EQ2 Producer's Letter - December 2005

"3) The gameplay you start with will much more accurately reflect the gameplay you can expect later on.
In some cases, the current system actually does people a disservice by making it appear as if the final classes down the tree are essentially the same, when this isn't the case.
The best example of this is the Mage archetype. The generic Mage is an excellent introductory class if you plan on eventually becoming a Wizard or Warlock. Coercer, Conjurer, Illusionist and Necromancer gameplay ends up being drastically different. The pet classes are very much about cool pets later on, as their direct-damage spells end up being less of the overall play. Likewise, the control classes of Illusionist and Coercer become much more focused on controlling enemies and empowering their allies, as opposed to inflicting direct damage. "

Wow. I had this exact discussion with my partner the other day - even using necromancer as an example, next thing I know, it's been addressed - That's service..!
...You guys don't have my house bugged right...?

Gallenite,
can we expect to see spells that we recive later on as lower tiered versions? will the standard +/- 14 levels rule apply?
Example would be the Conjuror's dps pets. Could we expect to see a mage pet at level 6 (20 - 14 level mark) and air pet at 18 (32 - 14), and perhaps even an air pet as early as level 4 (18-14= level 4)
That would really help if people want to get a feel for the conjuror class early on.

Also, will we be expecting compairible spells across the archetype around each level, such as if class A gets a spell unique to them, then class B - F also get a unique spell, or will there still be gaps and unconsistancies?
Example is the necromancer's Clinging Darkness line (currently starts at level 21, tred continues all the way to 51 also, this spell scalls irregularly. 21, 36, 51, it's increasing by 15 levels insted of 14) . I dont belive any of the other mages get anything at 21 besides the generic mage group buff, so will clinging darkness be moved to a different level, or will other mages get something in this gap?
Also, at level 20, coercer and illusionist have 4 spells where as every other mage has 3 compairible spells. the extra spell the enchanters recive is their charm/personae. Will these also be relocated to an earlier level to accomidate this change?
both Conjuror and Necromancer are also missing a spell at 27. But then they have 1 more spell then everyone else at 28. I would sugest moving their pet heal line down one level.
Wizard and warlock are missing 1 spell at 30, 44, and 58 compaired to the other 4 mages getting 2 spells (they get second stuns if enchanter and aoe life tapif necro aoe damage and interupt if conj). If you move the Inferno and Fury lines down two levels to their proper place, you will notice a gap at 44 and 58, this coincides with the level 30 gap.
Illusionists are missing a spell at 38 and 52, every other mage class has 3, where illusionist has 2 (coercer gets a +hate buff, possibly give illusionists a -aggro buff?) Reason they miss a spell here is they have group invis at 24. Unless the lack of the 3rd spell at 38 is because they still are able to use group invis since it scales, this is probly just another missed gap.
Conjuror and Necromancer are missing a spell at 41 and 55, but have an extra spell in 42 and 56. Yet again, i recomend moving the pet heals down one level to fix this.

Abyssmal fury and Inferno should be at 42 insted of 44 (line starts at 14, then 28, then 44? thats a 16 level difference, probly an oversite, should be 28+14= 42) This might have been changed all ready but not updated at Players, im using the EQ2 Players site as my sorce for my spell listings. Also, their upgrades later on are at 58 insted of 56, which is where they should be if u add +14 to 42.
Necromancers get two spells at 51, Dooming Darkness and Rat Infestation. Also, the Necromancer's swarm pet line does not match up with conjuror's, it is always 1 level behind. I sugest switching the Seed and Swarm line for conjurors, making it more logical. 23, 37, and 51 for Swarms to match necro's, and 24, 38, 52 for Seed to match necro's fear line.
Since Depart(level 38 spell) scales, wizards miss a spell at 52. Again, this may be like illusionist's group invis, and they consider the spot filled since you never loose the spell.

