the TLP forums. Ordering additional popcorn supply now!

I hope the Legacy Character feature makes its way to all live servers.

Myself, my wife, and 2 coworkers all have a few accounts each we will be happily renewing if this goes Free trade. (random loot on top of it would be amazing, but atleast for the love of tunare, give us free trade)

If not... guess were waiting another year to see what happens.

Join a guild with loot rules that fit your wants and needs? wtaf

Yeah the legacy stuff is all super good cut and dry. My main beef with live is complexity and that it slows down tremendously. I really like to solo and not hang out in groups of people botting. Tho I will join people temporarily. Most live players play 2 or 3 accounts. And that isn't that fun to me at all. I think the highest I have on live is an 80. Part of that is because I haven't "finished" experiencing the early game before abilities really get crazy and complexity increases drastically. And I like the simple levels without defiant gear. And without an OP merc. Or no merc at all. Even on a class like a rogue it can be fun to solo on a server like Agnarr untwinked. Or lightly twinked for nostalgia. Now I do eventually want to catch up and see current live EQ and experience ToV and Night of shadows and all that. It's just way lower priority than raiding GoD or Luclin. Or getting a few max AA chars on Agnarr.

A big catch up mechanic would be nice that isn't more boxing or more mercs. Even if I'm dooing low level content. - like 5% of a level for grinding through old lore quests or whatever to hit lvl 110. That is the kind of legacy stuff that is also nice. I would settle for a flat EXP bonus for people under the current expansions level cap too.

I'm really looking forward to this TLP because the legacy mechanics means that I can still play the early game how I want and still catch up eventually on a main. And this is the first time I've been able to catch an TLP irl and hopefully be there through luclin and DoN and PoR.

I'm totally indifferent about encouter locking. I don't think it's going to be "bad". I would be ok if they just skipped that part and made the server more geared towards casuals/legacy rules. Heirloom and free trade are good suggestions in this regard.