EverQuest:Follow Up Take
Adam Connor
>Until alt.games.everquest shows up on my news server, I will place
>this here...
>
>I've played Everquest so far one full night on a 56K
>dial-up/P200MMX/ViperV330/D3D, so now's the time to do the "first
>impression" thing. On the school scale, I give it a B+. Other
>scales...four stars outta five, two thumbs up, 87%.
... [thoughtful review snipped]...
>So, my first impression of Everquest is very positive. I'll be back
>in a couple weeks or so to give an "after the honeymoon" review. :)
-------------------------------
I played EQ for almost four weeks, had a love/hate relationship to it,
and finally gave away my online possessions and canceled my account.
Obviously, I can't give it a "B+". Maybe a C+... Warning: long review
follows.
The good stuff:
The 3D world was wonderful. The animations for the monsters were very
well done, they landscapes are at times beautiful. The 3D sound also
worked very well; I was occasionally able to hunt by it in the dark.
There are many race/class combinations to choose from.
The game was quite stable, with no crippling bugs. The initial week
and a half was pretty rough (hard to logon, etc.), but it improved
quickly. The company seemed very focused on solving problems, rather
than denying them.
The networking worked great for me; little lag, and even when the
packet loss was high (in the first week), the game played well. The
only problems were in logging on in that first week.
I can't really comment on PKing, because I never played UO, but EQ did
seem to prevent non-consensual PKing. Most of the players are
courteous and even helpful (not all, of course).
The other human beings give the game a spontaneity and ambience that
solitary games can't really duplicate.
The so-so stuff:
While the 3D engine is fine, the gamma correction didn't work at all
for my TNT-based card. This was a problem, because nights in EQ are
very, very dark. (No moons, or something.) I had to crank my
brightness all the way up, and it was still too dark for some of my
human characters. It was pretty dark even for my ultravision
characters.
The game supports high-resolution (1024x768), but cannot display the
frame around the view at this resolution.
The 3D engine doesn't draw distant objects. This becomes a problem in
areas that have creatures like griffins, because they appear out of
nowhere, far too late for you to run. Also, you will frequently find
yourself attacking something that according to your monitor is right
in front of you, only to get messages that you are too far away.
Perhaps this is a result of the UDP packet not reaching your machine
with the information to redraw the monster somewhere else?
The game blocks access to all other applications, apparently to
prevent cheating. While preventing cheating is a laudable goal, I
found this very irritating, especially in light of the many long waits
in the game (see below).
The world is divided into zones, and moving between zones requires a
wait of anywhere from 30 seconds to five minutes, depending on your
computer. Even if you have a fast computer, you may have to wait if
one of your party members doesn't. Moreover, you can only cross
between zones via special points on the map (kind of like, um, doors
in a room...) Daggerfall did this better three years ago --
admittedly, not across the network.
Although there are different race/class combinations, they differ only
in initial location and in their mechanisms for inflicting damage. The
goal of every race/class is the same: find weaker creatures and whack
them to death. Then take their treasures and rush back to the bank...
You cannot advance without whacking creatures, because "experience" is
measured by the quantity and quality of the creatures you have
whacked; neither long treks nor skills development counts an iota
towards raising ones "level". I would dock the game more for this,
except that this particular idiocy is so common. Daggerfall did this
better three years ago also.
There are quests, but at least at the lower levels they seemed to all
be "find the foozle" or fed-ex quests. They don't pay particularly
well; one's time is better spent whacking weaker creatures. Many
quests are broken, and Verant has set up an email address to report
broken quests... but, of course, one can't get to one's email from
inside EQ because they lock out other applications. Catch-22.
The game penalizes solo play, and as the level rises the penalties
become more and more severe. Basically, from level 6-7 on one is much
better off playing in a group.Then one can at least whack slightly
different monsters. (Below level 4 one should solo.)
Groups can be fun, but after a while one notices that it is just a
chat session intermixed with whacking. How much this appeals to you
probably depends on how gregarious you are; I'm not very gregarious, I
thought it was boring.
The world isn't very big. It is possible to walk from one end of a
continent to the other in a few days. I can forgive this for obvious
reasons, but it does hurt the plausibility. Still, it's more than big
enough for gameplay, given the constraints I will discuss below.
There is a tutorial. I would put this in the "good stuff" section, but
it isn't a very good tutorial and doesn't really cover all of the game
mechanics. But it's better than nothing.
The bad stuff:
The user interface is horrible... As an example, you must target a
character to hail or to attack. But 'a' is the auto attack key
(meaning, attack whomever is targeted). So if one tries to talk to an
NPC and neglects to press enter to open up the chat line, as soon as
one types the 'a' one ends up attacking instead. I got killed several
times this way. Another example: Many spells only affect the targeted
creature; so, if one is bashing a creature, one cannot cast a spell on
oneself. (Gerald Ford would feel right at home...) On the plus side,
one can remap the keys to a more convenient setup. The game does not
support Windows conventions at all, e.g., clicking on the scroll bar
arrows gets one nowhere.
The manual is also horrible; cynics have suggested it was an effort to
help sell the "strategy" guide, but I don't believe it because the
strategy guide is no better. Even if you love this game, you should
avoid spending money on such trash and instead use the various web
sites, e.g., http://www.eqvault.com/, http://gameznet.com/eq/, or
http://eqss.stratics.com/ .
There is no automap. There isn't even a compass. (Compasses supposedly
exist but are very rare and expensive.) One must instead raise one's
"sense heading" skill, which requires many, many thousands of clicks
of the appropriate button.
There are "trade skills" in the game, but it isn't clear that they
work well enough to bother with, with a few exceptions. Fishing works
OK for low-level characters, but takes a long time to develop and is
extremely boring. As the character rises in level fishing becomes less
and less attractive because of the value of the loot one is forsaking
while fishing (not to mention the experience). However, fishing does
provide a natural opportunity to press the "Sense Heading" button a
few million times.
The "tailor" skill does reportedly work at lower levels (I didn't try
it, but played with those who had). One can create "patchwork" armor
-- not quite as good as leather, but a whole lot better than cloth. At
higher levels one runs into difficulties because the armor to be
produced requires pieces from a blacksmith, and blacksmithing is such
a money loser that there are few to be found at the
lower-to-intermediate levels. (Say, up to 15 or so...)
Other skills have even worse reputations. One salient point: one can
not generally make a profit via a trade by selling the product back to
the vendors (except from fishing); the prices have been rigged to
prevent this, and "encourage" the development of a player economy.
Based on my four weeks, it's not working.
There is a lot of waiting around in EQ. As one levels, one takes
longer and longer to heal up after fights, because your hit points
increase but your rate of healing does not. (This effect is most
pronounced for tanks, of course.)
There are frequently not enough monsters to go around, so one ends up
waiting in line for the chance to wrack up a little experience. I
expect that this will affect those who signed on in the beginning the
most.
And when you fight the monster, what can I say? They look different,
but I didn't notice much change in strategy. Just keep whacking, and
run if your health gets too low.
I could keep going all night, but I think this is enough to give one
the flavor (as I see it, of course). In the end, I found the tedium
vastly overwhelmed the fun.
Summary: The game is pretty, has real live human beings, and plenty of
things to bash (or barsh, as we ex-trolls like to say). If you enjoy
bashing over and over while talking to your friends, you will probably
enjoy it. I kept looking for something more... and not finding it,
grew more and more frustrated. I think it's ironic that a game full of
NPCs, like Fallout, could have a more sophisticated feel to it, but
it's true. Maybe they should hire some of the writers to be GMs in
EQ...
I don't regret the $50, I got more entertainment from EQ than I did
from Baldur's Gate. But I don't think it's good enough to get really
excited about.
Mark Asher
>dern...@earthling.net wrote:
snip
>The 3D engine doesn't draw distant objects. This becomes a problem in
>areas that have creatures like griffins, because they appear out of
>nowhere, far too late for you to run. Also, you will frequently find
>yourself attacking something that according to your monitor is right
>in front of you, only to get messages that you are too far away.
>Perhaps this is a result of the UDP packet not reaching your machine
>with the information to redraw the monster somewhere else?
Yeah, I think it's lag-related and not a problem with the graphics engine.
The game disguises lag by predicting where things will be, and obviously
sometimes the predictions are wrong. It's a good scheme overall, though. I
hate being frozen in place while a game tries to deal with lag; I'd rather
be able to move about and deal with critters that aren't where they seem to
be.
>The game blocks access to all other applications, apparently to
>prevent cheating. While preventing cheating is a laudable goal, I
>found this very irritating, especially in light of the many long waits
>in the game (see below).
I'd like to be able to switch to other apps, but this is minor to me.
>The world is divided into zones, and moving between zones requires a
>wait of anywhere from 30 seconds to five minutes, depending on your
>computer. Even if you have a fast computer, you may have to wait if
>one of your party members doesn't. Moreover, you can only cross
>between zones via special points on the map (kind of like, um, doors
>in a room...) Daggerfall did this better three years ago --
>admittedly, not across the network.
This is designed to help deal with lag. Rather than having to update the
entire world for each player, only each zone needs to be updated. I'd rather
have my waiting done when I cross a zone than periodically as the game tries
to update the game world for me.
>Although there are different race/class combinations, they differ only
>in initial location and in their mechanisms for inflicting damage. The
>goal of every race/class is the same: find weaker creatures and whack
>them to death. Then take their treasures and rush back to the bank...
>You cannot advance without whacking creatures, because "experience" is
>measured by the quantity and quality of the creatures you have
>whacked; neither long treks nor skills development counts an iota
>towards raising ones "level". I would dock the game more for this,
>except that this particular idiocy is so common. Daggerfall did this
>better three years ago also.
Online games like this have no goal, really. You have to invent your own
goals. For most of us, character advancement, combat, and seeing the sights
is enough. At some point this will lose its lustre, of course, but if Verant
is smart they will keep freshening up the game.
>There are quests, but at least at the lower levels they seemed to all
>be "find the foozle" or fed-ex quests. They don't pay particularly
>well; one's time is better spent whacking weaker creatures. Many
>quests are broken, and Verant has set up an email address to report
>broken quests... but, of course, one can't get to one's email from
>inside EQ because they lock out other applications. Catch-22.
I do hope they strengthen the quests. That would mean a lot to me. I'd like
to have new set of 5-6 related quests each month that tell a story. Kind of
tough to pull off, though, when you factor in all the combinations of race,
class, and level that you would have to provide quests for.
>The game penalizes solo play, and as the level rises the penalties
>become more and more severe. Basically, from level 6-7 on one is much
>better off playing in a group.Then one can at least whack slightly
>different monsters. (Below level 4 one should solo.)
>
>Groups can be fun, but after a while one notices that it is just a
>chat session intermixed with whacking. How much this appeals to you
>probably depends on how gregarious you are; I'm not very gregarious, I
>thought it was boring.
It also depends on what you are hunting. Go into Crushbone and the challenge
upscales quite a bit. You might be able to take on the buffed up centurions,
but there are tougher orcs in the area too.
>The world isn't very big. It is possible to walk from one end of a
>continent to the other in a few days. I can forgive this for obvious
>reasons, but it does hurt the plausibility. Still, it's more than big
>enough for gameplay, given the constraints I will discuss below.
>
>There is a tutorial. I would put this in the "good stuff" section, but
>it isn't a very good tutorial and doesn't really cover all of the game
>mechanics. But it's better than nothing.
>
>The bad stuff:
>The user interface is horrible... As an example, you must target a
>character to hail or to attack. But 'a' is the auto attack key
>(meaning, attack whomever is targeted). So if one tries to talk to an
>NPC and neglects to press enter to open up the chat line, as soon as
>one types the 'a' one ends up attacking instead. I got killed several
>times this way.
You can remap this, and honestly, don't you get over this right away? In a
game like EQ the interface becomes second nature after a bit since it's
time-intensive. For me, I don't have to think about issues like this
anymore. This is not a defence of the design, but rather the observation
that interface issues are minimal after you get used to it.
>Another example: Many spells only affect the targeted
>creature; so, if one is bashing a creature, one cannot cast a spell on
>oneself. (Gerald Ford would feel right at home...)
Use the hotkey to target yourself, cast, and then hotkey again to nearest
enemy.
>On the plus side,
>one can remap the keys to a more convenient setup. The game does not
>support Windows conventions at all, e.g., clicking on the scroll bar
>arrows gets one nowhere.
The text box lets you scroll by clicking on the arrows.
>The manual is also horrible; cynics have suggested it was an effort to
>help sell the "strategy" guide, but I don't believe it because the
>strategy guide is no better. Even if you love this game, you should
>avoid spending money on such trash and instead use the various web
>sites, e.g., http://www.eqvault.com/, http://gameznet.com/eq/, or
>http://eqss.stratics.com/ .
The manual is the pits. The game deserves better, and I'm sure Verant could
have cut support costs by including better doc.
>There is no automap. There isn't even a compass. (Compasses supposedly
>exist but are very rare and expensive.) One must instead raise one's
>"sense heading" skill, which requires many, many thousands of clicks
>of the appropriate button.
There are compasses, and you can hotkey your sense heading to use it while
you are travelling. The key is to nudge it a bit with a practice or two, and
then it starts to go up. I'm level 10 and my sense heading is something like
55 now.
>There are "trade skills" in the game, but it isn't clear that they
>work well enough to bother with, with a few exceptions. Fishing works
>OK for low-level characters, but takes a long time to develop and is
>extremely boring. As the character rises in level fishing becomes less
>and less attractive because of the value of the loot one is forsaking
>while fishing (not to mention the experience). However, fishing does
>provide a natural opportunity to press the "Sense Heading" button a
>few million times.
It's also handy to do while waiting for a boat.
One thing about trade skills is that newish characters shouldn't expect to
be that great at them. A level 5 character is very weak still. If you were
good at a trade at that level, what would you be shooting for to make level
25?
>The "tailor" skill does reportedly work at lower levels (I didn't try
>it, but played with those who had). One can create "patchwork" armor
>-- not quite as good as leather, but a whole lot better than cloth. At
>higher levels one runs into difficulties because the armor to be
>produced requires pieces from a blacksmith, and blacksmithing is such
>a money loser that there are few to be found at the
>lower-to-intermediate levels. (Say, up to 15 or so...)
We just had a post in the last day from someone who got it to work finally.
The guy made 18 platinum in 20 minutes or so. He's probably still in the red
overall, but his blacksmithing future looks bright.
>Other skills have even worse reputations. One salient point: one can
>not generally make a profit via a trade by selling the product back to
>the vendors (except from fishing); the prices have been rigged to
>prevent this, and "encourage" the development of a player economy.
>Based on my four weeks, it's not working.
>
>There is a lot of waiting around in EQ. As one levels, one takes
>longer and longer to heal up after fights, because your hit points
>increase but your rate of healing does not. (This effect is most
>pronounced for tanks, of course.)
This is something that they should address, although bind wounds does to
some extent.
>There are frequently not enough monsters to go around, so one ends up
>waiting in line for the chance to wrack up a little experience. I
>expect that this will affect those who signed on in the beginning the
>most.
Depends on the server and the region, really.
>And when you fight the monster, what can I say? They look different,
>but I didn't notice much change in strategy. Just keep whacking, and
>run if your health gets too low.
Combat is pretty simplistic. Not sure what kind of tactics you can have for
melee combat, though.
>I could keep going all night, but I think this is enough to give one
>the flavor (as I see it, of course). In the end, I found the tedium
>vastly overwhelmed the fun.
>
>Summary: The game is pretty, has real live human beings, and plenty of
>things to bash (or barsh, as we ex-trolls like to say). If you enjoy
>bashing over and over while talking to your friends, you will probably
>enjoy it. I kept looking for something more... and not finding it,
>grew more and more frustrated. I think it's ironic that a game full of
>NPCs, like Fallout, could have a more sophisticated feel to it, but
>it's true. Maybe they should hire some of the writers to be GMs in
>EQ...
>
>I don't regret the $50, I got more entertainment from EQ than I did
>from Baldur's Gate. But I don't think it's good enough to get really
>excited about.
These online games are definitely a YMMV experience.
Mark Asher
Banek
Take the girlfriend to a movie and get some popcorn and soda. 20+ dollars
spent for 2 hours of entertainment.
I've already gotten over 70 hours from Everquest. So at less than a buck an
hour, I'm happy.
Banek, Xegony
> Can you elaborate on this a little Adam? I appreciated reading your
>comments about EQ and Mark's replies too. They are largely exactly what I
am
>looking for without spending $40. If you are already finished with EQ I am
>puzzled as to how you feel it was worth $50, and I'm especially interested
in
>why/how it was more entertaining then BG?
Mark Asher
>
> Clearly not many of us share exactly the same interest or abilities in
>gaming. I am in the final stages it looks like of resolving that EQ is not
my
>cup of tea while BG is for sure, and learning that UO remains not my cup of
>tea. Detractors for me are PKing, 3D polygon worlds, no story/quests.
Things
>I can ignore are frequent CD swapping and an overhead view as opposed to
first
>person which I prefer. Things I cannot tolerate are frequent timed action
>sequences. Repetitive hacking and slashing/dying and restoring can fit in
>here too. Character progress/growth and story progress without frequent
>terrible/impossible struggles... Life is to short and I'm not at war.
Don't take this the wrong way, but why not just find a store that accepts
returns and try some of these games? I think you're over-analyzing these
titles.
My personal experience with EQ is that it was a game that didn't appeal to
me when I read about it, but I decided to give it a whirl after the initial
positive reposts. I surprised myself by liking it a lot.
Mark Ashe
Michael A. Walsh
software titles.....
Mike
Adam Connor
>>>I don't regret the $50, I got more entertainment from EQ than I did
>>>from Baldur's Gate. But I don't think it's good enough to get really
>>>excited about.
>
> Can you elaborate on this a little Adam? I appreciated reading your
>comments about EQ and Mark's replies too. They are largely exactly what I am
>looking for without spending $40. If you are already finished with EQ I am
>puzzled as to how you feel it was worth $50, and I'm especially interested in
>why/how it was more entertaining then BG?
Sure. I doubt I played Baldur's gate more than 30-40 hours; I didn't
like it all that much, and quit well before the end. (My characters
had just made level 5, I think.)
I played EQ at least 80 hours before giving up on it; that's less than
$1 per hour. I think that's an acceptable price for entertainment, and
I got to learn something about online gaming.
adam connor
canderson
> >do manage these games sometime though. I finished both TR1 and 2 but was not
> >interested in 3 and Outlaws.
>
> Bad sentence structure -- sorry... I finished both TR1 and 2 and
> Outlaws but was not interested in TR3.
I think it might have been better as "I finished both TR1 and 2, but had no
interest in 3 or Outlaws."
Adam Connor
>Don't take this the wrong way, but why not just find a store that accepts
>returns and try some of these games? I think you're over-analyzing these
>titles.
>
>My personal experience with EQ is that it was a game that didn't appeal to
>me when I read about it, but I decided to give it a whirl after the initial
>positive reposts. I surprised myself by liking it a lot.
That might be good advice in general, but I question how many stores
are going to take EQ back, because once you've created an account, no
one else will be able to create another with that CD. It's not a game
that can easily be resold...
adam connor
K. Laisathit
Susan <Sus...@XYZconcentric.net> wrote:
>
> Have I been at this to long? I tried playing UO twice early on.
>I'm in my second game of BG and liking it as much as the first. I
>returned an unopened copy of EQ after watching a friend's and my own
>frustration as she played EQ for eight plus hours.
Seems to me that you need an over-arching story-line to compel
the action. I don't think that's going to be possible, or even
practical, in MMORPG. I don't think anyone has come up
with a solution to integrate a coherent story in a world populated
by thousands of players who all have different needs and wants.
I doubt UO and EQ is ever going to be right for you. Neither
will AC. Short of employing hundreds of real life human
facilitators to run a story, you can at best expect only
piece-meal quests in any of these games. My advice is,
forget about the whole genre. It's not for you.
Later...
James Garvin
Why hire them? You have thousands of DM's running around...Why not just
let a player "group" some people and DM them? He can have minor control
over events....And it will facilitate a pretty fun game...no?
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/B/H !d s+:+@ a-@ C++>++++ UL++ P+ L++>++++ E++ W--@ N++ o+ K--- w---
O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+(++) 5-- X++ R++>$ tv b+ DI+++ D++
G e+>+++ h--- r+++ y+++ A09 H+++>* P+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
White Knight
K. Laisathit <kir...@u.washington.edu> wrote
> > Have I been at this to long? I tried playing UO twice early on.
> >I'm in my second game of BG and liking it as much as the first. I
> >returned an unopened copy of EQ after watching a friend's and my own
> >frustration as she played EQ for eight plus hours.
>
> Seems to me that you need an over-arching story-line to compel
> the action. I don't think that's going to be possible, or even
> practical, in MMORPG. I don't think anyone has come up
> with a solution to integrate a coherent story in a world populated
> by thousands of players who all have different needs and wants.
>
> I doubt UO and EQ is ever going to be right for you. Neither
> will AC. Short of employing hundreds of real life human
> facilitators to run a story, you can at best expect only
> piece-meal quests in any of these games. My advice is,
> forget about the whole genre. It's not for you.
Why should they fall short of employing people to play parts of NPCs
rather than have them flat and lifeless? We're paying for this enjoyment,
right? The least they could do is let some of the really good RPers
play for free if they play NPCs and do certain things. That's how the
MUDs have stayed fresh. But anyway, the concept is DOABLE, but
maybe not profitable at this stage. I am sure that at some point it will
be though. Anyone else here read The Diamond Age (Stephenson,
I think). This world was set in the future, and there were online games
where you role-played as in a play, and the story and NPCs were all
played out by real people. This struck me as a LOT of fun, kind of
like being in an impromptu play, only in VR. I hope someday this is a
reality in my lifetime.
knight37
Mark Asher
>
>K. Laisathit <kir...@u.washington.edu> wrote
>
>> > Have I been at this to long? I tried playing UO twice early on.
>> >I'm in my second game of BG and liking it as much as the first. I
>> >returned an unopened copy of EQ after watching a friend's and my own
>> >frustration as she played EQ for eight plus hours.
>>
>> Seems to me that you need an over-arching story-line to compel
>> the action. I don't think that's going to be possible, or even
>> practical, in MMORPG. I don't think anyone has come up
>> with a solution to integrate a coherent story in a world populated
>> by thousands of players who all have different needs and wants.
>>
>> I doubt UO and EQ is ever going to be right for you. Neither
>> will AC. Short of employing hundreds of real life human
>> facilitators to run a story, you can at best expect only
>> piece-meal quests in any of these games. My advice is,
>> forget about the whole genre. It's not for you.
>
>Why should they fall short of employing people to play parts of NPCs
>rather than have them flat and lifeless? We're paying for this enjoyment,
>right?
Right, and with 20,000 players playing at peak times, how many people
playing NPCs do you need? 1000? That's still only one for every 20 players.
And that's at peak times. What about during all the non-peak hours?
>The least they could do is let some of the really good RPers
>play for free if they play NPCs and do certain things. That's how the
>MUDs have stayed fresh. But anyway, the concept is DOABLE, but
>maybe not profitable at this stage. I am sure that at some point it will
>be though.
I keep thinking we will get a game someday that will let us be dungeon
masters and create our own worlds and host our own games. Something like
this might be feasible.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
What you do is ask before you buy, and if you're really concerned, ask the
manager to sign the receipt saying he or she will accept the return. I
always just use the "It won't work on PC excuse to avoid any hassles. I've
never not been able to return a game, though in truth I rarely return games
anyway.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
>"K. Laisathit" wrote:
snip
>> I doubt UO and EQ is ever going to be right for you. Neither
>> will AC. Short of employing hundreds of real life human
>> facilitators to run a story, you can at best expect only
>> piece-meal quests in any of these games. My advice is,
>> forget about the whole genre. It's not for you.
>>
>> Later...
>
>Why hire them? You have thousands of DM's running around...Why not just
>let a player "group" some people and DM them? He can have minor control
>over events....And it will facilitate a pretty fun game...no?
And create how many complaints about unfair DM treatment, and about how the
DM is lousy and we got killed because he gated in monsters we obviously
couldn't handle, etc. How would you coordinate? One DM decides to run an
event in Lesser Faydark, only thing is, 3 DMs are running something there
also.
If I were Verant, the only way I'd do what you suggest is if I were selling
the server-side game and telling individuals to host their own game worlds
and find their own players.
Mark Asher
Stefan Raets
wrote:
>Susan wrote:
>>
>>...I'm especially interested in
>>why/how it was more entertaining then BG?
>
>Unrelated, but I found the Thief: The Dark Project demo on my Voodoo3 CD
>more entertaining than retail version of Baldur's Gate. Sure, BG is a big
>game, but horribly over-scripted and linear. Graphics were great, but...
Agreed. "Thief" is a beautiful game, actually one of those games that
just have abundant style... The little movies between missions are
gorgeous little pieces of animation, the game-play is smooth and
well-designed. A unique game, one of the only things I still play
next to EQ.
Aznyin
Level 10 Erudite Wizard in exile.
Current residence: Queynos [Solusek Ro]
canderson
> Right, and with 20,000 players playing at peak times, how many people
> playing NPCs do you need? 1000? That's still only one for every 20 players.
> And that's at peak times. What about during all the non-peak hours?
How do you figure that? Seems to me you'd need MORE NPCs than you would
PCs.
> I keep thinking we will get a game someday that will let us be dungeon
> masters and create our own worlds and host our own games. Something like
> this might be feasible.
It is being developed as we speak.
canderson
> No, that isn't right because I _did_ like Outlaws. :)
Ah, I see. I was going by the original wording and hadn't noticed that you were
correcting your own mistake. My apologies. Well, then, your correction is probably
closer to what should've been said, then. I am sorry for putting words into your
mouth. ?D-)
cap
Since it's not released in sweden yet I buy it as a "direct import"
and have to pay around $80 hehhe
But i hope it will be worth it since I'm an incurable MudAholic.
I suffer from the severe illness,
I-cant-spell-and-I-wont-quit-untill-I-instakill-anyone syndrom.
ps
is there a max XP limit like in BG?
ds
--
"There's no problem so large it can't be solved by killing the user off,
deleting their files, closing their account, and reporting their REAL
earnings to the IRS."
-Simon Travaglia (Bastard Operator From Hell)
Banek wrote in message <371cd0f4@calwebnnrp>...
>I could quit today and still feel that I got my moneys worth.
>Take the girlfriend to a movie and get some popcorn and soda. 20+ dollars
>spent for 2 hours of entertainment.
>I've already gotten over 70 hours from Everquest. So at less than a buck
an
>hour, I'm happy.
>
>Banek, Xegony
>
>
>> Can you elaborate on this a little Adam? I appreciated reading your
>>comments about EQ and Mark's replies too. They are largely exactly what I
>am
>>looking for without spending $40. If you are already finished with EQ I
am
>>puzzled as to how you feel it was worth $50, and I'm especially interested
James Garvin
> Mark Asher wrote:
>
> > Right, and with 20,000 players playing at peak times, how many people
> > playing NPCs do you need? 1000? That's still only one for every 20 players.
> > And that's at peak times. What about during all the non-peak hours?
>
> How do you figure that? Seems to me you'd need MORE NPCs than you would
> PCs.
WHAT!!??? Why? If you had more NPCs (including shop keepers, the "hero" NPC,
the guildmasters and such...Why would you need players?) You can populate the
world with SOME brainless NPCS (eg shop keepers) but for the most part the
interaction will be between the players and "main" NPCs. I don't see a need for
a world with more
NPCs than players...(they aren't that way now)
> > I keep thinking we will get a game someday that will let us be dungeon
> > masters and create our own worlds and host our own games. Something like
> > this might be feasible.
>
> It is being developed as we speak.
Do tell...I have some questions though. How are you going to manage the logistics? And what kind
of world are you going to use (AD&D, Torg, Shadowrun or some derivative there of?) A last question
will you have servers or will you have to a server (like heat.net or battle.net) that some can
start a game through?
Banek
already an expansion in the works that I believe is meant to add higher
level areas. If you are a average player it will take you a LONG LONG time
to reach level 50.
Driakos
Susan wrote in message
I am in the final stages it looks like of resolving that EQ is not my
>cup of tea while BG is for sure, and learning that UO remains not my cup of
>tea
Have you tried EQ yet or just researched it here and other places? I am
having a hell of a time getting into it. It's not too hard. It's not bad,
I just can't get immersed into it. I don't know if its real world stress
breaking my concentration, lack of interest on my half, or lack of fun on
EQ's end.
I loved UO. Just a little tired of it after a year +. I liked Baldur's
Gate, I just didn't have the drive to *get into* it. Actually, I will go
back and play BG by myself, it was just not up to the MultiPlayer challenge.
Ever wonder if you've just outgrown video games? I am having that doubt
bigtime, and I hate it. (Most likely since it's my career choice). I've
been playing them since Telstar Pong Clone in 1975.
Back on topic. EQ is a nice game. I can see myself enjoying it. I just
don't see myself being absorbed by it like other games have done. Maybe
that is why I feel let down. I have run around looking for a meaningful
quest in EQ that runs deeper than a modified courier run. Get me this.
Take that there. Gather all these things. You know something that matters!
Since the opening launch day have they had any kind of mass player event?
My biggest rush comes from trying to outrun the train some sap pawned off on
me, or trying to catch Fippy Darkpaw before he throws himself onto Guard
Hezlins' sword.
I need to be absorbed! Hack and slash is driving me crazy! I want world
shaking, plane-shattering, knockdown drag-em-out, save the King, and change
the future of the realm quests!
Yes I am low level. 10. There are plenty of things a little pawn like me
can do that affect the grand scale of Norrath. Yeah sure taking the letter
to Melia Clothspinner could actually be delivering a coded document from a
would be usurper, but it's not. Why? Cause it's been a year now in
Norrath, and Melia has gotten the same damn letter for 365 virtual days.
Tomer Instagle gets waylaid on his way to the monks guildhouse everyday.
Everyday the monk courier falls asleep on his way back from Surefall Glade.
That's why it's Everquest, cause you do the same damn quests everyday.
Sorry about all that, I guess some things had to be gotten off my chest.
I'll continue to play EQ for a little while longer. Hopefully I can get
into it.
Driakos.
canderson
> WHAT!!??? Why? If you had more NPCs (including shop keepers, the "hero" NPC,
> the guildmasters and such...Why would you need players?) You can populate the
> world with SOME brainless NPCS (eg shop keepers) but for the most part the
> interaction will be between the players and "main" NPCs. I don't see a need for
> a world with more
> NPCs than players...(they aren't that way now)
Because for EVERY players part of the puzzle, he would have multiple NPCs that he would need to
interact with in order to complete the quest. That would mean at least, say 3 or 4 NPCs for every PC.
> Do tell...I have some questions though. How are you going to manage the logistics?
I didn't say >I< was the one developing it. That's not to say I'm not either, but I am but one
person so it wouldn't matter if I were doing it alone, it wouldn't happen. However, if I ever did
complete my own then it would be a peer-to-peer game, since more often than not the DM will invite his
players in.
> And what kind
>
> of world are you going to use (AD&D, Torg, Shadowrun or some derivative there of?)
In mine (which, as stated before, is NOT the only nor is it the most likely to be completed) I'm
using a generic interface, something like using LPC or such (only I'm using Perl) to allow the GM to
define his own system (which could include importing another system).
> A last question
>
> will you have servers or will you have to a server (like heat.net or battle.net) that some can
>
> start a game through?
Peer-to-peer seems best for me. Of coz, this would not be Massively Multiplayer. But sometimes,
MM is not necessarily a good thing. Especially if you want a complex plot.
Trog
Adam Connor <ajco...@io.com> wrote in message
news:371dc26b....@news.io.com...
this doesnt bother me, but I like to be totally immersed in the game (no
email, icq , other distractions)
> The world is divided into zones, and moving between zones requires a
> wait of anywhere from 30 seconds to five minutes, depending on your
> computer. Even if you have a fast computer, you may have to wait if
> one of your party members doesn't. Moreover, you can only cross
> between zones via special points on the map (kind of like, um, doors
> in a room...) Daggerfall did this better three years ago --
> admittedly, not across the network.
>
I hate the wait on Zone loads too.
> Although there are different race/class combinations, they differ only
> in initial location and in their mechanisms for inflicting damage. The
> goal of every race/class is the same: find weaker creatures and whack
> them to death. Then take their treasures and rush back to the bank...
> You cannot advance without whacking creatures, because "experience" is
> measured by the quantity and quality of the creatures you have
> whacked; neither long treks nor skills development counts an iota
> towards raising ones "level". I would dock the game more for this,
> except that this particular idiocy is so common. Daggerfall did this
> better three years ago also.
Yup. the basic exp gain scenario is pretty much the same. I guess the fun
part is in *how* you decide to wack creatures, and *which* creatures to
wack, and in the discovery of new creatures you've never battled or seen
before. (i rememebr the first time i saw a huge Spider that was as tall as
myself, and 8 times wider. That was a fun experience.
>
> There are quests, but at least at the lower levels they seemed to all
> be "find the foozle" or fed-ex quests. They don't pay particularly
> well; one's time is better spent whacking weaker creatures. Many
> quests are broken, and Verant has set up an email address to report
> broken quests... but, of course, one can't get to one's email from
> inside EQ because they lock out other applications. Catch-22.
>
Ya, the quests are a bit lame. a _few_ are ok with multiple segments,
but over-all they are dry. However, Dagerfalls "side-quests" were equally
lame, and no-one has done any better outside of the single player linear
"save-the-world-then-0the-game-is-over" quests.