These are all the gaps in the mage classes as compaired to one another, and using the plus or minus 14 level rule for upgrading.
My source for my data can be found at http://eq2players.station.sony.com/en/news_archive.vm?id=607&section=Development&month=current
Hope some of these issues can be fixed, or atleast get the spells on that particular refrince page updated. I think the Inferno and Fury lines have had their level properly adjusted, but im not sure about the other issues such as Sorcerors missing a spell at 30, 44, and 58, nor the gaps for classes that have group invis and Escape type spells that dont upgrade anymore, but scale. Also, giving the other 5 classes a unique spell like clinging darkness is a needed fix aswell, not to mention the conjuror's pet heals or defensive stances need to be moved down one level to bring that into order.

Hope this data proves useful.

Toodles!

I think the man-hours that will go into making this change would be better spent working on high-end content. The 1-20 content is ancient history for people who are sitting at the level cap. Take the man-hours you were going to spend on this proposed change and instead introduce new items, graphics for armor, and even zones for the high-end crowd. Its a stated fact that content was cut from DoF to get it out the door in time. How about starting by putting that cut content back in? How about putting in 'new' armor graphics, meaning brand new not just a redye of existing armor or removing skirting, etc.? How about new zones that were supposed to be part of DoF but were cut? Basically, there is a lot of work that you could do to improve high-end content and I think that should be your first priority.

Welcome to more of the WoW-ification of WoWer-quest. I think we need to stop playing catch up to WoW and do something original if you guys want to do something different, I mean this is how it works in WoW, you pick what you want to be and you start getting spells based on that class right away, if I wanted to play WoW, I would buy a subscription to WoW, I tried the Trial of that game and didn't care for it, save for the Hunter Class (which I played to level 30 in the first 3 days), and I don't see anything here like that class. I like everything else here, thats why I play EQ2, and I have been playing since day 1, I have a level 55 Dark Elf Paladin, a level 42 Dark Elf Troubador, a 34 High Elf Shadow Knight, along with several more between levels 20-30 and I liked the way the betrayal quest went, it was difficult, thats what it was supposed to be, it was even stated that its not for everyone because it was so difficult, even now its been dumbed down, it used to be you needed a group for all of the named gnolls, now you only need a group for Dancoed of the Pine, everything else you can solo. Where does the WoW-ification stop? Please stop going down this road, I think you guys have been play testing WoW way way to much apparently, I mean I read that letter about how props are being given to them, but it doesn't mean you have to make our game what their game is.
Now I do agree with the PVP server thing, I think you should have a few PVP servers, I know of several guilds that are going to want to transfer out of our server right away because they just have been dying to start ganking people LOL, and now they can leave the rest of us alone and go fight it out with other guilds on PVP

Edit: For an after thought.
Message Edited by ironman2000 on 12-16-2005 07:39 PM

as a altoholic having chars on both test and live i will enjoy not having to do the same class quest over and over for them also the thought of have the char what i want from begining also is something i look forward too that way i can do more quests then spend time trying to get to 20 before i'am happy with the charactor

I have been predicting the removal of the archetype system since launch, I have a friend who hates it, he wants to play a Necromancer. In order to do that he has to go through 20 levels of something that he doesn't want to play. This will be a wonderful change for this game. I have a feeling that along with it will come more race/class specific quests that will help you get a 'feel' for what it is your playing, beyond it's spells/abilities. I feel that they should limit starting classes to specific races too. Hate me if you want, but I don't see a Halfling Berserker, or a Barbarian Necromancer being very true to the lore.

Fanbois need not read this; you won't like it.

True Keelis, but they are doing it now so give them a cheer and be happy! :smileyhappy:
Message Edited by Cercsij on 12-16-2005 11:29 PM

Any word on all races and classes becoming available to both cities? This would add a tremendous amount of replay for those people that just don't want to basically start all over again just because they want to play a class only available to once city. Once someone has established a high level main adventurer and tradeskiller, they are pretty much stuck to that city because they won't be able to used shared bank slots with an alternate in the opposing city. Not to mention that they might want to stay with the same guild, which may not allow opposing city players in for various reasons.

