EQ3/EQ Next ~ The Ideas Thread

Discussion in 'Expansions and Adventure Packs' started by ARCHIVED-Aurorum, Dec 14, 2007.

  1. ARCHIVED-Thunndar316 Guest

    Alezrick@Mistmoore wrote:

    I understand the dislike for instances and I agree that the next game needs a lot more dungeons and contested content. However, I still enjoy being able to raid or group without having to deal with other people. I think the next game should have both.
  2. ARCHIVED-Meirril Guest

    I'm comming really late to this conversation but that's because I only recently thought about what I'd like to see.
    5 classes: Fighter, Priest, Mage, Rogue, Monk.
    Each class has an AA tree that branches into the more familiar classes we have now. Your fighter could spend AA on becomming a Guardian, Bezerker, Paladin and Shadow Knight. Outside of combat you can take 20 seconds and switch between builds.
    AA trees wouldn't offer you new abilities, but rather they would take the classes core mechanics and give you 2 options to choose from. For instance the default Shadow Knight ability Harm Touch could be an ability that deals a large amount of damage and a minor heal for the SK. One AA for this ability could offer a choice to change it to Vampiric Touch which deals the same damage, but heals for a much larger amount. The other choice changes it to Death Touch, which doubles the damage but provides no healing. Both are improvements on the base ability, but in different directions. More importantly, they are choices. You can change your mind later on which ability you have, but you can't get both.
    Another AA choice for the same ability might alter the refresh times. Double the refresh time to double the effect. Overwhelming <Harm/Vampiric/Death> touch becomes a rarely used but devistating attack when you need it. On the other hand one quarter the refresh time for one quarter the effect and you have an ability that refreshes quickly enough to add to your regular rotation. Hasty <Harm/Vampiric/Death> touch becomes your opening and closing move for most fights.
    This would allow some dabbling across classes with AA trees that allow for greater amounts of DPS at the cost of class specific roles. Fighters become less tanky, priest heal less, Mages and scouts loose utility, Monks gain DPS as they loose the ability to defend their group and themselves.
    Right now we're use to monks being simply part of the fighter class. In EQ1 they wern't Warriors. Yes they could tank on occasion, but mostly they were a nice set of abilities in leather armor that did respectable amounts of melee dps. Different AA builds could offer them as a first rate DPS, a sort of damage or effect mittigaiton for the group, a disruptor (a soft form of crowd control), or even a bodyguard type build where they focus on defending one person.
    In my mind Beastlord could be the scout version of a pet using AA build. That would have a pet build for priests (shaman), and Mages (Necro/Conj) as well.
    For Priests I could see AA builds for Clerics, Shaman, Druids and Fanatics. Fanatics would be a new DPS oriented healer that isn't well suited for soloing, and only provides marginal healing. Quite possibly their DPS could come from short duration buffs that increase group output. The perfered armor for Priests would be cloth. Holy Vestments with AA lines that allow other armor types at a cost.
    Scouts would be split between Rogues, Bards, Beast Lords and Rangers. Rogues are your backstabbers we all know and love. Bards are the primary buffers. Beast Lords are a sort of support class and pet DPS. Rangers are your ranged non-spell DPS. Rogues and Rangers should be the heavy hitters, with the more positional challenged Rogues edging out the ranger build in optimal situations or loosing to rangers if the mobs arn't cooperating.
    Mages could be split between Wizards, Necros, Conjurors and Enchanters. Wizards are the glass cannons everybody loves now. More AA choices to do AoE damage vs single target. Necros would be the masters of damage over time spells and a general dabbler class. Probably the most solo friendly build. Conjurors would be an offensivly leaning buff class that provides long term DPS enhancers for the group as well as another pet DPS. Enchanters would return to being first rate crowd control with a smattering of odd buffs that help priests and fighters in non-dps ways.
    Anyways, that is how I'd change adventuring classes.
  3. ARCHIVED-Plaguemeister Guest

    Rosss@Everfrost wrote:
    That would absolutely ruin the EQ franchise forever. No self respecting EQ fan would ever pay to win. Gawd - if they ever implemented a real pay to win marketplace that would be sure way NOT to get me to buy the game no matter what other features were in there. In fact I'd most likely be motivated to start a fund to hire a class action lawyer to sue SOE for emotional damage to my MMO psyche.
  4. ARCHIVED-Halo of G4 Guest

