I think that dev was right in wanting to put more mounts in the game to address the fact that the world was too big. I think they were right in adding port stones, etc. IMO having to spend hours recovering a corpse and risking loss of your gear was too much of a death penalty and they were correct in repairing the oversight. I believe The population soared after many of these changes went into the game and while I won't claim that the fixes caused this, one certainly not claim that they snuffed out a boom at EQ's 6 month high water mark that EQ never recovered from. EQ's population boom after these repairs continued unabated. I like taking TLP as an example. The general EQ population was not so in love with riddled with anoyances early EQ that they moved lock stock and barrel to TLP. Some do prefer "classic" EQ Some were looking for something to do during idle times Some wanted to pwn old content with the knowledge we have now. Most have active accounts on servers without the annoyances some few cherish. People are going to have different opinions about this stuff and DBG employees will do whatever they see as best. Grats TLP on instanced content, ports to Kunark instead of having to take the boat, knowing you won't lose your gear because your corpse rotted, etc. I don't expect a population collapse due to DBG not reapplying major inconveniences some few would contend made EQ great and some few suggest would make EQ .
Not going to disagree with your opinion. I can only speak for what I like in a game. The things you found as an annoyance, I found as immersion. That's the beauty of having different tastes. The changes this game has made over the years has cost them my loyalty and money. Are they wrong for the direction it went? No not at all, they made a decision and went with it. We will never know if it was truly the right decision because we can never say for certain since other paths never were available. This is the decision they took and the people that liked it stayed and those that didn't left. I can use this example as well. I knew four people that the only enjoyment they got out of EQ was haggling in Freeport. Once the bazaar was introduced these four players left and never came back. Two of them actually have been playing Eve now and they never leave Jita much like they never left Freeport. I don't understand that enjoyment but to them they loved it and that is all they wanted out of the game. They aren't wrong in anyway either. To someone like me I didn't see the fun in that but to them it was the best part of EQ. So every choice any game makes will always cost them players. Will never be a right or wrong way. Just a way a company thinks can make the most money. Maybe what I'm getting at is labeling something negative. It's not a negative if I found it as a positive enjoyment. For your playstyle it was which is perfectly fine. The decisions the game went agreed with your choice of a playstyle while for me it cost them a customer because it didn't create the same enjoyment. Difference of gaming opinion is all.
Two things that come to mind... 1. An immersive first person experience. I had no problem convincing myself that I was actually in the game instead of huddling over a keyboard. 2. Dragons. Huge, fire-breathing lizards that took many heroes and coordination to slay. Raiding today is sliding your card through the punch clock and letting the raid or class leader tell you what to do. It can be challenging at times, but it doesn't feel like high fantasy anymore. It feels like a job.
The challenge with designing a lot of starting areas is avoiding repetition with the quest lines and giving each starting area its own unique feel. I always felt that Vanguard was the only game after Everquest to have aced this.
A couple months ago a friend of mine started playing EQ for the first time on Ragefire server. He grew bored with it but switched to playing on Live in my guild, and hasn't looked back. He has leveled to 95 without using the heroic option, and plays more hours a week than I do. Which brings me to my point - what made EQ great in 1999 isn't necessarily what makes EQ great today.
I like a large world... I think EQ was at its best when towards the end of Luclin. None of the content was irrelevant, gear from classic was still worth something. You had classic and 3 expansions to play in. Multiple expansions at the current level cap would make the end game world feel bigger.
I really enjoyed the slower leveling in a much older Norrath. It was one thing to allow new and returning players to catch up to players with years invested, but they also took away any options to level slower or not at all. In today's game, it's impossible to crawl through a dungeon one time or camp a rare named before the characters in question would outlevel the zones. Does it even take six hours to reach 50th level at a slow pace? There should be options to slow down or stop regular experience altogether. The easiest way I can think of to allow these options would be to allow AA experience from 1st level. With the 25 and 100 AA glyphs, a new character could slide most or all of their experience to AA and level slower or not at all if they choose.
a ton of classic gear is irrelevent even in classic; casters planar armor with strengh but no int/stamina, Druid stuff filled with CHA, bard filled with INT...
I think much like the playerbase in '99, the dev team was at times as clueless or more, thus the oblivious gear design - but that's to be expected in something so shiny and new. But yeah... everyone obsessed about gear then but looking back now, you could probably get to Lv 60 just fine in newbie armor if you aren't a tank
warriors crafted bracer. there's a difference between clueless, and designing and giving to a class that dosen't use mana , an item with nothing but mana on it (VS a fine plate bracer).
Druid planar got revamped, and CHA is good for charm animal anyways. But ya my point is a 20mr Tranix crown, 80hp Djarn ring, 36% CoF etc etc.... all stay useful