It works the same with Everquest in place of "WoW".

Personally, i love the archetype system.

Devs could have exicuted it a bit better, but the system itself is a wonderous thing if balanced proportionaly.


That being said, im glad to see it go actually, because i feel that it would take too much effort to try to cram all the spells you might get later on into 10 or 20 levels.

If they had really wanted to make the archetype system work, they would have had to use their original idea with their new found balanceing mind set.

Example:

Priests.

Start out giving them Minor healing, Arch healing, Group direct healing, a group Ac buff, a single target damage with low reuse, a debuff

Then at the Class level, they would have to keep these spells the EXACT same proportions, but with tacted on side effects for diversity.

Please assume that the base healing factor of minor healing is about 50 hp for 15 power at level 10, 2sec CT(casting time) and 6 sec RC(recast ), and the arch is about 80 hp for 20 power, CT 3sec, RC 8sec

Cleric- their direct heals recive a 50% boost in healing and is all upfront, but their recast is increased, so their minor healing is 75 hp heal, 2sec CT, 7sec RC, and 22.5 power cost. 8.3 hp per second, with a 3.333 hp/power // arch healing is 120 hp at a 30 power cost, 3sec CT, 9sec RC, 10hp per second, with a 4 hp/power ratio // Their group Ac buff also increases 25% more mitigation then the other priest class's, and increases Stamina // clerics can debuff mitigation, stamina, and arcane/divine resistance

Druid- their direct heals heal for the same total amount as clerics(or just slightly over), except 40% upfront and 60% over time per second. Their minor healing heals for 30 intitially, then 8hp every second for 6 seconds, CT 1second, RC 6seconds and 22.5 power cost, 11 hp/second, with a 3.333 hp/power // arch healing is 48 hp initially, then 8hp per second for 9seconds, CT 1.5 seconds, RC 8sec, 30power, 12hp/sec, with a 3.333hp/power // Their group AC buff also increases avoidance and buffs agility // druids can debuff avoidance, agility, and elemental resistance.

Shaman- their direct heals heal the normal amount and wards target for 40% of the hp it heals. Shaman's minor healing heals for 50 hp and wards for 20hp, 2sec CT, 5 sec RC, for 21 power, 10 hp per second, 3.333hp/power // Arch is about 80 hp and 32 hp ward, CT 3sec, RC 7sec, for 29power, 11hp/sec // Their group AC buff also increases inate spell resistance and buffs str // shamans can debuff attackspeed, str, and noxious damage.

Cleric's specialty heal is Reactive, heals damage when target is hit, PROS- if fighting multiple foes who are hitting rapidly, this will heal the most inshortest amount of time, CONS- if fighting a singal enimy that relies on heavy single hits with long reuses, reactives are less effective. Fires off 6 times. For best results, tank must be hit atleast every second.

Druid's specialty heal is Regeneration, heals damage over a set time, PROS-if fighting a mob or mobs that to prolonged damage, or who do spaced out spike damage with a cool down inbetween the big hits, regeneration has time to get it's full effect. CONS- if fighting a mob that focuss on doing as much damage as possible early on, it might get overwhelmed, also, the heal is waisted if recipiant is healed to 100% before it ends. Tics every 2 seconds for 10 seconds, so it heals 6 times. Each tic is equall to a cleric's reactive.

Shaman's specialty heal is Ward, prevents damage upfront, PROS-can be used to prevent damage before it occurs, wont ever go waisted if recipient is healed to 100% CONS- less total hp protected then the sum of the regen or reactives, since the ward protects it all upfront. It's value is equivilant to 1 tic or reactive short of the other's (aka, if druid's regen healed 25hp every 2 seconds+initial, that totals to 6 * 25 = 150, so the ward's ammount would be 130)



Sorry if that got a tad complicated, but thats how you balance a game with the archetype mind set. Thats just a small example ofcourse, but that is how you flesh out the system, you make sure they are all proportional to eachother, and that they each branch off on their buffs.

Clerics, under this system, are the best at healing large amounts up front, and increaseing armor class.
Druids, under this system, are the best at healing the most in a 10 second time frame, and increasing avoidance
Shamans, under this system, are the middle road, healing more then druids in the initial heal+ward, but not as much as a cleric, while having a shorter reuse then a cleric, but not as short as a druid.

Using the same amount of power though, they all heal the same ammount, i made sure to keep that a constant.

Their specialty heals coexhist well i this format, shaman's being the least powerful for total hp healed, but providing the most protection upfton, where as druid's regen and Cleric's reactives flip-flop depending on the encounter.


Sorry for blabbering, but thats how a archetypal system would work, but ....it's a real PITA to try to keep things balanced liek that :smileywink:

Toodles!

The new PvP system sounds extremely interesting. I am eager to play around on it.

You know what would be neat? If SOE would allow us to copy (not move) one of our characters to the new servers (no items/ no plat/ JUST character) with level/xp in tact to one of the new PvP servers.

-Cyan
EQ2-Daily.com Podcast

I know this Kendricke, but they are adopting more and more stuff from WoW, I mean have you read the test server update notes recently? It reads like a best of WoW hit list. We are getting a pen Icon over the heads of people with quests for you, and if they have an update for a quest, they have a journal and a pen and things like that, I mean the higher ups have all but said we are taking all the stuff we find fun about WoW and making it in EQ 2 now.
This is from a post by John Smedley:
"We've certainly made our share of mistakes over the years… but overall, we've tried to stay true to our primary goal of entertaining you.

That's our job description.

Now what's been interesting from our perspective is what really serious competition is doing to the online gaming space. World of Warcraft has come on the scene and is doing awesome. Kudos to Blizzard on what I think is a spectacular game. I've played the heck out of it, and I love it (as have many people here at SOE). To a game developer, having another game developer play your game is the ultimate compliment… so to the folks at Blizzard we say "Nicely done".

But don't think for a second that we don't see WoW as both a great game AND Blizzard as serious competition.

Personally… I'm glad they are out there. They keep us honest. They keep us focused and they force us to play with our 'A' game. They've certainly opened some eyes in our company to styles of gameplay that are different than we would have come up with inside SOE. I hope they're also opening up the eyes of other MMO developers that the 'old school' probably won't cut it any more. I'm glad that we went in the direction we did with EQ II because had we stuck with making an even "harder core" game, I think bad things would have happened. We need to be about larger scale mass-entertainment… because that's what online gaming is slowly becoming. Our games just need to be fun… and easy to get into.

In the United States there are around 2 Million paying online gamers (this is after WoW btw). That's up from 250,000 back before EverQuest was released... and I'm only counting the MMO's.. if you start to add in the Pogo's of the world we're probably talking about 3-4 Million online gamers... and I have no idea what scary numbers some of these online poker places are bringing in.

What this means is that making future online games is a big business that is going to be increasingly competitive. I think that's good for you, and good for us. It's going to insure great games get made… and I can tell you we're in this for the long haul."

I mean to me, it seems more like they are just taking what they like from WoW instead of inventing something better themselves? So I don't really get the keeping them honest thing? I mean look how badly they botched SWG's game up by trying to make it a twitchy point and click FPS, in the name of competition and making it a better experience for gamers. I think they are going about it the wrong way and instead of inventing something new and creative to compete, they are just taking what they like from WoW and it seems to me they might be playing and enjoying the competition too much for our own good from the sounds of it? I mean he says its making them bring their A game, I don't see it, not when they just seem to be reusing older graphic elements and repainting them (like for the brand new level 40 guild reward horses, they just took the Maj'Dul Horse and put fire on its feet and eyes and a rainbow cloud effect on the good side version), and taking things from WoW and other games. Its not their A game its not even their C game. Believe me, I know they can do better with out having to take ideas from other MMO's and having to rehash the things we have in game already. It just has a bad taste and smell about it.

And don't get me wrong, i'm not saying they are doing everything wrong, I say its about darn time to the PVP servers. I was one of the people that voted to make seperate PVP servers, I think its needed, because there are too many people out there just waiting for it, because they want to PVP each other to death. All i'm really on about here is I KNOW THEY CAN DO BETTER and its starting to become too much about dollars & cents.


Message Edited by ironman2000 on 12-16-2005 11:43 PM

Just out of curiousity, what was the PvP content on Vallon Zek that kept you there for the majority of your time? I quit EQLive years ago, but I don't remember much of any PvP content like that there... Did they add things later?

Okay, so after finally reading all four pages I have a few points to make:

1. When choosing EQ2 as my MMORPG (I only play/pay for one at a time) it came down pretty much to WOW and EQ2. I chose EQ2 because I felt (and still feel) that while WOW is more environment oriented, EQ2 was more character oriented. That's not to say our environment isn't beautiful, what I mean is that when playing EQ2 I always feel that the game is just better at making me feel like my character is an individual, unique, even if it is in some small way. I am terrified that even with the betrayal quest intact that the changes in the classes will change this. By consolidating all of this all the quests that brought her up to being what she is, her 'history' so to speak, no longer really means anything. While I may have planned my character to be a monk from the start I feel that working up to what she now is was truly valuble. Characters, at least at the beginging shouldn't just say 'oh, I want to be a necromancer' and then just BE one, it flattens the game and the character development if they are never required to seek out at least SOME training. 'oh I want to be a necro, maybe I should talk to this guy over here and he'll teach me some stuff about it.' Now that works.

2. In regards to PVP I find it horrifing that you have decided to follow the WOW model of Good vs. Evil. While I understand that from a lore concept it makes sense, many of my friends have left WOW for precisely this reason. Becuase it was Good vs. Evil, when there were Massive armies of the good guys and so few bad guys that the term 'Horde' was a joke, the PVP was seriously unbalanced and had SIGNIFICANT problems. If everbody decides they want to sign up for a certain team...what exactly would you plan to do about it? Especially since with the betrayal quest in place, there would be ways of getting around any sort of 'allotment'.

3 In regards to the 'honor' system you have indicated in your letter, I would like to remind those of you at SOE that this is not WOW. That those of us who play this game play it BECAUSE it is not WOW. (after all, if that's what we wanted, that's what we'd play) You are not going to endear people by making a WOW clone. What is going to make happy customers is a game that is different. This is not to say that I don't appreciate certain changes you have made that mimic WOW (allowing someone to help me out with a locked encounter, thankyou,thankyou) but the more changes like this you make, the more I wonder why I'm playing EQ2 when I could be grouping with all my friends and buddies at work. Please, keep EQ2 EQ2.

4 You mentioned extending the amount of lore that we would be exposed to early in the game and making the game more species specific early on. I appreciate this part of the intended updates, a great deal.

5. Someone mentioned the possibility of intorducing more classes with the revamped system, and this is something I would love to see. More classes more races (there's no such thing as too many in my eyes) more customization, even if it is in something as basic as my clothing.

I plan to stick around and see how this all works out, but I have to say that the letter has as many worrisome points to me as good ones. It just depends on how they're going to be implemented.
Message Edited by kaiwryn on 12-17-2005 01:03 AM

Dear Scott,

Way back in June I posted a suggestion on how to improve EQ2. Right now I think the main focus is to provide uniqueness among player races. I suggested on making different mounts for different races so that not everyone is riding a horse. http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/...items&message.id=35416&query.id=233562#M35416.

What about racial armor? I know you folks are working hard there making armor look better for weeks, but some kind of armor or clothing would provide good sense of lore among of all the other races. So if had two guardians, one is an iksar the other is a barbarian, the two races would wear heavy armor but there have a different look and design based on their race. Maybe civilians in Qeynos or Freeport would wear clothing based on their race so that they look like a civilian in a city.

