Everquest Next announcement coming 2 August in Vegas

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
the group required part is also an Achilles heel. What if your class isn't in high demand, or your in game friends slowly get bored. You might end up sitting around waiting for hours instead of actually playing.

100% agree.. mage in EQ1, "group looking for more" ME, ME!!!! "your a mage? no thanks, you cant DPS, your pets agro, ... oh can you give me some wfood and water, then piss off"

fixed with mana stones, and call of hero.. cool, now mages are requested to groups. mana stones and call of hero nerfed to worthlessness.. back to square one..

I think a game needs solo content, not with great rewards, but so you can do something while waiting. IN fact solo content should be slower, less exp, and less reward by far.. but not eliminated.. and not like EQ 1.. kill 3 things, sit for 30 minutes, repeat.. (please, no your doing it wrong.. at some levels you can slaughter, at others you are forced to the pick and poke kills)..

and that is the real point.. why WoW is the massively successful game it is.. and is amazingly easy at any level (even the Heroic stuff) its a jack of all things.. there are no Items in the game you cant get.. while in EQ1.. without 30-40 dedicated people you simply did not see certain area's, items, dungeons.. and lets be clear.. DEDICATED in EQ1 was way different then in WOW.. i can do heroics on greens if i play well.. (and the group isnt all pissy about gearscore (now gone)) in EQ.. you wiped, no if's, no maybe's without perfect timing and groups.. was that good? Not really, no game should demand 100% for 5-10 hours to get 2 people (of 30) items.. but damn.. that guy with the ubergreen armour of end game.. you didnt see 35 in front of the bank like you do in WoW.. you saw one.. and wondered WTH did he get that? for months.. till another showed up..

Sorry after the easy sauce of WoW.. only the few will ever enjoy challenge again... to easy to just fall back to "i will have if i just try again" mode.

disclaimer: EQ is still my favorite.. but going back now is like a High school reunion.. fun , but damn i don't want to be here for more then a few hours..

all opinions!
 

jaedaliu

Platinum Member
Feb 25, 2005
2,670
1
81
100% agree.. mage in EQ1, "group looking for more" ME, ME!!!! "your a mage? no thanks, you cant DPS, your pets agro, ... oh can you give me some wfood and water, then piss off"

fixed with mana stones, and call of hero.. cool, now mages are requested to groups. mana stones and call of hero nerfed to worthlessness.. back to square one..

I think a game needs solo content, not with great rewards, but so you can do something while waiting. IN fact solo content should be slower, less exp, and less reward by far.. but not eliminated.. and not like EQ 1.. kill 3 things, sit for 30 minutes, repeat.. (please, no your doing it wrong.. at some levels you can slaughter, at others you are forced to the pick and poke kills)..

and that is the real point.. why WoW is the massively successful game it is.. and is amazingly easy at any level (even the Heroic stuff) its a jack of all things.. there are no Items in the game you cant get.. while in EQ1.. without 30-40 dedicated people you simply did not see certain area's, items, dungeons.. and lets be clear.. DEDICATED in EQ1 was way different then in WOW.. i can do heroics on greens if i play well.. (and the group isnt all pissy about gearscore (now gone)) in EQ.. you wiped, no if's, no maybe's without perfect timing and groups.. was that good? Not really, no game should demand 100% for 5-10 hours to get 2 people (of 30) items.. but damn.. that guy with the ubergreen armour of end game.. you didnt see 35 in front of the bank like you do in WoW.. you saw one.. and wondered WTH did he get that? for months.. till another showed up..

Sorry after the easy sauce of WoW.. only the few will ever enjoy challenge again... to easy to just fall back to "i will have if i just try again" mode.

disclaimer: EQ is still my favorite.. but going back now is like a High school reunion.. fun , but damn i don't want to be here for more then a few hours..

all opinions!