    Thunndar316 wrote:
    First off. I don't want EQNext to be a carbon copy of gameplay mechanics have been used already for the past 13 years. No, I dont want Tank/Healer/CC/DPS over and over as a game. EQNext has to be a game that seperates itself from not being another same old same old if it wants to make a healthy subscription base. To top it off, SoE plans to keep EQ1 and EQ2 up so you're either going to split those populations in half to the next game, or find a new population of people to help with subscription numbers. Seeing how SoE doesn't seem to understand marketing their videogames to people (based off of all their previous products) I wouldn't doubt if EQNext goes up in smoke OR EQ2 and EQ1 see heavy subscription losses.
    Classes: As said up top I rather not see the same old same old. Why not spice it up rather then give us carbon copies of the classes in the two other games? Take a look at Vanguard: Saga Of Heroes. While that game was a complete and utter disappointment five years ago due to being buggy and broken, at least it gave us some unique classes. Psionicist/Blood Mage/Psionicist/DreadKnight, including the ideas of the Inquistor class (Note: Not the same as the one from eq2 since it wasn't a healer).
    Camping: No no and no. You see, camping was an unintentional aspect of EQ1. If you look at old articles of the development of Vanguard: Saga Of Heroes, you'll see that both Brad Mcquaid and Jeff Butler didn't intend camping to become such a havoc. The whole point of spawns taking 7 days or so was to make sure that powerful items didn't flood the market like crazy (since you could trade them ect ect). Camping was NOT fun, it brought up a good chunk of drama that nobody liked. Hell take a look at the Progression servers that booted up last year. You go through that and you'll see so many problems that occur between guilds where GM's have to intervene. Not to mention alt accounts following the main completely clearing an entire dungeon. That isn't fun.
    Death Penalty: SoE already said that they might introduce death penality to an exclusive special server. But that's a big IF. If it is in the game, it won't be on every server.
  5. ARCHIVED-Yimway Guest

    I think any modern MMO is going to need to allow almost any class to spec to almost any roll.
    Or atleast every class should be able to be their core role or utility. Few people find utility rewarding in itself, but everyone recognizes the nead for it. So, any class being able to respect into the utility roll for a given dungeon/raid/whatever is what I expect of the next EQ title.
    Ideally though, it would be more than just utility. Healer or Dps, etc, etc.
  6. ARCHIVED-Nrgy Guest

    Atan@Unrest wrote:
    I'm sure it's been mentioned in this thread several times already and most likely denounced each time, but Hot Swapping Specs on the fly from Tank to Healer to Utility for nearly every class available is one of the actual benefits of other MMO's.
    I will expect that EQN needs some new and never before offered features, but in some of the core elements that are found in other modern MMO's, there is NOTHING wrong with implementing them in EQN. Complex Combat, Class Teamwork, Ever Changing gaming land mass, a living and persistant world that is "changable" by the players actions, etc ...
    But for god sakes, don't make the classes so piegon-holed that they can never hope to ever do anything outside of the one or two tasks they were poorly designed for. Matter of fact ... make it one class with AA types of methods to focus and specialize to mold the outcome of duties.
  7. ARCHIVED-Yimway Guest

    Nrgy wrote:
    That game, with the overall debth of what the eq franchise generally has to offer is what interests me.
    I can also see it bigger than one class. Maybe its as simple as rather than classes you have Plate, Chain, Leather, and Cloth classes, and you can then specialize to the different roles within that gear type. Plate Tank, Plate Heals, etc, etc.
    But I'm specifically not interested in another rigid class system game, particularly one with far too many classes.
  8. ARCHIVED-S_M_I_T_E Guest

    Atan@Unrest wrote:
    Sounds like a Bethesda product except with a total skill cap that can be shuffled. The way EQ2 went was role first, AA to add other subclass features to the first. That one you describe sounds like chosen features -> actual gamplay.
    If SOE is going to make a Skyrim/Morrowind as EQN (I don't think they will or should) let the custom spells and levitate feature from Morrowind stay.
    Irritates me to no end ES4 and ES5 don't have levitate because some Dev decided it would bork their level design and people wouldn't have to 'progress' in a single player game. I always use the command console to level up and then play the game, keeping me from levitating to begin with was lame. If someone wants to run the dungeon in it's entiretly they can always choose not to levitate and it's not an MMO where time = money.
  9. ARCHIVED-Halo of G4 Guest

    S_M_I_T_E wrote:
    Well Bethesda has always been full of BS. Take a look at Todd Howard and how he lies through everything. Also it's funny since if your athletic skill really high, you can literally float in ES4 by jumping bypassing a good chunk of say the oblivion gate content.
  10. ARCHIVED-ratbast Guest

    Atan@Unrest wrote:
    i love playing utility. the problem i have is that playing my class well does not translate into respect. if i top the dps parse on a utility class, then i get respect.

    the esteem mechanic is broken. its like in sports like basketball where the only thing ppl care about is scoring points. if you arent the leading scorer you are seen as a scrub. this even bleeds into priests whose primary role is something else entirely.

    i used to spec for max utility and buffs. what i found out is noone will value my contribution that way.

