New Expansion is Velious and the best feature is...Flying Mounts?

Pervis wrote:

If that's the case, then why has no one else tried the EQ1 model and succeeded. If WoW is the grand champion of easymode games then there seems to be an unmet need there. If you're right, of course.... I think it's because while you all have your fond memories, many of you wouldn't go back to that style of play even if it were offered.
I understand. I have very fond memories of my time pledging my fraternity. Good memories, but at the time, the experience sucked. I wouldn't do it again no matter what. I'm still very good friends with my fraternity brothers. But that was 20 years ago. With a the benefit of hindsight, I know I would never do it again. Doesn't change my nostalgia and fond memories though.

kcirrot wrote:

There is an untapped market, and eventually an MMO developer will realise that,
First of all though, those developers need to realise that the bulk of WoW players are not MMO players, they are Blizzard fanatics. They are not players an MMO developer should be courting. When a few developers come to this realisation, it is only a matter of time before someone makes an MMO based on the pre-GoD EQ model.
If nothing else, the pre-vanguard hype proved that this was possible, but I think this type of game scares developers. It is a game catering to experienced MMO players, players that are not afraid to call the developer out when they make bad design decisions. While a few such players in your population is acceptable, having this player type as the bulk of your market would be daunting, to say the least.

kcirrot wrote:

because Eve and DAOC are not the same thing. I have played Eve, wasnt a big fan of the leveling system (some like it, I didnt). I played DAOC for a good long while, great game, but I am less of a pvp player and more of a pve player.
I will say no game has even come close to the pvp that DAOC offered. Not even close.
If Project 1999 had not been an Emu server I would play it, but as it is, I do not like Emu servers and do not support them as technically they are illegal. I played the last progression server in EQ1 and had an absolute blast. While it wasn't quite the same as originally, it was close enough that I loved every minute - 3 and 4 hours LFG's and camping my Vex Thal key and all - I loved it.
I will go back and play a progression server again if Sony releases one (which they look like they might! Wohoo!!) I cannot wait for a new progression server, especially if its time locked - 3-6 months per xpac would be awesome!
Then again I am someone who loved Shadowbane when the vast majority of the MMO population at the time thought it was way too hardcore-insane to be played. Shadowbane was conceptually one of the greatest games ever created.

This is one reason I loved Aion, It was a grind. You formed groups and grinded mobs for hours on end, loved it. I miss that, While questing can hold my attention for a while If I could get AA's by just getting into groups and grinding mobs at the same rate as questing I would in a heartbeat.
Give me oldschool grinds and camping anyday over instances and 5 minute respawns.
P.S. Vanguard was a great game, still is, and I think Sony has done great things in fixing what was a terribly bugged and unplayable game - but the old school class design as well as some hardcore playing elements is what makes Vanguard so amazing now. its too bad Brad was so terrible at management, because hes a great designer just never give him money. Vanguard has quite possibly the best class design of any MMO ever released - simply amazing and all Fantasy MMO devs should take a page from Sigil's book when designing fun, unique, and challenging classes.

For me, the best MMO ever created was EVE, but EQ is a short second. I also would never play EQ again. I don't have time for it.
I liked the risk, reward system in EQ, but I, and I think most people, don't have time for the 3-4 hour LFG waits. And yes, I've done that myself. We don't have time to camp a mob for hours and hours.
I like the concept of an MMO, and I like playing MMOs but I can't have a system where I spend all that time being unproductive.
Hopefully the next installation is in the middle.

kcirrot wrote:

1.) SoE bought out the project before it released, so it was in their control when it flopped. So technically they rescued the game, but not like you imply.
2.) due to Sigil running out of $$ and SoE having to acquire the game, it was released early with a ton of bugs, horrible optimization, and was generally broken.
If Sigil had more money and time to continue development and make a good advertising push it could have easily rivaled Eq2, alas the $$ and thus time ran out, and SoE thinks advertising is the devil. SoE did do a good job at getting the game playable though, and last time I played they had made some really good changes. Too little too late in the end.

PinChaser wrote:

1) That is not true. Vanguard original producer was Microsoft and they put up a hefty portion of the bill at first - Later Microsoft got tired of Brad McQuaid's terrible management and pulled out of the project. This forced Brad to go back to SoE (His old employer) to find publishing (Something he really did not want to do - as his frequent rants on the FoH boards attested to). Vanguard was released on January 30th 2007 - SoE took over Vanguard on May 15th 2007. So there was a couple months there that Sigil and Brad were in charge.
2) Upon its released Brad used to love to tout how Vanguard was the most expensive MMO produced yet - Unfortunately what he didnt like to say was that he was squandering all the money they had on redundency and things that were not helping the game. Sigil had a TON of money and the reason SoE eventually forced them to release (which was a good while after they became the publishers) was because they were fed up with how much red Vanguard was in. John himself made the comment soon after they took over Vanguard that if he had had any idea how bad of shape and in debt Vanguard was they would have never bought it.
So Sigil and Brad had more money than any MMO before Vanguard's creation - Money was not the issue, It was Brad's scope and his inability to correctly manage a development team - as was confirmed by many ex-sigil employee's on the FOH boards after they were fired by SoE.

Naelael wrote:

You are aware that if they SELL an expainsion to the F2P players they will also be SELLING it to the P2P too, and that ANY development beyond OP stat gear and easy leveling will be added to BOTH servers right?

Cusashorn wrote:

As in removing the Zone line between Ant/TS. They can't even take the doors away and make them a zone line without alot of work.

You know what is so ironic. I just saw the announcement and details of the upcoming 17th expansion for EQ1.

• +5 Level Increase – Achieve a New Max Level of 90 and set a new standard of gameplay

• More than 800 AAs – Elevate your power and abilities beyond the norm

• In-game Housing Addition – Make your permanent mark on the world! Collect and display treasured items

• New Housing Trophy System – Display your trophies and receive statistical benefits

• Hundreds of new housing items to decorate your house to your own style

• 18 Raids – Collect valuable rewards from all new adventures

• 13 Zones – Be the first to discover untouched lands of Norrath

• 450+ Spells – Exponentially add to your caster’s arsenal

• 17 Missions – Experience intriguing lore and immersive Missions

• 120+ Quests – Challenge your skills and gather useful loot

• Inventory increase – Indulge the packrat in you and collect even more game goodies

Is it just me, or is this EQ1 expac a lot bigger then the Velious expansion for EQ2.
Guess EQ2 is doing a hell lot worse than most people think.

Jerokane@Antonia Bayle wrote:

The EQ1 xpacs are always better than the EQ2 xpacs. It could be that EQ1 is so old that they have developed tools to really streamline the xpac process. It could be that they just have a better producer (They do).
This is the kind of thing that the EQ2 velious shoulda looked like... Oh well.

Please NO MORE ISLANDS IN THE SKY for Velious

Trevalon wrote:

Everquest has always been more about Quantity over Quality. Unfortunately, Quantity is what EQ2 needs at this point.

Cusashorn wrote:

I dunno Cusa, I don't think the quality of EQ1 stuff is any less than EQ2. I just think that its so old that its just easier for them to create the content.

Cusashorn wrote:

Really? Between TSO scaled instances, SF and Velious pt. 1 there's going to be a very large amount of content in T9. I just wish we had a group instance matching system like Battlegrounds (well maybe one that works a little better ).

kcirrot wrote:

A cross server LFG lobby so that we can form our own groups would be the way to go.

I know server merges are incoming soonish, but I do think that cross server grouping is something we really need in EQ2. It would encourage more grouping for those turned off by the endless LFGing on low populated servers or at odd times. It can feel like a dead game when you sit for hours without getting a group and this would solve that problem by giving a virtually endless pool of people to group with. WoW's has worked well but has its problems. If SoE could iron out those issues then it could potentially bring some much needed life back into EQ2.

Jerokane@Antonia Bayle wrote:

My comments in green obviously. While I am not SoE's biggest fan atm, I think the expansions seem about equal. Just because a number is higher does not mean that more work was put into it. I do hope they make Velious right and more things will be added but for being 6 months out, we have a pretty decent chunk announced so far.

where do you see that we get 10 lvl increases ?
i think we dont get a lvl increase with the new xpac ( fine for me )
but hopefully more than lousy 50aas. even with the grind over 220 this days , my chars got way to fast caped and left a couple month after xpac with nothing to do than some raidgear updates.

What little news about this xpac hardly filled me with joy suffice to say at this moment in time i dont have high hopes for it.

Grobi wrote:

I believe he/she is saying that everytime we get a level cap raise it MUST go up 10 levels, while EQ1 can increase it by 5 levels, that is twice the amount of work for the EQ2 devs. As such we get level cap increase every other year while EQ1 can get them every year if they want, and they would still end up with the same overall increase in levels over a 2 year period. As for the number of AAs, that is yet to be deturmined, I am hoping for 50ish all for to be spent in a new tree, or as addtions to exsisting trees. Though I wouldn't be upset if it was more like 70AAs, even if you end up spending some of them in exsisting trees.
As far as the number of zones go, remember it is not seperating overland and dungons like EQ2's list does so thier 13 zones could very easly be just like our 13 Total zones(not counting Raid zones). Also I do believe that many of EQ1's raids are contested raids, so how many of those raids will be of that type, meaning one off kills, while I am willing to bet that most of ours will be full raid instances, as most players don't like the single room raids.
Lastly, it is much simpler to do art and such for EQlive because it is a much older game, and does not have the polly count and such that EQ2 has.