If you guys want to make pvp on some servers, that would be great for alot of people. It would be even better if you make the game a little less bland by putting a bit more lore and unique sense among the races.

I don't think they're saying that they want to turn into WoW, they're saying that WoW demonstrated that the market is changing. Look at it this way. Back in the day, when UO was released (1997) if you just graduated from highschool, you're now in your mid 20s with a job, possibly a family, mortgage and all the rest. The good old days of "hardcore" playing where you could camp a quest mob for 18 hours while holed up in your bedroom littered with pizza boxes are long, long gone. You might be able to get in 2-3 hours, if you can sneak it past your wife and your "honey do" list. You still love to play games, but there's a lot competing for your limited entertainment time... so the time you do spend, you want it to be focused on the "fun" part.
There are still those masochistic folks who think that hardcore style play is best and the more tedious, the more bladder-bursting the game, the better. They're the ones currently drooling over Vanguard. What WoW clearly demonstrated to game companies, designers, etc. was that there were even more -- many more -- people who would be interested in playing their games if they didn't have those "hardcore features". That there was indeed a market for MMORPG players where the game was more casual, supported both solo and group play and gave players more of a sense of being able to complete something (finish some quests, gain a level, whatever) in a few hours of playtime... not a few days or a few weeks.
It also reinforced a core concept that I think designers are really just starting to understand: challenge in a game should be driven by the content, not the mechanics of how the game is played. While tying a player's hands behind their proverbial back can make a fight more challenging, it doesn't make it more fun. And that's the key issue.
It's only taken them about a decade to figure this out, but hey -- better late than never. :smileytongue:
Message Edited by Kordran on 12-17-2005 04:37 AM

They consolidated the servers in to 1 server a long time ago.

There wasn't any content, what I didn't say in my post was that I moved to Stormhammer (Legends server) a while after the release of Luclin when PvP pretty much was dead on Vallon Zek. PvP was best around the Kunark/Velius time, while not having any content at that time, there also wasn't any other alternatives for a PvP online experince.

A PvP system today needs something other then a mindless fragfest if it's going to attract something other then a bunch of lamers and foster a healthy community.

Question: Will the game still "start" at level 3 like it does now, or will the game be redesigned to have you kill something other than two rats and a goblin at level 1? (Really, at present you can't even consider levels 1 and 2 "true" levels; level 1 is only available on the Far Journey, and level 2 you clear simply by hailing an NPC).

When i bought EQ2 in February i hadn't even heard of WoW, so i bought EQ2, but instead of making EQ2 like WoW, or vicea versa, they should just each go in consecutive rounds of "1-upping" each other, i think SOE needs to make the game appeal to a larger crowd, also while not leaving the hardcore players who have been playing since "Day 1" in the dust. WoW is a spitting image of EQ1 in my opinion. Also when i think of the idea MMO i think of Everquest, But i give credit for Blizzard for turning an RTS game into a MMO game. Also i think that SOE does a better job manageing the game, EQ2 has had 17 updates and an Expansion, and WoW has had a measly 8 (last i checked) I played the WoW 10 day trial, for 2 days, and coulnd't log in 25% of the time due to full servers and thats not even close to all the lag i hear about, was sick of it, the graphics were stale, the plot was horrible, in my opinion the whole Warcraft plot is a little weird, if they have guns and tanks, and all that good stuff, why is the game stuck in the 1200's. (OK time to stop bashing WoW)

The point is i hear more and have expierenced more bad things about WoW then any other game i've played, Yet i hear nothing of EQ2 i belive if more people from WoW played EQ2 they would 50% switch, ive already "converted" 2 of my friends from WoW to EQ2 and they thank me.

Anyway getting off-topic again, when game company's for an MMO compete, the only people winning are the players.

-I hear bad things about WoW, and see it everywhere, and hear nothing of EQ2, more advertiseing(didn't blizzard put out a Coca-Cola commercial in China or something.)
Message Edited by HisMajesty on 12-17-2005 06:08 AM