    IMO a robust parse program (along lines of ACT), that had a sort feature for "contribution index" COULD solve this. but only if ppl posted it in place of extdps.

    the closest thing chanters have to measuring their contribution is power restored and extdps. at the very least contribution index should show duration of group procs/buffs, and quantify and weight it appropriately. utility who spec dps first and buffs second look better on the parse, but they arent doing it right. ppl who do it right want to reroll cuz they keep seeing that same old extdps posted in raid.

    honestly it surprises me that ACT does not measure effect x duration for all group buffs, and attribute it to the player who gave it. im not saying give them credit for the damage, just give them credit for the buff. a 7 minute fight with a player procing greater bolstering roar for 200 seconds should get credit for 200s x 12 cb, or 2400cb-s.

    current implementation ignores the largest contributions and reasons for inviting utility to raid. if you look at the parse you have to ask yourself really why am i inviting them in the first place? this measuring system causes the drought of support players. if you really want to keep good support with this broken measuring stick in place, have your dps constantly stroke the egos of the illys/troub who buff them. they will show up for raid more often and be less inclined to reroll, even while being constantly reminded (via posted parses) their efforts to dps are futile in winning parse, which is accepted as the gold standard for contribution to the 'team'.

    atleast healers have their own parse they can win. power restored is something that ppl NEVER ooh and aaah over. its posted when its time to blame chanters for a wipe, and showing everyone who helped the least amount. its not even an effective measuring stick for utility in the first place.

    there isnt a need for class specialization to change (other functions absorb utility), unless this measuring system is going to continue. specialization is a good thing, but only if individual/unique contributions can be effectively tracked. it really boggles my mind to have a class specialize in a facet that just isnt tracked. thats downright unfair to them (unless they exclusively solo).
  11. ARCHIVED-Nrgy Guest

    ratbastard wrote:
    Anyone that knows anything about anything regarding parses knows for example that a Wizzy + Trouby is Greater than a Wizzy w/o a trouby, and anyone that thinks the Wizzy's actual DPS is Wizzy+Trouby DPS is a dolt and a double dolt it the Wizzy actually thinks that too.
    ACT can only parse whats in the log file, so when the game stats a Wizzy's Manaburn hits for 2 million, its the game that doesn't report it as 1 million Wizzy base damage plus 1 million Trouby buff. for example.
    IMO, Healers parses are far worse, becasue HPS actually does show, but is purely blocked by application. When a MT has a Ward + Reactive + HOT running, the Druid looks like they are doing nothing at all.
  12. ARCHIVED-Gilasil Guest

    I really hope that something like ACT is neither necessary nor possible. It's spawned an entire generation of players who rate everyone else by their parse regardless of role.
    The fact that an entire category of players (i.e. serious raiders) consider ACT -- a third party tool -- absolutely necessary is a horrible reflection on SoE.
    IF parses are necessary then SoE should privide something as an integral part of the game and it should provide a measure of all the roles players can play. If parses are not necessary and if SoE isn't going to privide one, they should not provide enough information for a third party app to provide one. Otherwise we'll end up with the same broken situation where everyone is measured by a few parameters which may not even be relevant for the role they're in.
    If it's necessary SoE should provide it as part of the game. If it's not necessary and if SoE isn't going to provide it, then it shouldn't even be possible.
    If SoE decides they're not going to provide any sort of in-game measurement of player performance (i.e. parses) then they need to hammer home to anyone scripting encounters that they can't have checks which require players to have parses available. I'll be happy to provide the sledgehammer.
  13. ARCHIVED-WanyenII Guest

