EverquestNext - Catch All

Pages

In fact we just heard from the TSW folks that they are regretting trying something different.

That is sad. I don't think TSW's issues are from trying something different. For whatever reason, GW2's combat really clicks for me and TSW's just did not. I know there are those who would attest to the opposite but well look at the numbers...

I do have hopes that Smed and Co can work something different. I would start by looking at refining and branching out from DCUO. That mmo had great promise with regards to using the environment in encounters. And also, DCUO with TSW's skill system would be a pretty epic foundation.

Yeah, I don't think I'll ever play any MMO that does not have dynamic combat. TSW and GW2 really upped the game in skills, classes and combat. Letting a player be versatile is very fun!

I continue to be excited and energized by the fresh ideas percolating into the online games space. Change or die, right?

Very excited.

Michael Zenke wrote:

I continue to be excited and energized by the fresh ideas percolating into the online games space. Change or die, right?

Very excited.

Ya know we're hoping for something along these lines from your current project but don't have enough info to comment

Change for the sake of change isn't the way to do it, although sticking to making clones because "that worked for them, so it'll work for us" isn't either. I just hope "we're different, so it follows that we're good" isn't the next groupthink that companies to crash into. We need companies with enough design freedom to make changes they genuinely feel are good, but not throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks when big stakes are on the line, hopefully this is the former.

The Smedley quote is also just a bit light on details, so I'm going to wait for them to reveal a bit more before running around like a headless chicken by someone just claiming they've got the next great thing. That kind of thing happens twice a week in the games industry.

Scratched wrote:

Change for the sake of change isn't the way to do it, although sticking to making clones because "that worked for them, so it'll work for us" isn't either. I just hope "we're different, so it follows that we're good" isn't the next groupthink that companies to crash into. We need companies with enough design freedom to make changes they genuinely feel are good, but not throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks when big stakes are on the line, hopefully this is the former.

The Smedley quote is also just a bit light on details, so I'm going to wait for them to reveal a bit more before running around like a headless chicken by someone just claiming they've got the next great thing. That kind of thing happens twice a week in the games industry.

Don't think anyone is suggesting that either or the chicken running either but it is nice to see that folks haven't given up on thinking outside the box

What I think Scratched is getting at, that I agree with, is that we see all sorts of people in the industry, especially in the MMO space, claiming outside the box, new thinking that turns out to be a very slight variation on all that has gone before. SWTOR, WAR are some pretty solid examples of overpromise and under-deliver.

AnimeJ wrote:

What I think Scratched is getting at, that I agree with, is that we see all sorts of people in the industry, especially in the MMO space, claiming outside the box, new thinking that turns out to be a very slight variation on all that has gone before. SWTOR, WAR are some pretty solid examples of overpromise and under-deliver.

While WAR definitely under delivered from what they promise i dont agree that SWTOR did. They pretty much nailed everything they promised to give. They were marching pretty much in step to the plans they laid out from the start. Which is why bunch of folks, myself included, talked about this game not being able to live up to it's pedigree. I was bitching about the lack of end game way before launch, and their attitude that having you reroll a new toon was their idea on extending their 'story' pillar. Which was sadly just confirmed during a recent GDC presentation. This is where we see Bioware not thinking outside of the box. They tried to contain a mmo inside the boundries of a single player RPG and we've seen the results of that.

I still see Smedely's comments as a positive. Will they be able to deliver? Who knows. I suspect a lot of whats happening in PS2 will determine that. If they apply some of that tech and the stuff they learned while working on The Agency to Everquest... I can see them on the right track of being able to make those claims. I'm glad they've not let the market scare them completly away from the genre.

I am still sore about the cancellation of "The Agency". And now, if that is the type of sandbox stuff they are talking about for EQ Next, then color me much more intrigued than from "we are building the largest sandbox EVAR".

It will be interesting to see what they do with the Player Studio (player created [textures, models] items) and if it will continue to development into EQ Next.

fangblackbone wrote:

I am still sore about the cancellation of "The Agency". And now, if that is the type of sandbox stuff they are talking about for EQ Next, then color me much more intrigued than from "we are building the largest sandbox EVAR".

It will be interesting to see what they do with the Player Studio (player created [textures, models] items) and if it will continue to development into EQ Next.

