Everquest Next announcement coming 2 August in Vegas

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Phobic9

Golden Member
Apr 6, 2001
1,822
0
71
Most news is good. These two are not. Need a rallying cry against the devs.

Worst idea in MMO gaming history.


I agree with this. When I first heard them hyping up GW2, the lack of a trinity sounded like an amazing idea to me. I didn't realize just how much I actually liked the trinity until I did a few dungeon runs in GW2.

I'm not sure if they're better now, but I really disliked dungeons in that game. Pretty much just a bunch of people running around shooting spells at whatever. Yeah, they added some elements to add some strategy but it wasn't all that memorable.

I got to play the beta test for FFXIV and while that game really isn't anything new it made me appreciate that every player has a role and is useful in a group. This is why I play these games. Soloing is fine and all but it gets old fast for me.

And why are games getting away from threat generation as well?
 

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
Not a fan of no holy trinity. Even in GW2 where there wasn't one, people still wanted the Gladiator that was more of a tank than anyone else in a group to "tank" (dunno if that changed, haven't played GW2 in quite awhile). I am a fan of the trinity personally as I really like playing healer classes. This is the one thing about EQN that has me worried with the combat and all.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,686
81
91
Hated EQ2, but maybe this game will be different. Did anyone here play original eq on bristlebane, circa 1999-2002? Those were the days! I used to play that game way too much. I even used 3 computers for that crap - 2 characters on 2 different pcs, and then one running linux with showeq.

I liked that there was a much bigger power disparity between a well geared max level character and one poorly geared in eq than in wow. And the twinking! I had a level 29 cleric with a res stick, not that it could be used yet, but it was fun. And who could forget the fungi tunic. wow just has boring heirlooms. But i guess this isn't exactly on topic.
 

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
It was in an IRC chat second-hand, but I heard they might not have autoattack.

Do people really want to mash a button multiple times per second for every attack like WoW and its clones?
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,010
2,344
136
It was in an IRC chat second-hand, but I heard they might not have autoattack.

Do people really want to mash a button multiple times per second for every attack like WoW and its clones?

God I hope not, the button mashing and having to cast/activate 7 spells or abilities in 5 seconds is not my idea of fun. It's not that I can't handle it, but having done expert level dungeons and raided in Rift, it's not my preference.


And also, the more I think about it, this game should not have carried the Everquest name. This game needed a clean break without the EQ baggage.
 

Peppered

Senior member
Jul 3, 2009
397
0
0
Hated EQ2, but maybe this game will be different. Did anyone here play original eq on bristlebane, circa 1999-2002? Those were the days! I used to play that game way too much. I even used 3 computers for that crap - 2 characters on 2 different pcs, and then one running linux with showeq.

I liked that there was a much bigger power disparity between a well geared max level character and one poorly geared in eq than in wow. And the twinking! I had a level 29 cleric with a res stick, not that it could be used yet, but it was fun. And who could forget the fungi tunic. wow just has boring heirlooms. But i guess this isn't exactly on topic.

I can"t remember what server I was on but I haven't had as much fun with any mmo as EQ1.

But I had to quit because I couldn't spend as much time with it.
I am looking forward to this game though to try it out and hopefully it will be as good as it looks.

If they do what they are talking about and it works good it will be a hit I think for a lot of folks
 

Phobic9

Golden Member
Apr 6, 2001
1,822
0
71
Isn't this the first MMO franchise to get three releases?

Asheron's Call got 2.

EQ has already had 3 releases if you count the first console one which was Everquest: Online Adventures for the PS2. The game ran for 9 years before they shut it down.
 

TheUnk

Golden Member
Jun 24, 2005
1,810
0
71
I agree with this. When I first heard them hyping up GW2, the lack of a trinity sounded like an amazing idea to me. I didn't realize just how much I actually liked the trinity until I did a few dungeon runs in GW2.

I'm not sure if they're better now, but I really disliked dungeons in that game. Pretty much just a bunch of people running around shooting spells at whatever. Yeah, they added some elements to add some strategy but it wasn't all that memorable.

I got to play the beta test for FFXIV and while that game really isn't anything new it made me appreciate that every player has a role and is useful in a group. This is why I play these games. Soloing is fine and all but it gets old fast for me.

And why are games getting away from threat generation as well?

GW2 is such a failure to me. The only cooperation amongst players seems to be the fact that they are all attacking the same enemy. It's so amazingly boring.

