What I want in Everquest 3

Noaani wrote:

Perhaps it's because people like Norrath, it's lore, it's gameplay mechanics, it's looks, and many other aspects. NWN is not EQ2. Dungeon Siege is not EQ2.
EQ2 actively seeks out solo players and group players. There's nothing wrong with a solo player (or duo/trioer) who plays this game. Telling a solo player to go play NWN2 is the same as a solo player telling you to go play DDO, which is designed pretty much exclusively for groupers. What would you say if someone asked you to do that?
As groupers and soloers have often complained, EQ2 is specifically designed to provide solo and group content. Whether you like that or you don't (no matter which side of the debate you're on), it's a game for both. No side owns the game.
Personally, I like it that way. I love the variety and I love the fact that no matter how I feel (group, solo, duo), there's adventures to be had in Norrath.
It always amazes me when people actually try to reduce the active accounts playing this game by telling people to leave it. Everyone's money contributes to the budget that allows us more content. At this point, I doubt EQ2 would survive as a purely solo, duo, full group, or raid game. It needs all the accounts it can get, and I am happy to have anyone come to Norrath. It's a great place to adventure.

sgbarber wrote:

Lol.
You're...none too intelligent if you believe that people who play solo "...play an online game [alone]."
In an MMO, there is an economy. There are chat channels in which many people participate, and are considered to be a part of the game experience.
Nobody plays entirely solo, and if they do (in a combat sense), what's it matter to you? Why does everyone have to play the way you want them to play? Communist, much?

Soloing doesn't give folks an aversion to grouping. Bad community, poor group rewards, and improportionate solo rewards vs. grouping (being able to level faster, or of equal efficiency to a group, solo). If groups gave better rewards; more xp than soloing (significantly more), then you'd see a lot more grouping pre-80. As it is, I can solo all the way to 80 and have little to no consequences to that decision.
That isn't the fault of soloing. It's bad game design.
Forcing people to group (literally) isn't an intelligent way to design a game, as there wouldn't be anything interesting (read: comabt related) to do while one waited for a group.

Besides, what makes soloing worse than grouping? It's the same thing (clicking, killing monsters, exploring), just without other people. A difficult solo encounter (very rare these days, all mobs have become pusillanimous wimps) is just as challenging as a difficult group encounter...it's only the difference of having other people with you. If you're just dying to converse with others, take to guild chat, level chat, or tells.

Conversely, the same can be said of the opposite situations: lack of group content. It's boring (IN MY OPINION) to solo for the entirety of your gameplay time. That, to me, is a very drab way to spend one's time in an MMO. But again, that's just my opinion, as I know there are those who enjoy exclusively soloing.
The bottom line, is that limiting peoples' options is the most foolish way one can possibly approach MMO design. It worked with EQ because people didn't have any defined standards; nobody knew anything different (a tribesman from the Amazon is going to be amazed by Newyork city, but he was perfectly content with his jungle because he wasn't aware that any higher standards of living existed). It wont work now, because people know that there are other ways to go about the process of leveling in an MMO, and waiting 1-2 hours for a group just wont fly.
The days of 100 people in LGuk are over, friend (ha...I still remember having a group and camping a normal mob, because it was that crowded). No longer do folks see grouping as the only path to the endgame, or, more accurately, enjoyment of the game. You'll never bring back that kind of ideology, because we've been exposed to "better" options (more independence).


Soloing isn't your enemy. Bad game design is.

I would not play a game where soloing was not a possibility. One of the reasons I loved my necro and b.eastlord from eq1 was the ability to just get on and go explore - I culd kite, fear kits, and do things with my time - If I needed to step away to play with kids or do other family things I could just FD and come back at a latter time and pick up where I left off. I currently don't play my toons designed to group when I ahve other things going on outside the game for just this reason. When I ahve time to grp I log my guard or inqy, when I don't ahve time to grp and I know I will be getting interupted alot I won't weigh a grp down with AFK activity (or inactivity as the case may be). I play my necro or my brawler.
Soloing is part of any MMO. No serious solo expects to be able to achieve raid gear or gear on par for soling. Soloing classes such as necros are in the game for a reason - becuase noot everyone ahs the time or desire to grp up all the time. Sometimes people just want to be left alone to do their own thing - hence soloing.

Responses are in blue

Tisera@Unrest wrote:

I was an EQ1 addict, I'd like the original EQ1 including hell levels and corpse runs with an updated graphics engine and an updated crafting system.
Almost nobody will agree with that but that was my first MMO and I loved it, it's what I learned to love even if I hated it somedays it was "The Best of Times"
Okay I'm done dreaming carry on.

