EQ suffers from what every other MMO suffers from. Unnecessary complexity.

Reading up on the mathematics, coding, rules deeper than game level is most certainly grounds to call it complex.

Depth of information isn't complex. Like, chess isn't complex. There are limited number of pieces and moves. But putting it all together and planning 10 moves ahead is what leads to performance disparity. Still doesn't make it complex IMO.

But I mean, look at what people are complaining about. The poster above me said that aug distillers and power sources are confusing and an example of overcomplexity. I mean, really?

Information is power in this game, and twitch decision making and clicking/typing/mousing makes a big difference, but most of the people that whine about stuff are trying to master chewing with their mouth closed, and the while the devs have to deal with the reality of making the game accessible to the level it doesn't impact the games viability, they also can't dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.

I think using chess as an example is a bad comparison since trying to plan 10 moves ahead is exactly what makes chess complex because the decisions are not made in a vacuum. Understanding the rules of chess is not enough to beat the person sitting across from you. The most complex thing about Everquest is separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. There is so much information out there that is badly catalogued that it can be difficult for someone to wade through. The game itself does not display enough information to make informed decisions.

I think separate class forums would make knowledge management easier and actually having the game display things like SPAs would go a long ways towards helping players understand what is going on.

To clarify on complexity - everyone will have differences of opinion on what justifies complex verus simple, but it is relevant to discuss on which areas that complexity helps or hinders.

UI - balance is leaning far towards "bloated", while a handful of players would happily have the devs give the game even more UI pieces I think EQ has already gone way too far into "whack-a-mole" territory on amount of buttons you are expected to hit & the display is "OCD Hoarder" levels of cluttered.

The amount of information onscreen that is desired by players will vary from person to person but the entire UI needs cleaning up in such a way that not only can higher resolutions be utilized correctly but so the information they want can be accessed in intuitive ways.

That's why JCHAN never asked for a straightforward UI designer to get in touch with her, she'd like an EQ player with professional UI Design knowledge or at least a professional UI designer very well acquanited with EQ because designing a better EQ UI is going to take someone with very in depth knowledge of player-needs/wants and how to structure the display to account for that while giving players customization options to vary between what they see all the time & what they see when it is actually relevant.

However, the UI being adapted/updated by itself is probably not going to solve the "Whack-a-mole" or "OCD Hoarder" issues by itself - it's likely going to need to be supported by an AA consolidation, a Combat revamp and a Stats Review/revamp to trim the fat down on how bloated all those systems have become & which tie into the UI in a fundamental way.
At least, I think so.

And I don't think the EQ playerbase are necessarily seeking a WoW level of simplicity & variety of AA options, but clearly the game is currently in need of some streamlining in multiple areas to at least give it a cleaner look & feel along with some performance boosts.

UI I don't have an issue with, most of mine is default, but things like spell gems (use the old ones), buff window (old icons and names), my info window (mana, HP etc), group window and extended target window (still using smaller 13 slot one) are all custom. Raid window may also be custom, I can't remember.

AAs I don't have a problem with, its nice to have things to use at different times. I much prefer to be hitting buttons than just turning on attack and waiting for mobs to drop dead.

Discs and spells I find to be the big problem. Each upgrade has a completely different name so it isn't always easy to find the upgrade after a level increase. AAs don't have this issue as they keep the same name so hotkeys/spell gems don't need to be replaced. The biggest improvement they could make for me is to make the discs and spell names easier to see direct upgrades. Wizzy spell names aren't too bad, biggest issue I had with that was the change from Ice Ethreal to Ice Comet. Rogue discs I always have issues with, they just seem to be totally different names. Different names for invis across the board is frustrating, I can never remember the name of the Shaman and Beast invises.

Some classes hit more clickies and hotkeys (AAs/discs) than others, but I think this is a good thing making some classes a little easier to play than others.