I think I'm gonna play FFXIV too. Grouping with other players is the main reason I play these games, and having to rely on them to be successful is important to me too. I don't want it to be "every man for himself" style gameplay. It's dull.
 

diesbudt

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2012
3,393
0
0
Interesting thread here on Reddit about some info gained at the EQNext panel. Here's a few tidbits:


  • Holy trinity is dead. No dedicated healers or focused tanks based on combat mechanics.
  • Combat model: visceral, active movement orientated gameplay.
  • Everyone is responsible for their own safety, and part of the action.
  • There is no threat meter/agro/taunting.
  • Utility classes will be rewarded for their efforts
  • NPC's will figure out your tactics and react. You're gonna want some friends to play with you.
  • There is no artificial limitation to the number of classes/abilities you can collect.
  • 8 combined abilities. Kind of like choosing your 8 spells in EQ1
  • The ownage we saw in the gameplay footage isn't going to be the norm. Those were highly advanced characters.
Color me more disappointed. Too soon to tell still but sounds like GW2 to me.

This alone already sends a lot of red flags to me, and has turned me off in looking at trying this.
 

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
Sep 16, 2005
15,682
14
81
www.markbetz.net
agh, I don't think we will ever see a great MMO again.

Keys to a great MMO, IMO:

1. No levels. Skill based system.
2. You can't be a jack of all trades, you have to specialize your skills.
3. Becoming 'max' in skills is hard, but doesn't take years. It's not the point of the game. It's really just a byproduct, or a choice.
4. The game is about you and your stuff. You need to be able to build houses. You need to be able to collect rare things, you have to replace armor/weapons or whatever you use for magic.
5. PVP. Anywhere. Anytime. This is the key. You have to be able to be killed by anyone at anytime. There need to be harsh consequences for killing people randomly, but it is a choice that should be allowed. Why is Call of Duty so popular? Multiplayer. How about playing Madden online vs the computer. Multiplayer. MMO's are not multiplayer unless you are playing AGAINST other players. No dragon can compare to the cunning of another player.
6. To go along with this. You die, you lose what you are carrying. The game isn't about having the best items. Items can make a difference, but they are also replaceable. Whoever kills you, or anyone in the area can get your items that you drop.


After that, there is a lot you can do with the game, but I consider those to be core elements that an MMO needs for me to consider it. Without that, it's just not fun.

You pretty much described Darkfall there, with the possible exception that they removed most of the alliance-based mechanics, and so there isn't much penalty for killing others in whatever circumstances.
 

EDUSAN

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2012
1,358
0
0
i dont care that much about several classes or no classes. if they make the game work with whatever they chose, its fine by me

What really got my attention was the destroying stuff that will, eventually, heal.
The permament landscape changes from events, that was REALLY nice. I coul see myself idling ingame just waiting for an event like that to jump in
Motivation IA for NPC? it sounds REALLY hard to do, but if you could do things like... form an alliance with an orc because you promised him one of the things you liked, it would ROCK... stuff like that add so much to the game for me

I didnt quite get the landmark thing. its like 2 games completely? people would be able to do dungeons on the landmark for other players to play? that wold be awesome
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
6,010
2,344
136
Think of EQ Landmark as the wild west. I go out west, find my own plot of land and do whatever the hell I want on it. Be it build a beautiful park, a huge castle, or some twisted dungeon.

Again, the mob AI and event/quest system seems intriguing but the combat is drawing a huge negative for me. I really hope this game is fun.

Either way, with such a drastic combat change, I really think they should not have used the Everquest name. There's nothing wrong with creating a new name with unique back story. Hell, it could even be similar to EQ, just should not have used the EQ name. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that the original Everquest name evokes slower paced combat, higher difficulty, and lots of player interdependence.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
Yeah, EQ landmark is mostly a way for them to test out the completely destructible and multi-layered world IMO. That is a huge undertaking as no MMO has ever done that, and I think it sounds really cool - it opens up a LOT of news ways to think of combat and PvP. (Do I kill this stone golem or just blow a hole in the ground that he falls into? Do I want to kill this player or maybe I can just destroy this bridge that he's running across? It also creates a lot of cool stuff for massive PvP scenarios, think castle sieges and what not..)

So basically they're letting you build and destruct the world with landmark. The other elements of EQ Next are still being worked on, landmark is primarily building and destroying, and the means for them to test that aspect out. You can also presumably win content creation contests. They haven't said this outright, but I think Landmark is mostly a way of them testing out the "destructibility" aspect of the world. If they do that right, it will be awesome - but done the wrong way, it can be a liability for the actual EQ Next game (and opens up a lot of griefing/trolling).
 
Last edited:

Grimbones

Senior member
Jun 12, 2004
551
0
0
It was in an IRC chat second-hand, but I heard they might not have autoattack.

Do people really want to mash a button multiple times per second for every attack like WoW and its clones?

Actually, WoW had an auto attack feature. I am a fan of auto attack in general, and do not like games like SWTOR, which--in place of auto attack--required you to spam click an ability to generate a "mana" resource. Really got tedious really fast, and distracting when wanting to focus on actual strategic gameplay.
 
