To The Devs - From A Fan

[Nenavi]

<DIV>First..i'm a big fan of EQ2. I think it's the best mmorpg out there. There is so much to do.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2nd...I'm currently in the Wish beta which is an..OK game...nothing great..but it does have a couple features that make it stand out...features I think any player would LOVE to see EQ2 take advantage of.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>1)  Live Content....the developers at Wish are a small, privately funded company. And yet they have managed to create a dynamic, living world where their Live Content team can take over any NPC and create a live story..which is basically a raid where you go kill a leader to stop him from spawning stuff..that boss never again appears in the world....the live content team ALSO creates a daily newspaper players can read that talks about the battle and even names names of people who did above and beyond the call of duty.  Couldn't EQ2 do this? The EQ2 team is twice as big as Wish's team...</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>2)  This is the biggest feature..the one EVERYONE loves.  The open-ended system...you can apprentice under three different classes.  This doesn't take away from groups. I'm a healer and a warrior and a necromancer (dabbler anyway) and I still find I need to group in order to get anywhere...so an open-ended system wouldn't mean EQ2 would be a solo game...it would make the soloer's happy..but you would still need to group for most everything else that's bigger.  EQ2 NEEDS an open-ended system...no one likes to be confined...people want freedom.  This is the thing most people want more than anything else.  It creates a much more dynamic world.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I was just wondering if the Devs would ever consider any of these things?   I mean..it basically centers around what every player wants...Fame..recognition for doing something (ie the news paper and live content team, not to mention the fun of mass raids) and the freedom to do what they want without changing the over-all style the way the game is played.</DIV>

[ZenWeas]

<DIV>I wouldn't be using WISH as an example for <EM>anything</EM>... considering what's on the front page of their website right now...</DIV>

[GoNom]

<DIV>Just because a game didn't deem profitable enough after beta reviews does not mean the game is completely void of good ideas.  the open ended system.....will never be a part of EQ, never.  Did I say never?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But the live interactions with Devs and events is something that I'm certain will eventually be incorporated, it was common to see GM events in EQ1, and I'm sure at some point they'll start up again</DIV>

[ZenWeas]

<DIV>WISH has some great and interesting ideas, for sure. (especially the idea of fulltime team of writers to continually adapt the storyline as time progresses)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I still think it was a very awkward day to pick, to pitch ideas from it. :smileytongue:</DIV>

[Witchmast]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZenWeasel wrote:<BR> <DIV>WISH has some great and interesting ideas, for sure. (especially the idea of fulltime team of writers to continually adapt the storyline as time progresses)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I still think it was a very awkward day to pick, to pitch ideas from it. :smileytongue:</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>Wish HAD some interesting ideas. Now it's gone as so many more in the recent past.<BR>

[FinanSeeleheil]

<DIV>I'm replying to this for a simple reason..and yes I know this is the testing forum... and yes I play on the test server.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The original poster is right.  A game that doesn't come to market isn't a failure if it showed concepts that work... </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>To me, program development is very much like the concept cars you see at the autoshow.  Yeah they're flashy, they're cool, but when it comes down to it... would you drive one?  Would a large enough segment of your maket share want it?  Would a large enough segment of your competitor's market share want it?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So as for WISH, I'm sorry to see it go the way of some many other great concepts... but it is both arragant and ignorant to view it as a complete failure when several of the concepts behind the game were proven successful, even if the overall product was flawed.  But these concepts are nothing new.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The idea of a Live Content Team is great, and if you read the press releases from SoE they indend to do this, but perhaps not in as overt, or consistant manor as other games.  It's good to know that EQ2 will continually evolve, but will it evolve fast enough?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Asheron's Call had monthly updates, the story arc progressed as each live patch was performed.  These monthly events helped reengage bored players and made it worth keeping your subscription.  The story was eventually dictated by the actions of players in the game.  For example, at one turning point in the story, players were to seek out a mage who had been imprisoned in a dungeon.  You could not rescue her, but instead you had to decide her fate.  In this particular case you were presented with evidence of what she had done. The evidence came in quests. Each quest built on the next and you eventually were given her location and then asked to make a decission.  Upon entering the room where she was held, you found two levers each representing a guilty or innocent verdict. The server kept track of how many times each was pulled and the vote determined where the story would go next.  If the people voted her guilty the main land would go to war with her follows.  You see, she was innocent.  If they let her go, the mainland would instead ally with the people of her country and rise up against one of the main foes in the game.  The difference to the average player, not much.  The reward for the quest... nothing.  But being allowed to dictate the couse of the story made you feel like the Devs cared about your opinion.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for the second comment about opened.  Sorry Asheron's Call was designed this way too, but here's why this doesn't work.  People are required to think.  I mean constantly think about what they want their character to be.  You had control over every stat, every skill and you could spend xp to advance them.  Not a preselected set of skills that your class had, not a new choice every 8 levels or so...but real choices.  Do I need to be stronger, do I need more HP, do I need more mana?  The choices were yours and that was Asheron's almost fatal flaw.   You see people who want to play MMO's don't want to think too much.  IMHO about 60% of the audience of EQ2 perceives the game as too difficult already, even with the limited choices we are given.  So I'm expecting the game to eventually be dumbed down to the level of those 60%.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Why do I think this?  Because they have to compete with other games like WoW that have a limited life span and want the quick recovery of financial investment.  Every review of Wow I read was very complimentary, its art direction is wonderful, it's systems are easy to learn and require little effort (a nice way of saying... it's dumby proof and easy for people who never played an RPG in there life.)  I recently read the review of WoW on Gamespy, the inevitable comparrison and after reading it gcame to a simple conclusion.  EQ2 = I must think about what I'm doing at least 50% of the time.  WoW = Oh yeah let me grab the phone and watch the news while I play, cause I won't have to think too much.  (No that's not a slam, I have friends who play WoW and that exactly how they explain why they like it.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kwoung]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZenWeasel wrote:<BR> <DIV>WISH has some great and interesting ideas, for sure. (especially the idea of fulltime team of writers to continually adapt the storyline as time progresses) <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't AO already do that? Heck, they even published novels to go with the game if I remember correctly.

[ZenWeas]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kwoung wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZenWeasel wrote:<BR> <DIV>WISH has some great and interesting ideas, for sure. (especially the idea of fulltime team of writers to continually adapt the storyline as time progresses) <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't AO already do that? Heck, they even published novels to go with the game if I remember correctly.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>There are other MMORGS in development doing the same now...</P> <P>...that was not the original point though.</P> <P>The OP made a "look at WISH for good ideas" post on the <EM>very same day</EM> that WISH called it quits, and folded their game, as they couldn't make it viable.</P> <P>Maybe I just have a dark sense of humour. :smileytongue:</P>

[Lizard_SF]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZenWeasel wrote:<BR> <DIV>WISH has some great and interesting ideas, for sure. (especially the idea of fulltime team of writers to continually adapt the storyline as time progresses)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>However, those ideas weren't cost effective.</P> <P>I could say every online game should be akin to P&P D&D, where you have one GM for every 4 to 6 players. But would you pay 100 dollars a month for it?<BR></P>

[Kin]

<DIV>$100 a month to have a gm for every 4-6 players? How many GMs would wanna work for $400 a month! =)~</DIV>

[Terminus E]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lizard_SF wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I could say every online game should be akin to P&P D&D, where you have one GM for every 4 to 6 players. But would you pay 100 dollars a month for it?<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That wouldn't be the way to do it. One could very easily have a system where players could take control of mobs. Imagine, for example, if you were allowed to login as a mob. You would get a screen with a list of mobs you could choose to play, and spawn at the mob's usual spot. Your movement would be restricted to a certain area within a zone (or perhaps the whole zone if not too high a lvl mob for the whole zone) and you would be flagged as aggro. Then you wander around, picking and choosing your fights with players (all other mobs would be non-aggro to you). This would give a huge amount of variety to the bahaviour of the mobs because you would never know if they were human controlled or not. There would be no development of the mob - when it dies you go back to login. Maybe it could cost status points too.</P> <P>Of course, I don't see this happening in EQ2 since they would have to make some sort of interface with spells and abilities for you to use while a mob.... <BR></P> <DIV> </DIV>

[Kwoung]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lizard_SF wrote:<BR><BR> <P>I could say every online game should be akin to P&P D&D, where you have one GM for every 4 to 6 players. But would you pay 100 dollars a month for it?<BR></P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>The game you are looking for is Neverwinter Nights... a GM for every 4-6 players that can modify encounters, etc at will to make the game as interesting as possible for you. The bonus is.. it doesn't cost a thing more than the price of the game!</DIV>

[Linolil]

<blockquote><hr>Terminus Est wrote:<BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Lizard_SF wrote:<P>I could say every online game should be akin to P&P D&D, where you have one GM for every 4 to 6 players. But would you pay 100 dollars a month for it?</p><DIV></div><HR></blockquote><P>That wouldn't be the way to do it. One could very easily have a system where players could take control of mobs. Imagine, for example, if you were allowed to login as a mob. You would get a screen with a list of mobs you could choose to play, and spawn at the mob's usual spot. Your movement would be restricted to a certain area within a zone (or perhaps the whole zone if not too high a lvl mob for the whole zone) and you would be flagged as aggro. Then you wander around, picking and choosing your fights with players (all other mobs would be non-aggro to you). This would give a huge amount of variety to the bahaviour of the mobs because you would never know if they were human controlled or not. There would be no development of the mob - when it dies you go back to login. Maybe it could cost status points too.</p><P>Of course, I don't see this happening in EQ2 since they would have to make some sort of interface with spells and abilities for you to use while a mob.... </p><DIV> </div><hr></blockquote>Been there, done that and hated every minute of it.The EQ1 test server went through a period where players could become random mobs in random zones. The griefing community had a ball -- at everyone else's expense. They would login and find themselves as a low level gnoll in Blackburrow. They would agro dozens of high level gnolls and train them to where the players were. Corpses every where you looked.The player mobs had nothing to gain and nothing to lose, so they simply destroyed the fun of all the other players.The entire game would have to be rebalanced to add risk/reward to the player mobs. If there is no mob development, then there is no reason for a player to consider risk when attacking regular players. Dozens of zones became unusable as long as player run mobs were in the game.I cheered when they finally turned off that feature and ended that experiment.Oh yes, another problem. Players, myself included, used player mobs to explore zones that were too dangerous to enter as a regular character. Again, as a gnoll in blackburrow, you could check out ever little corner, explore every under water channel, go anywhere without any risk at all. Not a good thing.<p>Message Edited by Linolil on <span class=date_text>01-25-2005</span> <span class=time_text>05:26 PM</span>

[Lizard_SF]

<blockquote><hr>Terminus Est wrote:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE><HR>Lizard_SF wrote:<BR><BR><P>I could say every online game should be akin to P&P D&D, where you have one GM for every 4 to 6 players. But would you pay 100 dollars a month for it?<BR></P><BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That wouldn't be the way to do it. One could very easily have a system where players could take control of mobs. Imagine, for example, if you were allowed to login as a mob. You would get a screen with a list of mobs you could choose to play, and spawn at the mob's usual spot. Your movement would be restricted to a certain area within a zone (or perhaps the whole zone if not too high a lvl mob for the whole zone) and you would be flagged as aggro. Then you wander around, picking and choosing your fights with players (all other mobs would be non-aggro to you). <BR></P><DIV> </DIV><hr></blockquote>This differs from allowing players to randomly gank other players how, exactly?The "monsters" would avoid their friends/guildmates and harass others. What a great way to make sure you can "own" the zone! Have half your guild log in as monsters while the other half farms the content! (And if your response is, "Well, the other guilds should log in and do the same thing!", you've just turned EQ into an FFA gankfest -- which isn't what people sign up for. Not to mention that this royally screws anyone in a small guild, or who is unguilded...)When contemplating game design for MMORPGs, begin with the assumption your player base consists almost entirly of sociopathic 13 year olds whose only idea of "fun" is to ruin someone else's day. When proposing any rule, system, concept, etc, ask yourself "What would a sociopathic 13 year old do if had this ability in my game?" Remember that if one player's actions cause another to quite, you're breaking even; if he causes 2 or more to quit, he is costing you money.

[Terminus E]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <P> <HR> </P> <P>Lizard_SF wrote:</P> <P><BR>This differs from allowing players to randomly gank other players how, exactly?<BR><BR>The "monsters" would avoid their friends/guildmates and harass others. What a great way to make sure you can "own" the zone! Have half your guild log in as monsters while the other half farms the content! <BR><BR>(And if your response is, "Well, the other guilds should log in and do the same thing!", you've just turned EQ into an FFA gankfest -- which isn't what people sign up for. Not to mention that this royally screws anyone in a small guild, or who is unguilded...)<BR><BR>When contemplating game design for MMORPGs, begin with the assumption your player base consists almost entirly of sociopathic 13 year olds whose only idea of "fun" is to ruin someone else's day. When proposing any rule, system, concept, etc, ask yourself "What would a sociopathic 13 year old do if had this ability in my game?" Remember that if one player's actions cause another to quite, you're breaking even; if he causes 2 or more to quit, he is costing you money.<BR></P> <P> <HR> </P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P> </P> <P>The decision of which mob the player takes control of could be arbitrary, and there could be a limit to the number of player controlled mobs in a zone (2 or 3). also, there would be no communication between mob and guild, so they would never know who was friendly and who wasn't. Also trains would not happen because the player controlled mob could not aggro (or attack)  the AI mobs.</P> <P> </P> <P>As for the scouting aspect, you could restrict access to zones, requiring players to have a character greater than a particular level before they could play a mob in that zone.  You could even have some difficult to get no-trade item in each zone which allows the player to control a specific type of mob. Then they would not have any advantage from scouting, since they would know the zone pretty well already.<BR></P>

[Linolil]

<blockquote><hr>Terminus Est wrote:<P>The decision of which mob the player takes control of could be arbitrary, and there could be a limit to the number of player controlled mobs in a zone (2 or 3). also, there would be no communication between mob and guild, so they would never know who was friendly and who wasn't. Also trains would not happen because the player controlled mob could not aggro (or attack) the AI mobs.</p><P> </p><P>As for the scouting aspect, you could restrict access to zones, requiring players to have a character greater than a particular level before they could play a mob in that zone. You could even have some difficult to get no-trade item in each zone which allows the player to control a specific type of mob. Then they would not have any advantage from scouting, since they would know the zone pretty well already.</p><hr></blockquote>I'll give you the train factor, as EQ2 has changed that for the better. However, having lived through player mob hell on EQ1 Test and their free-for-all pvp test, I suspect my account would be canceled the moment such an update took effect. I don't play EQ2 to be harassed by idiots who think it is cool to ruin the fun of other players. The repeated HO zone crashing on Test when the main servers were down confirms that EQ2 is not free of such idiots. Give them an inch and they will destroy your game play. ( ...and one dot your post <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> )<p>Message Edited by Linolil on <span class=date_text>01-26-2005</span> <span class=time_text>06:27 PM</span>

[Trucegore_Vonbloodwor]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> GoNomar wrote:<BR> <DIV>Just because a game didn't deem profitable enough after beta reviews does not mean the game is completely void of good ideas.  the open ended system.....will never be a part of EQ, never.  Did I say never?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>But the live interactions with Devs and events is something that I'm certain will eventually be incorporated, it was common to see GM events in EQ1, and I'm sure at some point they'll start up again</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> No they wont... EQ and EQ2 are based on every item,quest and quite frankley..EVERY thing being 100% staic.

[Trucegore_Vonbloodwor]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZenWeasel wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Kwoung wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> ZenWeasel wrote:<BR> <DIV>WISH has some great and interesting ideas, for sure. (especially the idea of fulltime team of writers to continually adapt the storyline as time progresses) <HR> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> Didn't AO already do that? Heck, they even published novels to go with the game if I remember correctly.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <P>There are other MMORGS in development doing the same now...</P> <P>...that was not the original point though.</P> <P>The OP made a "look at WISH for good ideas" post on the <EM>very same day</EM> that WISH called it quits, and folded their game, as they couldn't make it viable.</P> <P>Maybe I just have a dark sense of humour. :smileytongue:</P><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I dont think they couldnt make it viable...I think they were bought out and put on a shelf.<BR>