I switch around from AB to TLPs, I switch between 6 - 10 different chars, not necessarily classes. For example I have a beast on AB and a beast on TLP both of which I play frequently. Both are basically setup the same way just the one on live has more to click.....can't wait to get my FD in 6 months time!

I've never tried WoW, I was told I'd be bored with it in 5 minutes so never bothered, that and I hate the cartoon graphics, the same way I hate a lot of the EQ2 graphics.

Didn't read a lot of this.

EQ doesn't have a complexity problem. It has an clutter problem.

One way to make things more simple is to tie lines together like they are in the Focus AA tab. Mindreap and Mindrift are the same spell. Pulmonary Grip and Throttling grip are the same spell. Having a way to consolidate lines in the UI would be great.

For instance, if I click consolidated display, I wouldn't see every version of Mez I have ever learned. I would see Addie, addie flash, stare, etc and that is it. The lower level spells wouldn't display. In other words, spell books and Disc windows would work like the "only show items I can use" on vendors, but based on lines displaying only the strongest ones.

This would help me a lot on my alts I don't play a lot, but when I do, their Disc and spell windows are just so overwhelming, but really it's not. Thwart and Repudiate are the same ability, on the same timer. There's no reason to use Thwart. Yet I can't sort by level because deflection doesn't have a newer version.

This all should be pretty easy to setup since in Beta most abilities are called something like "New Thwart" anyway.

As much as I hated the EQ2 move to have spells/abilities with the same name with a roman numeral that follow each other (their equivalent of RK is journeyman to grand-master distinctions), when I returned to EQ I found it difficult in some level ranges to figure out which spells followed others when the name and text on the inspect changed significantly with another named and described similar but not in the same line. Mostly this is mid-range rather end game and is really difficult if a character jumped from level 20-something to 85 while away (my other two auto-bumped while I was gone were 58 to 85 and early 50s to 85).

But this is more of a clutter issue with some spell lines being consolidated and others being added. AA replacements for some spells/skills likewise have names that aren't always relational as well. It doesn't help that the categories via the spell gem menu options can cover more than one spell line for some classes (wizard DD being the worst there) and some spell lines being called one thing by players and another by the game (such as mez vs enthrall).

On the focus tab, it's a lot more clear what focus ability matches to which spell line. For other AA, not so much. For some it is clear what spell line the AA 'replaces' (or casts the highest level of known), but others not so much.For all spells, skills, disciplines, and abilities, it's also not always clear which overlap vs block others until cast and bounced. Some spells and abilities clearly note they are a part of a spell/skill line others don't.

But, this is not a complexity issue, it's an information issue.

The information on how to create macros is also not well conveyed in game and additions to the available commands is often not updated on the various 3rd sites that have information. Heck even there is a disparity of naming. Players call them macros, the game calls them socials. The ability to chain things together for fewer buttons (and less whack-a-mole) is in the game, but not explained in the game.

Again, not a complexity issue, it's an information issue.

The duration is generally listed on spells/skills/abilities, but the actual casting/triggering time for them is often obscured. Knowing the cast time, even if math is needed to related it to the macro timing, can make it easier to chain things together whether cast/triggered individually or via a macro.

Again, not a complexity issue, it's an information issue.

But, for the complexity side of that, having macro samples per class could be a starting point to ease the way through it.

Every class, too, has rarely (or never) cast spells/skills, or spells/skills that might have been useful in lower levels that don't get updated and don't have an 'affects up to" note. Some are wrapped into other spell/skill lines, but some are just completely, well, orphaned. That's not really a complexity issue, but in the complexity vs information theme, spells/skill lines that supersede others could have that in the information or lore of the spell/skill.

For clutter, having a way to automatically sort the spell book (by level, by alpha, by spell line, etc) would help immensely. Having an option to only display the highest level of spell lines with the spell gem menu would also help reduce some of the clutter. Having a way to display only spells that will affect a level range would help for buffs, too.

But, not complexity, it's a clutter issue.

I think it would have been good if a lot of spells and abilities were simply overwritten with the latest version, and the previous versions were removed.

Mark II and III spells and abilities do this already, but why is it not done more broadly between levels and expansions, to clean up clutter.

If you get a better snare, debuff, or whatever..., the previous one just disappears from the spell book, and is replaced with the better one.

You could of course argue that sometimes you prefer a lower mana version, and you of course don't want buffs to be lost for powerleveling or buffing newbees.

But they should be able to clean up so many spells, especially lower mana ones where mana is not an issue. Same with combat abilities. You would just have the best version, and your spell book and UI would be greatly simplified.

If you lose several levels for some reason, it just automatically reverses to the previous version until you gain back your levels.

I agree. The buck stops with management. Kelly Flock, John Smedley and others at top hired the people that hired the people below them. SOE was like any bloated corporation that wasted resources on non-development things as Jeff Butler revealed in a recent YouTube interview.

The fact that Brad McQuaid and Jeff Butler were so unhappy with SOE, that they wanted to create their own MMO instead of staying with EverQuest tells you all you need to know about the dysfunction at SOE. Brad and Jeff took a lot of talented developers with them to Sigil. Combine that with the EQ devs being transferred to EQ2, that loss of talent had a disastrous effect for EQ's future.

Let's not forget that SOE knew full well what was going on at Blizzard with World of Warcraft's development. Blizzard started development of WoW in 1999. WoW was the true successor to EQ. But, Smedley and SOE were stubborn and failed to learn any of the lessons from Blizzard and continued merrily along on their trajectory of mediocrity.

Bottom line: without good management, you don't get good talent, without good talent, you don't get good video games

Your take on the need for talent is fine.

Keep in mind Jeff Butler was never 'talent', he had no game industry experience.

And he routinely lies or makes statements that reveal his complete lack of knowledge of the industry in interviews, to this day.

This is a good point but I think there is some context missing. Many of those situational abilities are quite low impact and only perfect use of all of them together creates any tangible benefit. EQ has a lot of buttons with low impact so while there is an "optimal" way of playing, often you can't tell the difference between optimal and non-optimal. To illustrate take a game like League of Legends where you only get 4 abilities and one of them is often on a very long CD so for most of the game you only are using 3 buttons. Despite this there is a ton of complexity because each ability is super impactful and has a lot of mechanics and uses. The difference between properly using your abilities and not is the difference between winning and losing. In EQ this is not the case because so many abilities are so low impact that you can either win without using them correctly or still lose even with perfect play depending on your RNG.

To digress for a bit, I have some experience in dealing with Japanese companies. Japanese companies are dominated by an engineer mindset. The more buttons you can put on a product, the happier the Japanese are. They believe that buttons and features is equivalent to value. I've seen this in their medical devices and their musical instruments. They are so complex that they are almost unusable.

The problem with too many buttons and features is that the user is not well served by needless clutter and complexity. Nothing is more important than the user experience and the new user experience which is critical to onboarding. The target audience is all that matters, not the egos of the engineers.

Most consumers want to turn a device on and start using it. Icons and buttons should only exist if the user truly needs them. When Steve Jobs was running Apple, he had a minimalist philosophy of the user interface design.

The user interface has been ignored for far too long in EQ. The AA panel needs to be revamped as well. 2023 is the year we are expecting big things for Darkpaw.

Steve Jobs was influenced by the minimalism of Japanese Zen philosophy. He was noted for taking his family to Japan to see the zen gardens of Kyoto.

Dragons of Norrath.

I would say that it was mostly the fault of SOE and the previous Sony corporations as they kept the budget way to small since the beginning and Smed was a gamer but a noob in management. Brad was a zone designer and had a good base concept but was a noob in everything else. Sony basically wanted a game for free and knew how to utilize the devs. It was a common behaviour and Microsoft did the same with Sigil's Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. EQ had always the problem with the wrong people being at the wrong positions and did also suffer from the revolving door phenomenon.

Really good points here!

From what I have heard, both Verant and SOE did not have studio cultures that were supportive of creative devs. They inherited the management vs. the workers mentality. They were not "gamers making games for gamers" like Blizzard. There were a lot of egos involved and gamer god issues too.

Verant had no track record going into the production of EQ. They had to figure out everything from scratch. By the time Blizzard decided to make WoW a few months after the release of EQ in 1999, they had a successful studio chomping at the bit to take the raw guts of EQ and turn it into a blockbuster cultural phenomena.

While Smedley acknowledged WoW for taking the MMO genre to the next level, he was set in his ways. He fell into the trap and built his empire using cronyism and nepotism. Many new developers brought into SOE that could have really helped the EQ franchise left after a few months due to the awful studio culture and chronic dysfunction. I bet Brad and Jeff left SOE for that reason as well.

Smedley was stubborn and refused to learn the lessons of WoW for EQ. Both EQ and EQ2 were horses out the barn by that time and probably unsalvageable. But, Smed had a chance to make his mark with new titles and most of the including Free Realms failed to gain popular acceptance and failed. The EQ Next debacle only made things worse. There are still thousands of loyal EQ players that are rightly angry with SOE about that and I don't blame them one bit.

The EQ franchise never realized its full potential because of the incompetence and intransigence of a handful of people in management. It's time for some fresh blood with a proven track record of success.

I had no idea. This is really fascinating. It's amazing that Japanese culture can contain two polar opposites: minimalism and complexity.

I had a similar experience returning to the game. I played the same character as my main from 2002 until 2013-2014 (still haven't pinned down when I stopped). Rarely played any alts, so my main was the character I knew almost intuitively. Figuring out what all the gear I had in my bags was for was a challenge, some was clickies which I didn't need to lug around anymore, others were more obscure pieces that had situational uses. The UI was the more challenging thing to figure out. Wasn't comfortable with the layout, especially hot buttons for a month after returning and spent a couple months after updating them for new spells, new abilities, and overall changes.

There's one part that really sticks out though. The almost requirement to run GINA. When I left GTT was hugely helpful but you could get by without it if you were observant. Now you really can't. Being a Linux guy I have had to code up my own GINA alternative since wine/proton window transparency is very glitchy. The audio triggers in the game just aren't good enough to keep up with the more complex emotes we need to keep track of on raids. This is one of the design aspects of the game that really need to be addressed better than bolting on an overly simple parser or accepting players will use a third party parser. Especially if we're going to be getting consistent missions that utilize the text emotes similar to how raids have done for a long time.

Completely disagree with the opinion that GINA is "almost" necessary and that in game audio triggers are not enough. GINA is the easy button answer because most people rely on triggers made by a select few instead of taking the time to understand events and make the appropriate in game triggers. The difference between GINA and in game triggers is timers and if the player is reliant on them they are probably the reason their raid fails to begin with.

I find the dubiously racially stereotyped assertion that Japanese prefer complexity particularly oddly placed because the developers of Final Fantasy XIV would sooner delete abilities than leave them virtually if not literally useless as is the case in EverQuest. They are constantly tweaking the game, including low level abilities, and even outright removed an equipment slot years after release.

Reducing reliability of people in the game to "UI Data Entry Quest" is highly inaccurate. There is no direct correlation between skill making in game triggers or adjusting the in game UI and people making a raid fail. I've also met plenty of people who perform well in game but are less reliable with emotes. The advantage of GINA is not relying on dozens of people to do data entry with no mistakes, and there are plenty of tech illiterate people who can play well and that is where sharing triggers really comes in handy.

Some events are better than others at signaling the player too.

When PoP came out and began the dumbing down of EverQuest to keep up with other newer games that held the player's hand was the moment the game started down a path it never recovered from. It's still a far superior game than most imo but being hard made it great.

Take Warhammer Online. It was a great game. But it was too hard (hear the whiney voice) so the dev team listened to the whiners and patched and patched until they killed the game and closed the servers. That's what happens to most modern games. Doomed before they even finish coding.