    There are four elements to any adventuring fight: damage, absorbtion, mitigation, recovery. Each area has to be meaningful, and in each area, there will be leaders and laggards. To some extent they can be ranked and rated in a matrix fashion. How each is accomplished can also be rated in terms of effectiveness, ease, and fun-factor.
    It would be interesting, if all major elements could be accomplished with a minimum level of effectiveness solely in 'auto-mode', and it would be application, composition, sequencing, and choreography of extra abilities that would elevate effectiveness.
    Now, in EQ2, and in many games prior, DPS (damage) and tanking (absorbtion) can be very passive. The most effective at at these jobs are not, obviously, but the base mechanic is very passive. On the other hand, healing (recovery) and crowd control/utility (mitigation), are very active and reactive roles. It might be neat, if these last two roles mentioned could do the base function of their role without thinking about it once engaged in combat. Perhaps by performing extra things, applying extra skills/spells, the effectiveness and efficiency would improve. EQ1 kind of eventually introduced something to this effect with totems and auras, but really never fully embraced the idea behind those mechanics. Even here, there are a few hints at making the players in these roles a bit more passive in core abilities, but only hints of it (for example certain enchanter AA's would have a chance to auto-invoke a mez on target of incoming damage, iirc).
    In terms of attacks, or heals, or prevents, or whatever else is a essentially a core function: I don't want 18 different directly activatable abilities that all do essentially the same thing. As it is, too many different hotkeys just for special attacks. A greater emphasis on 'combos' or 'sequences', like the heroic opportunity mechanism, would be very welcome.
  14. ARCHIVED-VikodiN Guest

    I wish they'd have starting cities much like EQII did at launch and have fewer neutral-based cities. Perhaps one at most but I'd rather they bring the "sneaking" aspect back into the next installment of Everquest.
  15. ARCHIVED-WanyenII Guest

    Thunndar316 wrote:
    I think theres a couple of criteria that could help establish when it's appropriate and when its not appropriate to instance a given dungeon.
    1. Storyline centric. If the dungeon and creatures in the dungeon are involved indirectly in the storyline, they should be contested. By indirectly, I mean quests or tasks might require something be done to them or taken from them in general, and perhaps directly involved actors who have a minor role in the dungeon: eg, a lesser named might have some involvement in a quest. The idea here is that cooperation can be fostered because menial encounters and drops with no particular value and mobs not tied to any conceivable 'achievement' that are otherwise not noteworthy, can be given greater access to those who are solely questing. No need to clear an an intire instance for one small quest update that may have been missed in the last pass through; no need to ask others for a cleared instance, etc.
    2. Boss mobs and major actors. They should occupy a small individual "inner sanctum" within a particular contested zone, perhaps in an area behind or deeper than a very similar contested version who might appear less frequently than a normal dungeon spawn cycle (similar to Mayong but not necessarily just for the equivilance of x4 mobs). In this way, everyone who goes deep enough would have an opportunity to 'interact' with the major actor and either rob or kill him, on whatever schedule they could manage; but imrproprtu groups could engage him perhaps a few times a day without the overhead of instance time-locks and continual reclearing. Perhaps to access the instanced version of the boss, you would need to collect something or some combination of things from the contested area. Or achieve something of significance -- like ousting a significant lieutenant at a remote outpost or removal of a competitor, and so on..
    3. Random encounters. This is something I haven't really seen since early Baulder's Gate games, but granted I don't play a lot of titles. It would be interesting, and I think fun, if you were occassionally sent to a random encounter that fit the theme of your surroundings, somewhat. These should be instanced. Some might be a 'secret area' in a dungeon, some might be overland 'behind that group of trees', some might be someone's elaborate basement or backroom. Some you would stumble into and could choose to explore deeper or choose to simply exit, and some would not present an option, short of an evac or gate out. There would rarely be any kind of boss in these events, but perhaps significant, if not one of the level/advancement appropriate most significant experience earning potential activities in game (especially, but not necessarily if you complete it -- perhaps with each successive or accumulated kill, the experience per mob/encounter increases). Some might throw you into a fight immediately (with appropriate mechanisms to allow for full connection and content loading); others might give you time to prepare or briefly rest up before engaging. Because these have no loot-based consequences, you get one shot at it: either win, lose, or run away.
  16. ARCHIVED-Freejazzlive Guest

    All I can say is that I'd greatly prefer as few "instances" as possible. I'm sick past my ears of instanced content.
  17. ARCHIVED-Halo of G4 Guest

    This thread is a giant mass of unrealistic expectations.
  18. ARCHIVED-ProteinPlus3 Guest

    Halo of G4 wrote:
    There are a few gems here. :)
  19. ARCHIVED-agentsix Guest

    If EQNext has classes and levels (I hope it doesn't) I'd like to see some sort of system where the things you accomplish in game are applied to each character.
    For example, if you grind 40k faction with one character, all your alts also have the faction.
    If you gain access to a zone on one character, all your alts also have that access.
    If an item can be used by multiple classes, you can share that item with your alts of those classes even if its attuned.
    In short, I'd like to see an end to the days of saying, 'Oh, I still have to do that on my alt.'
  20. ARCHIVED-agentsix Guest

    Meirril wrote:
    Why start out with any classes?
    Start with just a character. Then use AAs to specialize into classes and then further into subclasses.
    This way, you can be a tank that can use magic or a Rogue that heals.

Share This Page