Last edited:

Mandres

Senior member
Jun 8, 2011
944
58
91
Maybe I'm just tired of the RPG part of the MMORPG, where the gameplay revolves around killing monsters and leveling up and collecting gear. I'm definitely tired of solo based MMORPGs where you grind alone for hours and hours to finally hit the level cap and start the 'real game'.

I'm a little more excited about the world-builder game they're talking about that EQ:Next. I think a MMO-Minecraft could be amazing. Why isn't anybody working on that? Hell, incorporate the Oculus Rift and make it a fully VR-based world and you'd have something amazing...
 

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
Actually, WoW had an auto attack feature. I am a fan of auto attack in general, and do not like games like SWTOR, which--in place of auto attack--required you to spam click an ability to generate a "mana" resource. Really got tedious really fast, and distracting when wanting to focus on actual strategic gameplay.

Ah, see, I never actually played WoW, but since SWTOR and Rift both seemed like WoW copies in UI at least I figured, like them, WoW didn't have autoattack.

Either way, come on SOE, wtf?
 

HarvardAce

Senior member
Mar 3, 2005
233
0
71
For those of you talking about a lack of Holy Trinity, I was also initially disappointed. Having played GW2, I saw the same thing -- people weren't really playing together, just happened to be attacking the same thing. However, I did some further reading, and found the following:

In some other games that have gotten rid of the tank and healer roles, I’ve seen a collapse of team work and group strategy. What kind of things are you doing to counteract that possibility?

The AI really does a lot for us in this area. You will have to form strategies. These NPC’s don’t just do things on a triggered time basis. They will figure out what you are doing and try to counteract that. You will have to work together to get these things done. We like that sort of gameplay, and it helps to build a community. I want to go in and play with people that I play well with or I think play well. We are definitely cognizant that that has happened before, but we will require playing with people and forming strategies and stuff.

We will demonstrate this more as we talk about EverQuest Next in the coming months, but we have a very detailed and intricate plan for the strategy and tactics of moving around and fighting. The NPC’s are capable of executing strategy and tactics, and you will require them to overcome them. We are saying no specific role or pair of rolls is integral to unlocking the strategy of each encounter, and that’s one of the things as game designers this is a broader answer, going back to the original MMO’s and single player games where there are multiple characters on the screen at one single time, we have had this sense of simplistic tactics where one character absorbs the focus and damage of one or more attackers, and one other character keeps that character alive, while all other characters get to effectively do whatever they wanted to and have fun. It is really that core thing that we are releasing. It is not to say we are walking away from roles. It is certainly not to say we are walking away from responsibility, both personal strategic and tactical responsibility. Effectively, we want every single person playing the game to have fun. I refuse to have my guild fall apart because Terry decides he does not want to play anymore and he is our primary healer. This is a responsibility that we have created as game developers, and we are abandoning it. We are not going to put our players through that. We have seen the damage it has caused over the last 15 years. We are moving beyond it with this design.
…
I was the off tank in my guild for many years. I also played that role because I liked being the person that everyone depended on because I knew I would be there for everybody. Love to the healers and tanks who have sometimes sacrificed their personal enjoyment. Why could you not play an ALT on Monday night? Well, because people wanted you to come tank. So you dumped what you wanted to do and went and did what other people wanted you to do for them. The cohesion that that has created in our communities is significant to us, so we won’t be abandoning roles. We won’t be taking the care and interest that you have shown in creating your characters and throwing it away. We are going to latch on to that and perpetuate it, just not in a way that creates the situation we described before.

If that's the case, then maybe not having a pure holy trinity isn't so bad, as long as there are still defensive/healing/support specializations possible in addition to just DPS.

The following site has a good collection of all the information that has been released so far:
http://www.eqnexus.com/forums/threads/eqnext-information-index-use-this-thread.527/#post-5692

As for the continued discussion on F2P, SOE's MMORPGs have always been more of a Free to Try rather than Free to Play -- if you really want to play the game you have to pay for a subscription. Pay to Win, to me, is a game that doesn't have a subscription and requires lots of microtransactions to actually be successful.
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
I will withhold my judgement until I get the chance to play it, but I am not a big fan of the art direction/graphics. I was hoping for more gritty/realistic. The skill system looks interesting though, as long as it means there are a number of viable builds. I am tired of DPS as king that all MMOs seem to employ. Hoping there is real strategy and options for builds and grouping.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Guild Wars 2 has a "trinity" but its not the traditional one. Its support, dps, and control. No doubt EQ Next might not have a trinity of traditional classes but I'll bet one will form or be there at launch as there will be 40 classes (32 you discover on your own) and you can mix and match skills from each classes unlike in GW2. In fact this kind of reminds me more of Final Fantasy Online's approach to classes.
 
Last edited: