Contested content: yea or nay?

Not ALL of them. And there are many, many choices out there for those who feel that way. They are demanding, whiny children who are just going to run off to "the next big thing" anyway.

Seriously? Necessary? Absolutely not. They are, apparently, for the soulless vacuum of a game that YOU appear to want. I don't want to do the same content over and over again. That's the DEFINITION of grinding. It's stupid, pointless, and doesn't belong in ANY RPG. Is this or is it not an MMORPG? And the "most players won't go through all ten dungeons anyway" comment....why not? They will if there are compelling reasons to. For example, quests that direct them in there, rare crafting components, perhaps even particular dungeons that are the only place to mine certain metals....

The problem here, is you obviously have been raised on spoon fed instanced dungeons. You, and many people who are fans of them, apparently think of "dungeons" as a separate "thing" to be done, a "dungeon run." That's the whole PROBLEM. If the world is dynamic and well constructed, a dungeon isn't just a mini-game, it's an important part of the whole world! Which is why it's SO important to keep it PART of the world.

Sounds terrible. Absolutely terrible. I love to solo...but NOT IN MY OWN WORLD. The whole point of soloing is to sneak around, work around, a living world. That includes other players! If their idea of a "solo path" is to let me run dungeons solo, completely isolated....NO THANK YOU. Why am I even playing an MMO at that point? Do people actually "solo" like that? Ugh.

Yeah, this one I can agree with too. The coins are a bad idea.

No, Spencer. Go BACK and reread/rewatch the developer information. Everquest NEXT is SUPPOSED to be a sandbox game. That's the only reason a lot of us are even here. Landmark is something else again...at this point they're not even sure if the beta will have combat ready. It's a big construction set.

If the dungeons are changing via emergent AI and procedural generation of content...which I agree is an absolutely incredible idea....doesn't it absolutely negate the necessity of instancing in the first place? Or are you just so into the idea of "MY DUNGEON! MINE!" that you can't stand the idea of having multiple groups in there at the same time?

Which is bad. Which is why after 6 years of downward spiral, I quit WoW for good last year.

If I could have "thumbs upped" this 10 times I would have ) Excellent point.

It doesn't absolutely negate the necessity of instancing. Instances for story finales to allow everyone a chance to participate in the story finale is important. In general, it's not necessary.

Instances in the long term actually create less content available for the majority of players.

Lets use WoW for example though I hate using it as an example:
31 Instances from Vanilla WoW
24 Instances from BC (40 if you count Hard Mode)
29 Instances from WotLK (45 if you count Hard Mode)
21 Instances from Cata (26 if you count Hard Mode)
13 Instances from Panda (22 if you count Hard Mode)

99.9999% of players only do the current Instances with the best rewards. Out of the total 114 Instances WoW has at best only 13 are currently being used. 101 instances collect dust and are never played or experienced by the vast majority of players and that is a massive waste of content. .0001% of players may explore them but that is it.


I do not like instances and hope for the majority of content to be contested. I also understand that there is a massive amount of players who want instances.

Easy solution. Only have a few instances at any current time. Once new instances are created convert the old instances into open world contested content with its gear/difficulty changed accordingly. The throw-back servers will have it as open world content (may have to wait a little while).

Would prefer as much of the content be viable even after players have outgrew it. Someone in an early discussion mentioned mobs growing stronger the longer they are alive could be added into the mix also.

I think the instances should be temporary since they are for story finales.
After a week or so, the chapter should be complete and the instance shut down.
Dungeons aren't repeatable in EQN.

yes, people really solo like that. i soloed the dungeon in west karanas of EQ1 for most of my level 40 range. i wouldn't say its my favorite and maybe if other options were known to me at the time, maybe i wouldn't have, maybe i would. why would you want to limit someone elses solo experience? because it isn't the experience you want?

/sigh, why so rude? obviously that isn't the experience you are looking for in a mmorpg but it doesn't mean that it doesn't have its place.

fair enough, but the bottom line is that according to the poll on this topic, only 17% feel everything should be contested, 5% don't care, that leaves 78% wanting some sort of non-contested content. i agree with this 100%, the question becomes HOW MUCH? surprisingly (imo), 19% want everything contested, that means more people want it more like WoW than like EQ pre- LDoN. i really hope they develop something in the middle and not swayed to the extremes of the 17% and 19%.

i see your point but can see the same being true for the less popular leveling zones. not so much for WoW because quests really send you all over the place. EQ1 however, when Planes of Power came out (maybe even prior), the old expansions basicly became ghost towns (with the exception of the popular grind spots).

great ideas. especially the first one.

I agree the less popular leveling zones tend to be ghost areas which sucks. People end up only doing the same areas and ignore other vast areas.

Do not remember the MMO but someone mentioned one where the longer the monsters survived the more exp the players earned for killing them. I feel they can improve on that with the games emergent AI.

Example:
Crushbone has not have any groups in the last week and it allows the orcs (or whatever has moved in) time to fortify their environment. (players get Rally Calls that enable them to build up defenses and become stronger so why cant dungeons have the same type of system).

Day 1: Groups are in crushbone and orcs are unhappy so decide to go elsewhere. Orcs are slow to respawn so the majority of groups decide to find a new place to explore.
Day 2: No groups are in crushbone but the orcs are still scared so a weak force of kobalds decide to move in.
Day 3: The kobalds begin fortifying their new home and invites tougher kobalds to join them
Day 4: Tougher kobalds keep showing up and the area is now pretty well defended and tough.
Day 5: Orcs show up and make decide to form an alliance with the kobalds
Day 6: A goblin envoy shows up and offers an alliance. A few powerful goblins move in.
Day 7: A group shows up and begins fighting. It is very tough but fun and new.
Day 8: A powerful dragon arrives to help its goblins allies. It requires a raid force to defeat.

The above is only one area in vast open world. Doing the above on a grand scale and there will be no need for instances or the same raids.

If the above system is done right properly then their could always be solo/group/raid content that changes depending on players.

In the example above after the kobald/orcs/goblins/dragons are defeated a evil group of elven necromancers moved in and raised an army of undead kobald/orcs/goblins/dragons that would require a massive community effort to keep from spreading across the surrounding ares.

Players can instead try to create a camp site. Later as long as enough players are participating they can increase it to a small fortified camp, then slowly increase its size all the while royally pissing off the orcs. Greater and greater forces are being thrown against the players fort to no avail until finally a strong enough enemy force appears. They new conquerors may destroy the fort or move in and continue building/fortifying it.

There will be the Rally Call for us players but lets the monsters also have Rally Calls where they can build their dungeons, forts, and cities. With story bricks an emergent AI it can be worth it.