Zorastiz@Antonia Bayle wrote:

I can definitely appreciate that feeling. EQ1 was my first MMO as well, and I dont' think I ever had a day in that game that wasn't fun.
I think many of the complaints with EQ2 aren't about the game itself. I think EQ2 is a great game, and in many (if not most) ways, it's far superior to EQ1. However, it doesn't feel like a sequel to EQ1. It feels like a completely separate game set in that universe. I think many people's problem is rooted in the expectation that EQ2 would actually be just an updated, shinier EQ1.
If EQ2 had been called "Everquest: The Rending" or something like that, and if they had given very accurate expectations of what the game is, I think a lot of people would have had a better impression of it.
Personally, I'm a fan of EQ2, and it's where I'll be playing. I love the game. But I can definitely appreciate the feeling that many fellow EQ1 vets have about the game. In a lot of ways, they're still waiting for a true EQ sequel.

scruffylookin wrote:

I agree with you completely, I think when I first bought EQ2 I didn't read much about it I just ASSUMED things but it's ok I like EQ2, even if I keep wanting it to be the true successor to EQ1.

Set out the classes in advance and STICK TO THEM.
Make it the corporate mantra to always try and add, rather than replace. The nerf bat should be an instrument of last resort, as part of this I would advise keeping figures as low as possible to start off with, e.g. Stats measured in the 10's and 100's rather than 100's and 1,000's.
Avoid removing quests and other content unless it truely conflicts with new content (which should be rare). Qeynos and Freeport are a lot less interesting thanks to the removal of so much low level content (and then leaving the npc voices just to remind us of the quests that no longer exist!).
Make zones scalable (with a minimum level) from the start, so if somebody wants to catch up on a lower level zone they have the choice of doing it at their current level (naturally it still won't be anymore challenging than mentoring down, however the loot could be made appropriate to the level, even if only restricted to treasured equivalent).

Just to add my 2 cents:
Make the world really dynamic. If a area/zone is not used by the players the monsters in the zone start multiplying and start growing stronger. Then they should start expanding their locations until they are checked by the players. Just inmagine the gnolls in antonica growing strong enough to assault and overrun Qeynos unless the players do something about it. If players don't do something there would be no save banker, mender or any other NPC. They would all be killed by the gnolls. Make the players fight for each piece of the world.
I would love to see such a game.

I'd definately prefer zoned over seamless. WoW is seamless and you're playing in a little bubble with shadowy haze obscuring the landscape a couple football fields out. The detail and clipping is just way too low.
When AoC came out, it was about time for me to buy a new machine, so i had that game in mind when i put this together. The game was crap but the graphics were stellar. I remember working my way up one of the highland walls and just looking clear across the zone and seeing trees and rocks on the opposite wall. I could see npcs that i wouldn't have been able to hit with a sniper rifle. There was so much detail and spectacular lighting. The game just looked beautiful, something i don't see a seamless world accomplishing. And no matter how good a seamless world looks, it could look a whole lot better if it was zoned.
Landscapes don't blend and gradually shift from say tundras to prairies to dessert over large regions. What happens is you reach the edge of the tundra, which always happens to be a mountain range with a small pass and a chicane (whether it's seamless or zoned), then the next zone is cached and loaded. Using seamless regions is just salesmanship. It seems like a good, immersive idea, but the tradeoff isn't worth it. You're removing that loading screen when you get to that mountain pass, but you're also taking out a large amount of graphics detail.
Looking at the advantages and disadvantages of both, i see zoning as the clear victor.

sgbarber wrote:

Yeah!!! SoE would love to make an MMO that only needed one server and 500 players max.

...sarcasm

double post

A whole lot of ppl will most likely laugh at this, but here it is. Make it a more adult version of Free realms. Not the whole game, but most of the concept. Make it huge. put flying mounts in ala Vanguard. Put in a trading card game that is actually part of the game. I love the dungeon system in free realms. I think a ton could be done with that in an mmo. I'm 36 years old, I got a free realms account for our daughter so she could play a game like mom and dad does. I'm hooked on it worse than the kid is. I believe a free realms type of EQ would be totally awsome. It could of course do without the cartoonishness of FR. But like I said, its a fun addicting game. It takes a lot for me to want to play anything other than EQ2, I think they would have a winner on their hands if they did it that way.

obikenkenobi wrote:

Or just improve vanguard lol. Seriously they only have like 4 active devs. Sometimes i wonder how long they are going to hold onto vanguard.

Just a thought.
I am not serious.
Tank
Warrior: high taunt, high mitigation, middle avoidance, low dps, snap aggro
Paladin: middle taunt, middle mitigation, middle avoidance, low dps, heal, hate transfer(Amends)
Shadowknight: low taunt, middle mitigation, middle avoidance, high dps, liffetap, stoneskin
Samurai: middle taunt, low mitigation, very high avoidance(than current Brawler), Bushido (Utsusemi=stoneskin, Feint which halves the taken damage, Evasion which increases avoidance and so on)
Melee Attacker
Assassin: pure dps
Rogue: dps + debuff
Bard: dps + buff
Berserker: dps(dual wield of axe, leather gear, berserk)
Monk: dps
Spell Caster
Wizard: pure dps
Enchanter: dps + crowd control + buff + power replenish
Necromancer: dps + debuff + utility
Healer
Cleric: Reactive Heal + damage shield
Druid: HoT + buff + utility
Shaman: Ward + debuff + bane warding
Specialist
Pierrot: he act the crown and performs. he makes a mob laugh loud and attracts to his performance. he makes a mob lose the will to fight.
Bstlord: no need of more comment

I'm sure I'll get some ... interesting ... responses from this, but I wrote up EQ3 in a bit of a different direction as far as ideas went. Check it out:
http://wiqdintentionz.com/studios/blog2/?p=521
And feel free to respond, positively or negatively

Kanolth@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Hmmm, check out Lotro, its very detailed, if of course you have a computer that can run it at high settings.

Let a player have multiple classes in one toon through AA

I honestly think SoE should pay for my house bills and for my food as well seeing as how I'll be playing for 9-12 weeks constantly just to get to level 50....

Kaerou@Antonia Bayle wrote:

Me too, reading through that original list it very much felt like redoing EQ1 with newer graphics and no Frogloks, I love the non human races in EQ2 and for me its that sort of detail that really appeals. If there were no Frogloks I'd not be playing.
As for the rest of it, the ideas come over to me as mainly being hardcore, losing 5% XP because your computer DC's doesn't sound like fun to me, just failing at something (and having to res and run back) is enough of a downside for me. At the same time though I'm not for easy mode everything like WoW has done, its gotten to the stage there where their top item level (epic) can be picked up with little effort at all, unfortunately it also gives little sense of accomplishment too.
For me there has to be a finely tuned balance there, right now I think WoW has gone beyond this currently, but since its a MMO the community itself sort of gives the game momentum even when the game design isn't delivering, we'll see if I'm right I guess.
I think the next MMO will be taking things on a way further, I'd like to see pvp as a side game you can jump into when you want a change of pace (why not after some quests get a crystal that allows you to teleport to the DoS arena for a pvp fight, with the quest updated each expansion, it could bring the pvp part of EQ2 alive again).
I'd also like to see some zones where you are automatically grouped up and fight some really big battles/run quests, while getting a group up for a dungeon is good fun sometimes waiting around is a turnoff. While not all of the game can be done without having a tightly coordinated group such as high end raiding, on the other end of the scale questing certainly doesn't need that sort of skill already, so spicing it up with large groups quests done in this manner, probably zone wide would be great fun.
And I think one of the big things for future MMO's will be breaking out of the linear mould, I'd like to see raid and dungeons where you go in and it might involve say 5 different sections with 3 different things that can happen in each zone, that's got a lot of replayability and you cannot just read up the strategy and follow it by rote to clear it, instead as a player you need to react and overcome it.
I'd certainly like to see the gear scale with the expansion pack you are in to prevent the oddity where a high level character solo's the guy who was supposed to be a threat to the world 3 expansions ago, e.g. now your level 80 top end armour would scale to the same top end that was available at level 50 if you head back to that zone.
I expect newer MMO's will have us interacting with the world even more, we can run, walk, climb, but thinking up ways to interact more with the world will give a much richer experience, simple things would be more detailed and fluid animations, destroying walls/doors.
Seamless play I think will be the way to go, right now memory is exploding in capacity, having multiple zones in memory should be possible, although you'd have to then limit detail depending on the persons hardware.
As Ikke mentioned too having dynamic worlds where npc communities change over time, that's one of the big good ideas with Eve giving the players a world which they can change, I'd certainly like to see this rolled out into a fantasy world. In this case it could even support having multiple home cities. I know playing a Froglok I'd feel a sense of accomplishment every time we pushed our domain out a little larger as a side game to the levelling,pvp (it could be part of pvp) and raiding, and feel a bit sadder when the other faction sharing that zone (e.g. Trolls) gutted another of our villages.
That's my thoughts so far, but above all keep Frogloks in