Keep in mind i dont know if they're carrying over The Agency tech, but it would seem silly not to especially since they were so far along with it.

If we get a streamlined sandbox I'll be interested for sure. If I'm still killing rats in any form...

That was sort of the thing with "The Agency". There was supposed to be a commander role were you could create missions by selecting (creating?) objectives that your friends could go accomplish. So if you wanted to, you could be 100% or 0% kill ten rats quests as you saw fit.

I personally like kill quests.

ranalin wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

What I think Scratched is getting at, that I agree with, is that we see all sorts of people in the industry, especially in the MMO space, claiming outside the box, new thinking that turns out to be a very slight variation on all that has gone before. SWTOR, WAR are some pretty solid examples of overpromise and under-deliver.

While WAR definitely under delivered from what they promise i dont agree that SWTOR did. They pretty much nailed everything they promised to give. They were marching pretty much in step to the plans they laid out from the start. Which is why bunch of folks, myself included, talked about this game not being able to live up to it's pedigree. I was bitching about the lack of end game way before launch, and their attitude that having you reroll a new toon was their idea on extending their 'story' pillar. Which was sadly just confirmed during a recent GDC presentation. This is where we see Bioware not thinking outside of the box. They tried to contain a mmo inside the boundries of a single player RPG and we've seen the results of that.

I still see Smedely's comments as a positive. Will they be able to deliver? Who knows. I suspect a lot of whats happening in PS2 will determine that. If they apply some of that tech and the stuff they learned while working on The Agency to Everquest... I can see them on the right track of being able to make those claims. I'm glad they've not let the market scare them completly away from the genre.

With TOR, I remember a lot of talk about story, and intensiveness, and how Flashpoints were going to be like the assault on the Death Star. What we got was that you spend probably 20% of your time on your class storyline, and Flashpoints, while interesting, were nowhere near as cool as the Death Star assault, provided that you could convince 3 other people to run one with you. They hyped up a bunch of stuff that was supposed to be compelling, awesome content, and yet, one of the major complaints about it all is that it wasn't from what I've seen.

So, Smedley. I'm completely unconvinced about all of this. I remember was SWG was like, and I remember SOE announcing the combat upgrade, and how it was supposed to fix everything, and we got this great big buggy mess of trash. I remember them going on to even further break things, and how patch by patch, the game got worse. And Smedley was one of the driving forces behind all of that, in the face of massive amounts of negative feedback. Did he acknowledge the screwup after the fact? Sure, but after that, I have zero faith in his ability to deliver on anything worthwhile at this point.

fangblackbone wrote:

That was sort of the thing with "The Agency". There was supposed to be a commander role were you could create missions by selecting (creating?) objectives that your friends could go accomplish. So if you wanted to, you could be 100% or 0% kill ten rats quests as you saw fit.

Wasn't it City of Heroes that eventually allowed players to create their own missions and you ended up with tons of mission where you walked into a room, opened a giant box full of influence (or whatever their currency was called) and walked out? I swear I'm not making that memory up... completely. It just seems like any game that allows user created content has to put certain limits in place to prevent "missions" from becoming free loot pinatas.

Yes. That happens in every user generated content patch. Sometimes its the min/max of clumping that most brain dead enemies that give the most xp. Sometimes its a griefing trap where you spawn into a clump of chain stunning enemies that kill you and then the respawn spot is another trap or there is some graphical glitch where you can't get your bearings.

There are zillions of exploits. But the Agency just allowed you to set goals on a pre-existing world instead of creating the whole shebang.

Isn't EVE the largest sandbox MMO? And isn't UO, still the largest fantasy sandbox MMO? I am skeptical of all MMOs because there isn't a lot of creativity out there. These games are too big and too expensive for people to really push it.

Ulairi wrote:

Isn't EVE the largest sandbox MMO? And isn't UO, still the largest fantasy sandbox MMO? I am skeptical of all MMOs because there isn't a lot of creativity out there. These games are too big and too expensive for people to really push it.

Darkfall is bigger than UO now, and ya EVE is currently the largest.

Smedley talking about Next again...

"Players will get their hands on an actual release version of what we're doing late [this] year -- and I don't mean a beta," he said.

I've remained very curious about what form Everquest Next will take since it first started getting talked about at all. I would really like it to be something that manages to rejuvenate my excitement for an mmo like none of them have done for a long time.

With Archage offically coming to the US i'm curious if it'll still be considered the largest sandbox mmo.

I am x-fingers this is what I have been waiting for...

I would love to see EQ Next be a marriage of parts of Planetside 2 and DCUO mechanics.

From Planetside 2:
leveling only makes you more versatile and not necessarily more powerful
vehicle/mount/turret based PvP
vehicle/mount/turret based group pve and raids

From DCUO:
environment exploration and manipulation based movement powers and combat skills
incremental look upgrades to armor or equipment

fangblackbone wrote:

I would love to see EQ Next be a marriage of parts of Planetside 2 and DCUO mechanics.

From Planetside 2:
leveling only makes you more versatile and not necessarily more powerful
vehicle/mount/turret based PvP
vehicle/mount/turret based group pve and raids

From DCUO:
environment exploration and manipulation based movement powers and combat skills
incremental look upgrades to armor or equipment

Sorry but for me i hope it doesnt come close on any of those points. (kinda could go for the first point from PS2, but i want both not just the one)

Just not what i want in my Everquest

Being able to switch roles like PS2 would be good, although it makes more sense in the big open world of PS2 more than it might in a closed instance.

Just not what i want in my Everquest

Well with the "world's most uber sandbox" credo they've been throwing around, this ain't going to be your mother's EQ.

I threw that stuff out there because I think it solves the level power gap in pvp. It also solves the I need a solo spec and a raid spec problem. Also it eliminates the "everyone wants to be dps so the dungeon finder queue for my class is hideously long".

The vehicle stuff also solves the problem of friends grouping together that level at different rates.

The stuff from DCUO I really like because it will many layers to stealth, trap, ranged and acrobatic classes.

fangblackbone wrote:
Just not what i want in my Everquest

Well with the "world's most uber sandbox" credo they've been throwing around, this ain't going to be your mother's EQ.

I threw that stuff out there because I think it solves the level power gap in pvp. It also solves the I need a solo spec and a raid spec problem. Also it eliminates the "everyone wants to be dps so the dungeon finder queue for my class is hideously long".

The vehicle stuff also solves the problem of friends grouping together that level at different rates.

The stuff from DCUO I really like because it will many layers to stealth, trap, ranged and acrobatic classes.

I know it wont be my mother's EQ. Better qualifier i guess would've been fantasy mmo.

When i think sandbox i think of a game stripped down. A game without the training wheels.

With this being a sandbox there wont be a solo spec/raid spec problem. There also wont be dungeon finders. What you will probably have a problem with is FotM builds. If your party isnt made up correctly then thats the players fault. Not the games and the players should plan or organize accordingly.

The vehicle stuff you mention i just see as more training wheels. Players of different 'levels' will probably be able to see the same content, but those that are too low will have to be more careful.

The problem i had with DCUO combat was that it was fun and unique when you were solo, but once you got into a dungeon it dropped down to feeling like almost all other mmos out there.

some snippets from pax east

Shifting gears to EQ Next, Georgeson still wouldn't reveal what it was that caused SOE to scrap its original plans and start over, but he did say that what the studio was originally making was basically "EverQuest 2.5," and that wasn't going to make anyone excited. When he took over the project, he brought in new people to sit down to make big lists of "Holy Grails" for MMOs and lists of things they hated in MMOs. They didn't allow themselves to stop retooling what the game was until they satisfied those things. The end result is "an MMO you've never played before," he told me. "It's a completely different critter."
But is it a risk to make an MMO that's so different from what players are familiar with? Georgeson acknowledges that it's a risk, but he's very confident that his team is on the right track. He said that the unfamiliar is going to be OK because the ideas are so cool that players will want to stick around to find out about them. At the same time, SOE is trying to make the game more intuitive. The longer a game's out, the harder it is for new players to jump into the game easily. With EQ Next, SOE is making sure to take care of accessibility now, not later

The latter quote scares me that it'll be too simplistic. We'll see.

garion333 wrote:

The latter quote scares me that it'll be too simplistic. We'll see.

I'm thinking of PS2, where everyone pretty much has all the basic tools to contribute right at the start, but there's a lot of specialisation and sidegrades you can do.

All I know is, I shouldn't let myself do this, but I'm pinning an awful lot of my hopes for a new mmo to really grab me on whatever Everquest Next turns out to be.

Pages