> The game penalizes solo play, and as the level rises the penalties
> become more and more severe. Basically, from level 6-7 on one is much
> better off playing in a group.Then one can at least whack slightly
> different monsters. (Below level 4 one should solo.)
>
> Groups can be fun, but after a while one notices that it is just a
> chat session intermixed with whacking. How much this appeals to you
> probably depends on how gregarious you are; I'm not very gregarious, I
> thought it was boring.
>
The key here is that you aren't very gregarious. A big influence of the
design of EVERQUEST was MUDS where being social was half the fun. If you
don't like being social, and adventuring with friends as well as telling the
campfire story about how you BARELY escaped the two-headed giant because you
fell off a cliff but survived , then everquest isn't for you. Actually,
Single player games would be the best way for you to go. I have friends like
this, and it is just a personal preference and measure of socialization
enjoyment.
> The world isn't very big. It is possible to walk from one end of a
> continent to the other in a few days. I can forgive this for obvious
> reasons, but it does hurt the plausibility. Still, it's more than big
> enough for gameplay, given the constraints I will discuss below.
>
Yea, the world really is too small. They say they will expand it...we will
see. At a minimum we need a few more servers.
> There is a tutorial. I would put this in the "good stuff" section, but
> it isn't a very good tutorial and doesn't really cover all of the game
> mechanics. But it's better than nothing.
>
> The bad stuff:
> The user interface is horrible... As an example, you must target a
> character to hail or to attack. But 'a' is the auto attack key
> (meaning, attack whomever is targeted). So if one tries to talk to an
> NPC and neglects to press enter to open up the chat line, as soon as
> one types the 'a' one ends up attacking instead. I got killed several
> times this way. Another example: Many spells only affect the targeted
> creature; so, if one is bashing a creature, one cannot cast a spell on
> oneself. (Gerald Ford would feel right at home...) On the plus side,
> one can remap the keys to a more convenient setup. The game does not
> support Windows conventions at all, e.g., clicking on the scroll bar
> arrows gets one nowhere.
>
The user interface never bothered me, but I am not that picky since I have
been playing CRPGs since the early 80s, and I don't have high expectations
of interfaces. Also, after playing a while, I always get used to whatever
interface is in front of me, so it never bothers me in the long run.
> The manual is also horrible; cynics have suggested it was an effort to
> help sell the "strategy" guide, but I don't believe it because the
> strategy guide is no better. Even if you love this game, you should
> avoid spending money on such trash and instead use the various web
> sites, e.g., http://www.eqvault.com/, http://gameznet.com/eq/, or
> http://eqss.stratics.com/ .
>
Yup - manual is a joke.
> There is no automap. There isn't even a compass. (Compasses supposedly
> exist but are very rare and expensive.) One must instead raise one's
> "sense heading" skill, which requires many, many thousands of clicks
> of the appropriate button.
>
Compasses aren't expensive 2 or 3 pp, but they are a bit hard to find. But,
then again, I personally enjoy the discovery of new zones, and cautiously
trying to remember where the landmarks are etc. I have more of an explorer's
mentality then a "I - shouldn't have trouble getting around" mentality. And
even though explorers had compasses "back then", I simply accept as part of
the realm and history of norrath that compasses are a recent discovery.
> There are "trade skills" in the game, but it isn't clear that they
> work well enough to bother with, with a few exceptions. Fishing works
> OK for low-level characters, but takes a long time to develop and is
> extremely boring. As the character rises in level fishing becomes less
> and less attractive because of the value of the loot one is forsaking
> while fishing (not to mention the experience). However, fishing does
> provide a natural opportunity to press the "Sense Heading" button a
> few million times.
>
> The "tailor" skill does reportedly work at lower levels (I didn't try
> it, but played with those who had). One can create "patchwork" armor
> -- not quite as good as leather, but a whole lot better than cloth. At
> higher levels one runs into difficulties because the armor to be
> produced requires pieces from a blacksmith, and blacksmithing is such
> a money loser that there are few to be found at the
> lower-to-intermediate levels. (Say, up to 15 or so...)
>
> Other skills have even worse reputations. One salient point: one can
> not generally make a profit via a trade by selling the product back to
> the vendors (except from fishing); the prices have been rigged to
> prevent this, and "encourage" the development of a player economy.
> Based on my four weeks, it's not working.
>
Trade skills are a bit bogus, but I have heard of characters as they get
into the "teen" levels starting to make money at the skills. I actually like
that they are so hard to develop in time and money commitment. That way 10th
level characters wouldn't be running around selling Plate armor they just
made all over the land which would mess up game balance and economy.
> There is a lot of waiting around in EQ. As one levels, one takes
> longer and longer to heal up after fights, because your hit points
> increase but your rate of healing does not. (This effect is most
> pronounced for tanks, of course.)
This really relates to your point earlier about not grouping. This waiting
around issue is another reason grouping is so fun. You grab a healer or two
in the party, and you can run adventuring marathons with almost no
noticeable delay in the action.
>
> There are frequently not enough monsters to go around, so one ends up
> waiting in line for the chance to wrack up a little experience. I
> expect that this will affect those who signed on in the beginning the
> most.
>
Ya.. overcrowdedness is already becoming a big problem.. we need more
servers!
> And when you fight the monster, what can I say? They look different,
> but I didn't notice much change in strategy. Just keep whacking, and
> run if your health gets too low.
>
Maybe for melee types, but guess what? That's what fighters do. "Use all of
your highly trained skills to get in a good bash/slash/whatever, then
Strike!" not much tactics to being a brawler. Hit the other guy till he
doesn't get up.
On the other hand, spellcasters, rogues and other non-warrior types have to
consider tactics QUITE a bit. I play a shaman, and must constantly way the
benefits of healing party members versus rooting a target Vs poisoning Vs.
de-buffing Vs. nuking etc all the time trying to manage my manna during the
fight. Tactically it is quite a challenge.
> I could keep going all night, but I think this is enough to give one
> the flavor (as I see it, of course). In the end, I found the tedium
> vastly overwhelmed the fun.
>
The tedium to me simply sounds due to not enjoying grouping. I never feel
bored in groups, but I sure-as-hell get bored FAST the few times I cant find
a group and must solo.
"Trog" 15th level Shaman, Bristlebane
Adam Connor
>
>Adam Connor <ajco...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:371dc26b....@news.io.com...
>> Although there are different race/class combinations, they differ only
>> in initial location and in their mechanisms for inflicting damage. The
>> goal of every race/class is the same: find weaker creatures and whack
>> them to death. Then take their treasures and rush back to the bank...
>> You cannot advance without whacking creatures, because "experience" is
>> measured by the quantity and quality of the creatures you have
>> whacked; neither long treks nor skills development counts an iota
>> towards raising ones "level". I would dock the game more for this,
>> except that this particular idiocy is so common. Daggerfall did this
>> better three years ago also.
>
>Yup. the basic exp gain scenario is pretty much the same. I guess the fun
>part is in *how* you decide to wack creatures, and *which* creatures to
>wack, and in the discovery of new creatures you've never battled or seen
>before. (i rememebr the first time i saw a huge Spider that was as tall as
>myself, and 8 times wider. That was a fun experience.
I didn't find the "how you whack them" to be all that
earth-shatteringly different. Whether I whack them with a sword or a
frost-rift, its all the same after a while.
I should point out that in other RPG games, there can be a significant
amount of strategy in picking out the right spell combinations. I
didn't notice that at the lower levels (through 5), and didn't really
pursue magicians/wizards, etc. after that. The cleric does have some
good, special spells to punish the undead.
>> There are quests, but at least at the lower levels they seemed to all
>> be "find the foozle" or fed-ex quests. They don't pay particularly
>> well; one's time is better spent whacking weaker creatures. Many
>> quests are broken, and Verant has set up an email address to report
>> broken quests... but, of course, one can't get to one's email from
>> inside EQ because they lock out other applications. Catch-22.
>>
>
> Ya, the quests are a bit lame. a _few_ are ok with multiple segments,
>but over-all they are dry. However, Dagerfalls "side-quests" were equally
>lame, and no-one has done any better outside of the single player linear
>"save-the-world-then-0the-game-is-over" quests.
The quest's in Daggerfall were poor, period; it wasn't one of the
game's strengths. But the quests in Fallout, for example, were quite
good. So I don't at all buy the notion that "no-one has done any
better".
>> The game penalizes solo play, and as the level rises the penalties
>> become more and more severe. Basically, from level 6-7 on one is much
>> better off playing in a group.Then one can at least whack slightly
>> different monsters. (Below level 4 one should solo.)
>>
>> Groups can be fun, but after a while one notices that it is just a
>> chat session intermixed with whacking. How much this appeals to you
>> probably depends on how gregarious you are; I'm not very gregarious, I
>> thought it was boring.
>>
>
>The key here is that you aren't very gregarious. A big influence of the
>design of EVERQUEST was MUDS where being social was half the fun. If you
>don't like being social, and adventuring with friends as well as telling the
>campfire story about how you BARELY escaped the two-headed giant because you
>fell off a cliff but survived , then everquest isn't for you. Actually,
>Single player games would be the best way for you to go. I have friends like
>this, and it is just a personal preference and measure of socialization
>enjoyment.
Thanks. I already know about solo games. ;-) One of the problems with
socializing is that the majority of groups I played with seemed to be
dominated by teenagers (virtually or otherwise ), and I found them
boring to talk to; I'm going on 37. But I agree that the game is much
weaker for non-gregarious types; that's why I said so.
Another problem is that few of the "pick-up" groups made a big effort
at role-playing; I _really_ don't see the appeal of carrying on
anonymous conversations about trivia inside a graphical MUD; I'd like
at least the entertainment of role-playing.
>> The bad stuff:
>> The user interface is horrible... <snip>
>>
>
>The user interface never bothered me, but I am not that picky since I have
>been playing CRPGs since the early 80s, and I don't have high expectations
>of interfaces. Also, after playing a while, I always get used to whatever
>interface is in front of me, so it never bothers me in the long run.
I got used to it and learned the work-arounds, but it was still
horrible. Whoever designed it should take up another line of work.
...<trade skills analysis snipped>...
>
>Trade skills are a bit bogus, but I have heard of characters as they get
>into the "teen" levels starting to make money at the skills. I actually like
>that they are so hard to develop in time and money commitment. That way 10th
>level characters wouldn't be running around selling Plate armor they just
>made all over the land which would mess up game balance and economy.
If real trade skills were this hard there would be no trades. They
don't have to be selling plate, but it should be a less disasterous
money sink. And, above all, it should be more interesting! Fishing is
a good example:
[click on Fish button]... wait...Didn't catch a fish message
[click on Fish button]... wait...Didn't catch a fish message
[click on Fish button]... wait...Didn't catch a fish message
[click on Fish button]... wait...Didn't catch a fish message
[click on Fish button]... wait...Didn't catch a fish message
[click on Fish button]... wait...Didn't catch a fish message
[click on Fish button]... wait...Caught a fish message
No animations of trouts jumping, no anything but clicking and boring
messages. This is a game? These guys should go talk to Sid Meier or
something; they clearly do not comprehend the idea that _every_
activity inside a game should be interesting.
>> There is a lot of waiting around in EQ. As one levels, one takes
>> longer and longer to heal up after fights, because your hit points
>> increase but your rate of healing does not. (This effect is most
>> pronounced for tanks, of course.)
>
>This really relates to your point earlier about not grouping. This waiting
>around issue is another reason grouping is so fun. You grab a healer or two
>in the party, and you can run adventuring marathons with almost no
>noticeable delay in the action.
No, sorry, you're wrong. Even when I had a healer in the group there
was often significant waiting to heal. It depends on the amount of
mana the healer has, the number of warriors in the group, etc.
A healer _helps_, sure. Then we get to wait around for the healer to
rebuild his or her mana. (Which is admittedly faster, since they get
meditate...)
>> And when you fight the monster, what can I say? They look different,
>> but I didn't notice much change in strategy. Just keep whacking, and
>> run if your health gets too low.
>>
>
>Maybe for melee types, but guess what? That's what fighters do. "Use all of
>your highly trained skills to get in a good bash/slash/whatever, then
>Strike!" not much tactics to being a brawler. Hit the other guy till he
>doesn't get up.
>On the other hand, spellcasters, rogues and other non-warrior types have to
>consider tactics QUITE a bit. I play a shaman, and must constantly way the
>benefits of healing party members versus rooting a target Vs poisoning Vs.
>de-buffing Vs. nuking etc all the time trying to manage my manna during the
>fight. Tactically it is quite a challenge.
>
Again, wrong. There's lots of strategy to fighting, it's just that
none of made it into this game.
One of my other characters (not the troll) was a Dwarven cleric. I
didn't find there was all that much strategy to it, but sure, there's
more variety than in being a warrior. (Which is another way in which
the game is unbalanced, but that's another long argument.)
I don't really understand Verant's desire to make the game painful to
play solo (what does it gain them?), but hey, no problem, there are
other games... Best of luck on EQ.
adam connor
Daniel Thomas
area bashing, freezing or frying everything you see. As you go up in levels
and can travel and survive in other areas it becomes much more interesting.
----------
In article <#GDbO7Bj#GA....@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>, "Driakos"
Driakos
Daniel Thomas wrote in message
>You didn't say what level you are. Level 1-5 is just running around a small
>area bashing, freezing or frying everything you see. As you go up in levels
>and can travel and survive in other areas it becomes much more interesting.
>>Yes I am low level. 10. There are plenty of things a little pawn like me
>>can do that affect the grand scale of Norrath. Yeah sure taking the
letter
>>to Melia
I am level 10. I have gone almost everywhere on Antonica. I like exploring
new areas, but I want quests. I hate that new areas basically means
pallete-swapped different colored harder/easier monsters to fight. I like
fighting and all, but not just fighting. All the quests are take this, kill
that, bring those. Maybe I want to much?
I also understand that *take this, kill that, and get those* quests are
going to be about all the game will offer (for programming reasons). What I
want is for them to add up to something, or to mean something in the long
run. The game is over a year old now, in Norrath time. Yet NPC's still
tell you to take the same things to the same people. Give me some rotation!
Driakos.
MJ DiBella
Adam Connor wrote in message <371dc26b....@news.io.com>...
>dern...@earthling.net wrote:
>
--snip--
>The game penalizes solo play, and as the level rises the penalties
>become more and more severe. Basically, from level 6-7 on one is much
>better off playing in a group.Then one can at least whack slightly
>different monsters. (Below level 4 one should solo.)
This is the major objection I have to EQ. They 'encouraged' grouping by
essentially making it impossible to play solo past around level 15. The
last few patches have made this situation even worse by crippling the spells
that might make solo play viable. 'Root and Nuke' is not really viable any
more because more monsters resist 'root' and even if they don't, it only
lasts a short time.
>
>Groups can be fun, but after a while one notices that it is just a
>chat session intermixed with whacking. How much this appeals to you
>probably depends on how gregarious you are; I'm not very gregarious, I
>thought it was boring.
I do, too. I like chatting with folks as I rest at the tower, but having to
join some dumb group in order to play at all is really getting on my nerves.
Like you, I am not sorry I spent the 50 bucks on Everquest. However, it's
highly unlikely that I'll spend much more on it. They won't be getting any
long-term subscription from me unless they do something to make solo play
ALL THE WAY TO LEVEL 50 a viable option.
MJ
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
<md...@roch875.mc.xerox.com> wrote:
>
>Adam Connor wrote in message <371dc26b....@news.io.com>...
>>dern...@earthling.net wrote:
>>
>--snip--
>>The game penalizes solo play, and as the level rises the penalties
>>become more and more severe. Basically, from level 6-7 on one is much
>>better off playing in a group.Then one can at least whack slightly
>>different monsters. (Below level 4 one should solo.)
>
>This is the major objection I have to EQ. They 'encouraged' grouping by
>essentially making it impossible to play solo past around level 15. The
>last few patches have made this situation even worse by crippling the spells
>that might make solo play viable. 'Root and Nuke' is not really viable any
>more because more monsters resist 'root' and even if they don't, it only
>lasts a short time.
>
Really? It works really well up to level 12 (where i am at now). I
also heard that Enstill is really awesome to use in teh "immobolize
and nuke" strategy.
Also i also work out a shadow-step and nuke strategy if root fails.
Usually it is pretty safe to do blue mobs. Will that work at high
levels?
Kay-Yut
Nigel Tzeng
However, the thing about EQ that bothers me the most is the tedious
nature of some aspects of the game:
1) Boat rides. Whether I'm on 2 hours, 20 hours or 200 hundred hours
Verant/Sony gets the same amount of money. So why does sitting on a
boat take 45 minutes? They could have accompished the same thing by
making the boats stay in ports longer and at sea for less time. It
also makes missing the boat a little less painful.
2) Skill raising. Specifically smithing. In Freeport the materials
are scattered across 2 zones. Why? To make it even more tedious than
hitting combine several hundred times?
Ever watch a magic using class after they level? A lot of them sit
there zapping themselves to max out skills. Why bother? Sure it's a
little more realistic to increase skills as they get used but it's
just not worth it to burn another socket connection for half an hour
to let someone zap themselves.
3) Buying things & multizone cities. Okay, maybe it's fun hunting
around these mostly empty cities for the right merchant for some folks
but personally I find this somewhat tedious. As in blacksmithing I
have to run around looking for both a merchant that sells milk and one
that sells muffins. Why? I don't mind so much looking for specialty
stores but that one bugs me.
And why is Freeport 3 zones? They're all pretty empty compared to
dungeons or other common hunting grounds. I'd also much prefer one
busy tavern than 10 empty ones. I'd almost prefer that healing rates
be halved outside cities (from what they are) to doubled inside.
Might give folks a reason to sit in a tavern and shoot the breeze than
sit in the hallway of a dungeon. Of course cities are so far away but
hey...that's what clerics are for. ;)
Now they are depowering (some) classes because some folks powergamed
to 50 already. I guess they're worried that some folks will drop
after hitting 50. Personally I think more people will drop if they
take forever to level...or because the servers have 1500 ppl on them
all trying to smack the same critters.
Nigel
PS - Things to do to avoid (some) of the above:
1) Server overcrowing: Play on the test server. Average load: 100 ppl.
Compare to any of the regular servers.
2) Travel time: Play a druid. With SoW and personal travel spells this
cuts down on the travel time quite a bit.
Mark Asher
>I like the game.
>
>However, the thing about EQ that bothers me the most is the tedious
>nature of some aspects of the game:
>
>1) Boat rides. Whether I'm on 2 hours, 20 hours or 200 hundred hours
>Verant/Sony gets the same amount of money. So why does sitting on a
>boat take 45 minutes? They could have accompished the same thing by
>making the boats stay in ports longer and at sea for less time. It
>also makes missing the boat a little less painful.
Isn't it more like 25 minutes? I'm sure that one of the reasons for the
length is to make it a signicant task to travel from one continent to
another -- in other words, it's not a jaunt down to the local pub. Also,
there stops along the way and hostile islands you pass on the way, so there
is some territory to traverse. But I also wish it was a tad shorter.
Actually, more frequent boats would satisfy me.
snip
>3) Buying things & multizone cities. Okay, maybe it's fun hunting
>around these mostly empty cities for the right merchant for some folks
>but personally I find this somewhat tedious. As in blacksmithing I
>have to run around looking for both a merchant that sells milk and one
>that sells muffins. Why? I don't mind so much looking for specialty
>stores but that one bugs me.
It wouldn't be so bad if you knew where to go. It also wouldn't be so bad if
there were more NPC events that might happen to you as you shop.
>And why is Freeport 3 zones? They're all pretty empty compared to
>dungeons or other common hunting grounds. I'd also much prefer one
>busy tavern than 10 empty ones. I'd almost prefer that healing rates
>be halved outside cities (from what they are) to doubled inside.
>Might give folks a reason to sit in a tavern and shoot the breeze than
>sit in the hallway of a dungeon. Of course cities are so far away but
>hey...that's what clerics are for. ;)
Felwithe and a lot of other cities are also 3 zones. I suspect this is due
to all the data that needs to be loaded.
>Now they are depowering (some) classes because some folks powergamed
>to 50 already. I guess they're worried that some folks will drop
>after hitting 50. Personally I think more people will drop if they
>take forever to level...or because the servers have 1500 ppl on them
>all trying to smack the same critters.
Actually, they've boosted magicians and enchanters and bit and cut the
experience point loss when killed by 50%.
Mark Asher
Dan Bongard
: I like the game.
: However, the thing about EQ that bothers me the most is the tedious
: nature of some aspects of the game:
: 1) Boat rides. Whether I'm on 2 hours, 20 hours or 200 hundred hours
: Verant/Sony gets the same amount of money. So why does sitting on a
: boat take 45 minutes?
It doesn't. The Qeynos/Erudin route takes 10; the BB/Freeport
route takes about 25 (IIRC). As for why it takes that long --
because you're going a long way. Try swimming it instead; it
takes even longer. :)
: They could have accompished the same thing by making the
: boats stay in ports longer and at sea for less time. It
: also makes missing the boat a little less painful.
The main oversight is that there is only one boat on the
Freeport/BB route. This means that waiting for a boat
and taking it to its destination can take as much as
the 45 minutes you mention.
The only way to make the trip shorter is to make the world
smaller, which would kill the immersiveness of the game IMO.
: Ever watch a magic using class after they level? A lot
: of them sit there zapping themselves to max out skills.
: Why bother? Sure it's a little more realistic to increase
: skills as they get used but it's just not worth it to
: burn another socket connection for half an hour
: to let someone zap themselves.
You don't seem to understand -- the kind of self-training
you are referring to is voluntary, not mandatory (or
even particularly advantageous). So why should Verant
change the game to make it irrelevant?
: 3) Buying things & multizone cities. Okay, maybe it's fun hunting
: around these mostly empty cities for the right merchant for some folks
: but personally I find this somewhat tedious.
What don't you find tedious? You've complained about
the size of the world, the diversity of the towms, the
self-training of skills... what's left, besides combat
and chatter?
: And why is Freeport 3 zones?
For the same reason the game is 72 zones instead of 1:
to cut down on lag.
: Now they are depowering (some) classes because some folks
: powergamed to 50 already.
What class has been depowered?
-- Dan
cap
>
>However, the thing about EQ that bothers me the most is the tedious
>nature of some aspects of the game:
>
>1) Boat rides. Whether I'm on 2 hours, 20 hours or 200 hundred hours
>Verant/Sony gets the same amount of money. So why does sitting on a
>making the boats stay in ports longer and at sea for less time. It
>also makes missing the boat a little less painful.
I agree. its stupid, rumor.........teleporters might appere instead of
boats.
not cus of the ride times but the bugs. Crash on a boat and you are in the
water...
>
>2) Skill raising. Specifically smithing. In Freeport the materials
>are scattered across 2 zones. Why? To make it even more tedious than
>hitting combine several hundred times?
>
semi agree.
Materials should be spread beetween cities. but with some reason.
small people cities sell small people armor. etc, maby except dwarf town,
afterall they are the makers of modern blacksmithing hheehe
>Ever watch a magic using class after they level? A lot of them sit
>there zapping themselves to max out skills. Why bother? Sure it's a
>little more realistic to increase skills as they get used but it's
>just not worth it to burn another socket connection for half an hour
>to let someone zap themselves.
>
this is stupid....It taks more time gettin skill this way since they have to
heal
when they could fight for xp...let the waste their time....and it will be
nice if they try that at level 50 with 1100hp damage hehee
>3) Buying things & multizone cities. Okay, maybe it's fun hunting
>around these mostly empty cities for the right merchant for some folks
>but personally I find this somewhat tedious. As in blacksmithing I
>have to run around looking for both a merchant that sells milk and one
>that sells muffins. Why? I don't mind so much looking for specialty
>stores but that one bugs me.
>
Got a point
>And why is Freeport 3 zones? They're all pretty empty compared to
>dungeons or other common hunting grounds. I'd also much prefer one
>busy tavern than 10 empty ones. I'd almost prefer that healing rates
>be halved outside cities (from what they are) to doubled inside.
>Might give folks a reason to sit in a tavern and shoot the breeze than
>sit in the hallway of a dungeon. Of course cities are so far away but
>hey...that's what clerics are for. ;)
This is something I REALY like... crowded pubs would be great.. thats
someting I would enjoy alot.
Now they are depowering (some) classes because some folks powergamed
>to 50 already. I guess they're worried that some folks will drop
>after hitting 50. Personally I think more people will drop if they
>take forever to level...or because the servers have 1500 ppl on them
>all trying to smack the same critters.
Never heard of.. most classes get stronger
>Nigel
>PS - Things to do to avoid (some) of the above:
>
>1) Server overcrowing: Play on the test server. Average load: 100 ppl.
>Compare to any of the regular servers.
>
hard when you get to around level 30 with almost noone to team with
>2) Travel time: Play a druid. With SoW and personal travel spells this
>cuts down on the travel time quite a bit.
chris
Bill
> Nigel Tzeng (ni...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
> : I like the game.
> : However, the thing about EQ that bothers me the most is the tedious
> : nature of some aspects of the game:
> : 1) Boat rides. Whether I'm on 2 hours, 20 hours or 200 hundred hours
> : Verant/Sony gets the same amount of money. So why does sitting on a
> : boat take 45 minutes?
> It doesn't. The Qeynos/Erudin route takes 10; the BB/Freeport
> route takes about 25 (IIRC). As for why it takes that long --
> because you're going a long way. Try swimming it instead; it
> takes even longer. :)
While I've never taken the whole trip, the 45 minute number is more
correct. If you arrive at the docks in Freeport just as the boat *leaves*
then you have 45 minutes to wait. I stronly suggest writing down the
time, and using it as a schedule. Worked great for me when I was in oot.
> : They could have accompished the same thing by making the
> : boats stay in ports longer and at sea for less time. It
> : also makes missing the boat a little less painful.
> The main oversight is that there is only one boat on the
> Freeport/BB route. This means that waiting for a boat
> and taking it to its destination can take as much as
> the 45 minutes you mention.
> The only way to make the trip shorter is to make the world
> smaller, which would kill the immersiveness of the game IMO.
Two boats would be good, but then you'd have two boats inoot almost
always. (perhaps if the out and back routes were different ala the
Erudin/Qeynos boat. Actually they can make the boats go faster, but then
people with lag might have problem.
Bill
drocket
wrote:
>Nigel Tzeng (ni...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
>: I like the game.
>: They could have accompished the same thing by making the
>: boats stay in ports longer and at sea for less time. It
>: also makes missing the boat a little less painful.
>
>The main oversight is that there is only one boat on the
>Freeport/BB route. This means that waiting for a boat
>and taking it to its destination can take as much as
>the 45 minutes you mention.
Definitely need more boats.
>The only way to make the trip shorter is to make the world
>smaller, which would kill the immersiveness of the game IMO.
You don't need to make the world smaller. Just make he boat go
faster. Cast SoW on it or something.
Nigel Tzeng
Dan Bongard <dbon...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Nigel Tzeng (ni...@access2.digex.net) wrote:
>: I like the game.
>
>: nature of some aspects of the game:
>
>: 1) Boat rides. Whether I'm on 2 hours, 20 hours or 200 hundred hours
>: Verant/Sony gets the same amount of money. So why does sitting on a
>: boat take 45 minutes?
>
>It doesn't. The Qeynos/Erudin route takes 10; the BB/Freeport
>route takes about 25 (IIRC). As for why it takes that long --
>because you're going a long way. Try swimming it instead; it
>takes even longer. :)
You are correct. I misremembered the actual trip time...which is kind
of silly since I once set an alarm for it so I could do other stuff.
However, it still begs the question of WHY a game designer would want
you to be useless for 25 minutes for any purpose. Gaming time is a lot
more precious to me than whatever it costs to play.
>: They could have accompished the same thing by making the
>: boats stay in ports longer and at sea for less time. It
>: also makes missing the boat a little less painful.
>
>The main oversight is that there is only one boat on the
>Freeport/BB route. This means that waiting for a boat
>and taking it to its destination can take as much as
>the 45 minutes you mention.
>
>The only way to make the trip shorter is to make the world
>smaller, which would kill the immersiveness of the game IMO.
Or the boat faster. I suppose that lag could kill you more often if
that were the case but I will NEVER play a character class without
gate since losing a character at sea. If the trip was faster then
likelyhood that you would go linkdead during a boat ride would be
lower.
>: Ever watch a magic using class after they level? A lot
>: of them sit there zapping themselves to max out skills.
>: Why bother? Sure it's a little more realistic to increase
>: skills as they get used but it's just not worth it to
>: burn another socket connection for half an hour
>: to let someone zap themselves.
>
>You don't seem to understand -- the kind of self-training
>you are referring to is voluntary, not mandatory (or
>even particularly advantageous). So why should Verant
>change the game to make it irrelevant?
Should be advantageous...since a higher skill translates into fewer
fizzes (we think anyway). Certainly a higher skill SHOULD translate
into better performance and that little edge can mean the difference
between victory and defeat. If your wizard suffers from a string of
fizzes everybody could die (been there died then). A fizz at the
wrong time for a cleric means the tank might go down (been there died
then too).
Heh...don't seem to understand...it may not be "mandatory" but it sure
seems prudent.
In any case, I'm not sure that skill training in this repetive fashion
adds anything to the game in the first place.
>: 3) Buying things & multizone cities. Okay, maybe it's fun hunting
>: around these mostly empty cities for the right merchant for some folks
>: but personally I find this somewhat tedious.
>
>What don't you find tedious? You've complained about
>the size of the world, the diversity of the towms, the
>self-training of skills... what's left, besides combat
>and chatter?
I like the size of the world...just not the speed at which we travel
in it over long distances. So I play a druid and let all the slower
classes worry about it.
As far as diversity in the towns...I find the different cities
interesting. I simply dislike the way they specifically made certain
things even more tedious to do (like smithing) because of city layout.
Self-training of skills is a pointless activity IMHO.
Combat is combat (and hell...it's tedious too sometimes). But chatter
is everything. Interaction with other people is primary reason to
have MMP...otherwise you're a lot better off with a traditional CRPG.
We still chatter while doing all these pointless activities but
because we're more likely using tells (or /g) over longer distances
we're less likely to be doing it in character.
Frankly, the more time we spend doing these things the less time and
energy we have to enhancing the game with player quests and other
interactions.
You know what I think would be really cool? If you could start at a
higher level The penalty would be that for every level up you start
you reduce your max level by 1. So if you started as a 20th level
mage you'd never go higher than 30th.
What's the advantage of that? If I wanted to run a mini-game for 14th
level clerics (Erudite to Prexxus) you could start one for that
plot..role play it for the weekend and then...do it again for the next
mini-game. What kind of plot? Say the pontiff dies and you're there
to elect the next one. I can prepare characters, plots, etc. Might
be more interesting with the darker religions...with dueling and
backstabbing. ;)
Or if there was a interesting sounding RP event on another server you
could create an instant character and be there for that. You'd be
wimpier than a real character of that class (no special items) but you
could do that.
Your primary character you might run up from 1st. Or not...depending
on if you ever cared to make 50th.
>: And why is Freeport 3 zones?
>
>For the same reason the game is 72 zones instead of 1:
>to cut down on lag.
Yeah right. When I was on Veshaan and it was (and probably still is)
constantly on the bottom of the server list the number of players in
all 3 zones was generally lower than any of the surrounding zones and
certainly lower than zones like crush, oasis and NRo.
Freeport is more complex than single zones but I personally would
prefer a high population density over geographic space. The LEAST
they could have done is put all the damn merchants in the same zone.
Whatever the reason it sure as hell isn't lag.
>: Now they are depowering (some) classes because some folks
>: powergamed to 50 already.
>
>What class has been depowered?
Heh...the Enchanter's are trying to organize a boycott of the class.
The Wizards are screeching that root now gets resisted a lot more than
it did and fizzes seems to have increased for all spellcasters. Yeah,
I'd say that some classes got reduced...and that some folks are irate.
>-- Dan
Nigel
Muddy
Nigel Tzeng wrote in message <7ikphr$8...@access1.digex.net>...
On the trip to freeport, I had to actually jump and swim to shore because of
my zone times. Luckily I guessed the right way to swim. I wish they would
have just gone with portals too accomplish the task instead of the boats,
but people did get boats they where wanting.
Well, the spell classes that you get at later levels almost requires it
though. Because of the massive mana they require (for your level) and your
high likelyhood of fizzling it. It is not very wise to attempt the spell in
a combat situation. I don't sit around casting spells that are up to par,
they will max before I get my next level. Spell classes that are at 5 or 10
though would not catch up with normal use though.
Textures. The more detailed and varied textures on the building is why they
have the zones. It does reduce lag. Local HD lag from not having to load
as many textures on the fly.
>Freeport is more complex than single zones but I personally would
>prefer a high population density over geographic space. The LEAST
>they could have done is put all the damn merchants in the same zone.
>
>Whatever the reason it sure as hell isn't lag.
>
>>: Now they are depowering (some) classes because some folks
>>: powergamed to 50 already.
>>
>>What class has been depowered?
>
>Heh...the Enchanter's are trying to organize a boycott of the class.
>The Wizards are screeching that root now gets resisted a lot more than
>it did and fizzes seems to have increased for all spellcasters. Yeah,
>I'd say that some classes got reduced...and that some folks are irate.
>
And the changes they made to the spells that caused most of the enchanters
complaints have been re-modified. I think most of the enchanters are
"happy" now. While not back to original, they might consider using the
spells now. PLus a couple of longer term problems have been modified as
well.
>>-- Dan
>
>Nigel