EQ gave solo content a bandaid. You can hire a merc. At first it was just cleric and warrior, but they've added more classes now. The game's also free now, so feel free to download it and give it a spin.
 

imaheadcase

Diamond Member
May 9, 2005
3,850
7
76
I think they should do a Skyrim type of travel, long as you have visited the place you can travel to it. But, the further you are from the place, the more it costs to fast travel to. That way in encourages moving around for lower levels, and those who don't want to at higher levels don't have to.

The one thing I don't want to see is freakin mounts, mounts are terrible. It might just be me, but they remove immersion in a game. Its like "hey lets put a random animal in the game that has no place for people to ride". Or Pets at all.
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,010
2,344
136
There needs to be a balance. If I log in and can't get a group right away, I need something meaningful to occupy my time other than shouting 'LFG!' in global chat over and over. If players routinely log in, are unable to get in a group, they will quickly lose interesting and stop playing the game all together. Sometimes I don't want to run through a dungeon with a group of people, sometimes I just I want to kill things on my own for a while.

I think there definitely needs to be solo content for the times you just don't want to group, but at the same time there needs to be a push towards grouping. And there is a delicate balance because you don't want it to seem forced/artificial. Grouping needs to be enjoyable. I really believe in grouping even though there are times I want to go solo. The reason is I think it helps a game when you require interaction with fellow players. It also fosters a tighter gaming community.

Bull. Quests should be fairly common to provide a framework for players to work with. Remove the majority of the quests and you've just guaranteed the game to be nothing but tedium and grinding. Yay, I just killed 10 wolves and have 10 pelts! Now what? Sell them for a few coppers and repeat until I get a group? Boring.

I'm not a big fan of questing just for questing. I played RIFT for about a year, and while it's ok at first, the forced path that the quest hubs bring you to are just annoying. I don't need 50 quests in Quest Hub A, which leads me to 50 similar quests in Quest Hub B. I'd rather do with less quests.

Also, think of how most of the quests in EQ1 were set up. You had to figure out how to solve them. There wasn't that "quest on rails" feel that we see in a game like RIFT. To date, one of the most enjoyable RPG quests I've ever participated in was the Enchanter Epic 1.0 when the whole player base participated in trying to solve the many parts of this quest. Most of the objectives were brain teasers that required you to know the game world and use your class abilities. I thought that was damned cool.

If the MMO world is large, and Norrath certainly is a large world, it needs a way for players to efficiently get around in the world with sufficient content density too. Exploration is one thing, and its great. But if I'm an hour walk away from a group, odds are that they don't want to sit around and pick their noses for the time it'll take me to walk there. Does every player need a teleport spell? No, but there should be ships, carriages, mounts, etc that can rapidly get me around the game world without reducing the game to a tedious jogging simulator.

Sticky one. I can see both sides of the coin. On the one hand, do I want to spend 30-45 minutes running from the city to the dungeon? On the other hand, what made EQ1 so memorable was that we had to learn the game world. You had to traverse and explore.

Again, take RIFT, you had fast mounts so quick in the game, and your natural run speed was so fast, the game world never really sticks in your mind. I can still traverse old school EQ1 zones even years after having not played EQ1 and yet I can't really remember how the zones are in RIFT.

The one thing I don't want to see is freakin mounts, mounts are terrible. It might just be me, but they remove immersion in a game. Its like "hey lets put a random animal in the game that has no place for people to ride". Or Pets at all.

I like mounts, just no flying mounts. They can't be gained too freely. Make them earned. Again, RIFT practically gives away mounts and fast ones at that. There is no feeling of empowerment that you can run 40% faster, it's practically expected that you have a mount.

I have zero problems with pets. Give me a pet that I can interact with. Allow me to level up the pet on my smartphone of choice. Make it an optional side activity (like crafting). It gives the casual player more things to do.
 

TheUnk

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2005
1,810
0
71
I think there definitely needs to be solo content for the times you just don't want to group, but at the same time there needs to be a push towards grouping. And there is a delicate balance because you don't want it to seem forced/artificial. Grouping needs to be enjoyable. I really believe in grouping even though there are times I want to go solo. The reason is I think it helps a game when you require interaction with fellow players. It also fosters a tighter gaming community.

Yes there should be solo content, but not necessarily in the form of leveling exp, at least at a rate worth doing.

If you don't get groups because you picked a class nobody wants, that is a game balance issue that should be fixed, not a reason to add in solo play.

My view on the biggest problem with solo leveling is that people always take the path of least resistance. Even if you only get 50% of the exp that you would with a group, it's far easier to just hop on and go at it without speaking to another soul. Start when you want, quit when you want, no worries about upsetting other players. Sounds good, but that's a single player game.

Too much solo play means you'll have far more than enough people running solo that could have easily grouped up but didn't bother trying. It was painfully clear in SWTOR last I remember playing. Even with the group finder it could take hours to get one started, primarily because everyone was off doing their single player game.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
If you don't get groups because you picked a class nobody wants, that is a game balance issue that should be fixed, not a reason to add in solo play.

I think the issue is moreso that there typically are X number of DPS looking for a group, Y number of groups, and Z number of tanks and healers where X >>>>> Y >= Z. Actual classes being undesirable is somewhat of a niche scenario, the overall situation is that there are almost always a glut of damage dealers and a shortage of tanks and healers, leaving DDs (most players) or tanks without a healer (and vice versa) waiting and looking for some way to kill time.
 

HarvardAce

Senior member
Mar 3, 2005
233
0
71
Yup, and if they follow the same model, there will be pay2win aspects. (faster xp for subs, etc)

Your definition of pay2win and mine are different, then. I view "pay2win" as a pay shop where the best items are only available through a pay shop. In other words, if you want to be the best, you have to pay.

What you describe is "pay to save time" -- in PS2, you can't get anything that increases your in-game success that you couldn't also get through dedicated grinding. The items that are only available for purchase with real money are cosmetic, while the unlocks that you can purchase with real money are also unlockable through XP or in-game currency.

I'm not a huge fan of that kind of shop either, but you can be just as successful without paying money -- you just have to spend a lot more time. The larger issue is when the game is still new -- people who have paid to do the unlocks and such can be way ahead of people who are playing the game religiously, which I don't like. A pay shop should be a way to "catch up," not "leap forward" of people who are playing religiously. Once the game has been out for a while, then this becomes somewhat moot because the playing field has once again been leveled.
 

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
Everything i read is its F2P, but it seems there is some question to that? I have no issue with the faster exp pots and such.. you want to pay to get to the end faster.. IMHO you are losing out.. (if the game is not a grindfest to start with) racing to the end is sorta silly, unless you just want to get endgame and be done. Now if you can buy Uber sword of insta killl.. thats not good..
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Your definition of pay2win and mine are different, then. I view "pay2win" as a pay shop where the best items are only available through a pay shop. In other words, if you want to be the best, you have to pay.

What you describe is "pay to save time" -- in PS2, you can't get anything that increases your in-game success that you couldn't also get through dedicated grinding. The items that are only available for purchase with real money are cosmetic, while the unlocks that you can purchase with real money are also unlockable through XP or in-game currency.

I'm not a huge fan of that kind of shop either, but you can be just as successful without paying money -- you just have to spend a lot more time. The larger issue is when the game is still new -- people who have paid to do the unlocks and such can be way ahead of people who are playing the game religiously, which I don't like. A pay shop should be a way to "catch up," not "leap forward" of people who are playing religiously. Once the game has been out for a while, then this becomes somewhat moot because the playing field has once again been leveled.

Planetside, which is also SOE, is having a controversial problem with paid unlocks right now though. They are releasing new guns and vehicles that are overpowered, and leaving them tuned that way to get people to buy them, then nerfing them down the road.

It is quite literally pay2win in that sense, because by the time the people grinding get the gear, it is nerfed into balance.
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,010
2,344
136
Yes there should be solo content, but not necessarily in the form of leveling exp, at least at a rate worth doing.

If you don't get groups because you picked a class nobody wants, that is a game balance issue that should be fixed, not a reason to add in solo play.

On the subject of class balance, I don't view it as Class X and Class Y must do roughly equal damage. I think this is the wrong approach. Class balance is largely a matter of proper class design. The correct approach is Class X and Class Y must bring something decent to the table and have situations where they are the man.

For example, in old school EQ1, paladins weren't that great dps wise but properly built, they could do very good undead damage. Paladins still need to bring enough utility and tanking for other situations though.

Too much solo play means you'll have far more than enough people running solo that could have easily grouped up but didn't bother trying. It was painfully clear in SWTOR last I remember playing. Even with the group finder it could take hours to get one started, primarily because everyone was off doing their single player game.

I'm a firm believer in grouping and player interaction. I feel this is one of the biggest flaws with WoW and WoW clones like Rift. Basically with those games, I can get to max level without needing to interact with anyone else. Then all of a sudden I'm expected to group and raid if I want to do anything else.


And the new EQ Next music sucks. They should have redid the original EQ1 music.
 

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
embargo's lifted and tons of videos and info is coming out all over, wow
 

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
Gameworld is destroyable, it is made up of voxels

Lots of info, good article considering it's Kotaku
http://kotaku.com/two-astounding-new-everquest-games-are-coming-full-de-1002721647

ku-bigpic.gif

ku-xlarge.gif

ku-xlarge.gif
 
Last edited:

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,010
2,344
136
Watching the keynote.

Zones look very nice. Stylistic.

The character sketches didn't look that hot but the ingame translation looks pretty nice. Not a fan of the new Kerran look though.

The jumping and gliding reminds me of Chinese MMO's like Age of Wushu.

I had hoped that some multi-classing would be allowed and was just announced. Nice.

More action oriented. I really hope it's not an area-effect burn fest like some MMO's recently.

Destructible environments sound cool.
 
Last edited:

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
You won't need eight or more hotbars like my poor Fury! Combat will consist of four skills and four weapon moves at a time. The weapon moves depend on what weapon you have equipped, and what skills you have at your disposal depends on what classes you have discovered and learned.

The Joystiq article sounded neat up until that point. I thought that weapon based skills was just awful in GW2. Though at least they're wising up "one character, multiple jobs" finally, one of the absolute best things about FF imo.
 

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
They took the sandbox concept and really ran with it with like everything, damn.

The AI stuff sounds amazing.

The destructable world is going to be awesome. Being able to fall through a whole to an underground cavern and there are multiple layers of underground as well as nearly the entire world having a subterranean world as well as the surface.

Over 40 different classes you can find and mix and match skills to make your own class and what armor you want to wear and everything.

wow those Rallying Calls sound amazing. Basically a public quest that is server wide, takes 2-3 months to complete and changes the game world permanently and all the stuff is random.

Dynamic quest system with how new quests appear due to changes in the world from what you and other players are doing...just wow
 
Last edited:

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Looks like they hit a home run with AI and such.

But struck out (at least with me) the art style, and action based combat.

So far.

I have to watch more stuff. So far I'm having a mixed review between "OMFG that's awesome" to "failboat."
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Hmm this is sounding pretty crazy. They're even releasing what appears to be a Minecraft-esque game to help shape the EverQuest Next world.
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,010
2,344
136
Looks like they hit a home run with AI and such.

But struck out (at least with me) the art style, and action based combat.

So far.

I have to watch more stuff. So far I'm having a mixed review between "OMFG that's awesome" to "failboat."

Agreed.

AI sounds amazing with the dynamic content. The rallying call (public quests) sound nice because the quest objectives can change depending on what you do. Mob placement and behavior can change as well, which is cool. No more static camps.

Again, I'm not sure I like the more action oriented combat, but I'll have to play it to see but it seems like that might be the weakest part of the EQ Next announcement so far.


EQ Landmark...this is possibly the most intriguing announcement. Even more so than EQ Next. This sounds like the real sandbox MMO. The Garry's Mod of MMO's so to speak. Now I understand why MMORPG and Ten Ton Hammer gave this the best MMO award for E3. There are still things I'm not so hot about but this is the most intriguing MMO I've seen in the last 5+ years.


Sony...shut up and take my money!
 
Last edited: