I absolutely love this game, BUT... [Archive]

zzilba

11-20-2009, 09:30 AM

...Despite being an enthusiastic, but casual player, there are a few things that really damper the experience at times. Now, if you ask me, I do believe that Everquest II far superceeds the vast majority of MMO's out there. The quality is unsurpassed, and the devs have done a fantastic job maintaining it's coherency over time. Unfortunately, in the face of the juggarnaut that is WoW, comparions and parallels are distinctly unfair - apples and oranges. So, I'm not going to do that. But I will point out a few things that really inhibit my experience as a player in what I believe is the best MMO on the market. I'm level 55 on LDL. The population *feels* incredibly sparse, and i have gone days without running into another player. The most I have seen simultaneously is 5 players. Now, let me point out that the keyword used here is *Feels* not *is.* The world of Norrath is enormous and diversity in levels contribute greatly to spontaneous run-in's with other members of the community. Tht said, the adventuring would feel remote and solitary if it were not for the ocassional chatting in a global chat channel. I am a community minded individual, so working collaboratively with others is why I play MMO's and not single player console games, but I have to be honest and admit that the majority of the time it feels like a single player experience. The open world spontenaity of running across playing hunting or questing, gathering crafting goods or feeling as though you are a part of a much bigger picture in terms of an established and thriving society and culture is what seems to be missing. I have read so many threads where some players claim they have no issues running into players, or alleging that AB is the most populated server, which is great - if you're a player on AB. I understand transferring is an option, and I haven't ruled it out. I understand that there will be a sector of players who will want to meet my comments with the obligatory inflammatory remarks, but regardless, a lack of thriving population impacts the game on many levels; Accessibility to large scale encounters - many of mine turned gray due to lack of players to participate with; The economy is greatly diminished. Selling and purchasing from a broker, even the most rare items and necessary skills will only set me back a couple of gold, but I'm lucky to make that through consignments due the the little demand. Heroic mobs seem excessive when venturing alone; They're everywhere and often present an unfathomable obstacle between a solitary player and a quest objective. In a discussion the other day, someone had said to another individual who was disappointed in the visibility of other players and the large amounts of Heroic mobs that he could not solo that "Everquest 2 was never intended to be a solo game." Thats truly fair enough; Then the experience should not feel isolated. Some people are quite contented with an undeniably small community where everyone knows everyone else via the chat channel - But the cons far outweigh the pros when considering a goal driven environment, even for the most casual player.I fully intend to continue my adventures here, so please don't consider this an end-of-the-world post. Just a few impressions from a dedicted player.

Banditman

11-20-2009, 10:05 AM

You need to avail yourself of the "Solo Timelines" available at eq2i. You should never feel a need to kill heroic mobs when leveling up. There are more than enough solo tasks available. What you are experiencing is not unusual. There simply isn't much population between Level 1 and Level 79. Not just your server, all servers.

Bakual

11-20-2009, 10:08 AM

If you want to group or interact with other players in lower levels, you will need to use the chat (mainly level1-9 chat for most servers) and seek compagnions. That is the result of the game being some years old already and having many zones for a specific levelrange to play in. I don't think anything can be done about it.Most players are level 80 and their Alts run through the game quite fast. But usually it isn't a problem to find some people willing to help out in a specific zones. The mentorsystem and it's bonuses help a lot with that, also the AA system which rewards you for killing nameds while not grey.The rest is up to the player to decide if they want to start a group or solo all the way up to 80. Both are valid ways and both are possible on most servers.

Aanadorn68

11-20-2009, 10:11 AM

In reply to your first paragraph the population IS very sparse, part of the problem is many people have dropped off because SOE is late to the party with their expansion, the other part is IMO there is too much of a steep mountain to climb for a new player. SOE needs to get rid of most of the levels and start players at 70 or something.In your second paragraph you lament the heroic mobs standing in your way. You should have played this game in the first couple of years when heroics were all over the place and you actually got nervous if you had to run an overland zone. That was an exciting time in which grouping was almost required, IMO a much better game and dynamic. But some people love Soloquest, personally I'd rather just play Oblivion or some single player disconnected game at that point, I'd venture to guess a lot of players who don't log on anymore feel the same.

Bakual

11-20-2009, 10:22 AM

<cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>In your second paragraph you lament the heroic mobs standing in your way. You should have played this game in the first couple of years when heroics were all over the place and you actually got nervous if you had to run an overland zone. That was an exciting time in which grouping was almost required, IMO a much better game and dynamic. But some people love Soloquest, personally I'd rather just play Oblivion or some single player disconnected game at that point, I'd venture to guess a lot of players who don't log on anymore feel the same.</blockquote>The problem in the beginning was that you basically required a group, and many times you couldn't find one. That was no fun at all. Today you can choose. Overland zones are soloable, dungeons need a group in most cases. Not a bad decision in my opinion.

Dareena

11-20-2009, 10:50 AM

Well as a LDL player, I can agree that you won't randomly bump into people in your 50's. Why? Because unless you're an old school player who fell in love with the DoF expansion, that level range stinks. You'll see people in Everfrost and Lavastorm since there's worthwhile revamped content in there and the zones have a sense of coherent progression as a result. But the 50's consist mainly of Lesser Faydark and the DoF zones. LF quests are broken up into pockets in various regions of the zone, so you may have other people in the zone and never see them. Let alone just how scattered the DoF content is, which makes it very hard to see people if you're not hanging around the docks or the croc cave mining circuit.While some people may personally take their time in that level range, I personally consider the low 50's to the mid 60's to be my personal hell levels. I enjoy the EoF zones (Lesser Faydark and Loping Plains), but generally dislike or loathe most of the zones from the DoF and KoS expansions. When in that level range, I power solo as fast as I can just to get through that junk so I can get back to the content that I enjoy. So if you're not seeing a lot of grouping in that range, there may just be a lot more people like me. However even then, people will still consistently group up to run the SoS dungeon in their low to mid 60's.If you want some company in the lower tiers, then you have two options. The independent type of player would attempt to organize groups to hit the various dungeon zones in the level range. Or they would put a FYI post into 1-9 chat when they planned on running through a zone's quest lines with the hope that they get back a Tell from someone who wants to join them. Otherwise the second option is to join a friends and family style of guild. This guild format usually consists of players who have various alts and focus more on the leveling process (as opposed to the end game scene). However when looking for a guild, you have to decide in advance whether you're looking to group up consistently or if you'd like to solo with people gathering together to tackle heroic content. Various family style guilds will gravitate towards one philosophy or the other, so make sure that you're getting yourself into the right situation. Also decide whether you're looking for a small guild (for that close knit feel) or a large guild (which will have the potential for many players and alts to group with).

dawy

11-20-2009, 10:53 AM

<cite>Bakual wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>In your second paragraph you lament the heroic mobs standing in your way. You should have played this game in the first couple of years when heroics were all over the place and you actually got nervous if you had to run an overland zone. That was an exciting time in which grouping was almost required, IMO a much better game and dynamic. But some people love Soloquest, personally I'd rather just play Oblivion or some single player disconnected game at that point, I'd venture to guess a lot of players who don't log on anymore feel the same.</blockquote>The problem in the beginning was that you basically required a group, and many times you couldn't find one. That was no fun at all. Today you can choose. Overland zones are soloable, dungeons need a group in most cases. Not a bad decision in my opinion.</blockquote>when i joned in 2005 it was liek you say grouping was a requirment to do anything meaningfull and frankly if you couldnt geta group it was much fun at all.Soloing has to in a modern MMO for it to survive this is the era of the casual gamer like it or not and its folly to think otherwise,the devs have just about got the balance between the playstyles right and i do mean just, the game is dead for a variety of reasons not just becuase of its becoming more solo friendly people just have large rose tinted glasses when thinking back to the old days.

mrsma

11-20-2009, 11:11 AM

<cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote>You need to avail yourself of the "Solo Timelines" available at eq2i. You should never feel a need to kill heroic mobs when leveling up. There are more than enough solo tasks available. What you are experiencing is not unusual. There simply isn't much population between Level 1 and Level 79. Not just your server, all servers.</blockquote>You are incorrect Sir. I take it you have not played on Nagafen?<img src="http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff254/mperry88/pvp.jpg" />

Banditman

11-20-2009, 11:49 AM

<cite>mrsmall wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote>You need to avail yourself of the "Solo Timelines" available at eq2i. You should never feel a need to kill heroic mobs when leveling up. There are more than enough solo tasks available. What you are experiencing is not unusual. There simply isn't much population between Level 1 and Level 79. Not just your server, all servers.</blockquote>You are incorrect Sir. I take it you have not played on Nagafen?</blockquote>I take it you didn't actually read the OP, and instead chose to bring irrelevant issues to the table? Thought so.The OP is playing on LDL, a "Role Playing Preferred" server. Not Vox. Not Nagafen. Not PvP.Therefore, the advice I gave him is relevant and accurate within the confines of his present and future experience. Had the OP stated that he was on one of the PvP servers, I would have had no advice to share with him, since my experience would have little bearing in that environment.

thajo

11-20-2009, 11:49 AM

He is not incorrect. If you are on a PvE server, the population basically anywhere besides the level cap is small and pale in comparison to the action kickin' for mid-range 70's to 80 players. PvP is player verse player..so despite the level of course, you will find people engaging in it. Fighting another player can be fun no matter what level, but thats a different realm of the game and not the norm on the remainder of the PvE servers.Also, that pic needs to be Re-done to say "MMO's - Cause not everybody can handle FPS"<3

Avirodar

11-20-2009, 12:01 PM

<cite>Dakkota@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>Also, that pic needs to be Re-done to say "MMO's - Cause not everybody can handle FPS"<3</blockquote>So true. I always get a kick out of people on MMO PVP servers talking like its the hot tomale.MMO PVP is for people who are too slow for FPS PVP.

kevincann

11-20-2009, 02:34 PM

<cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>In reply to your first paragraph the population IS very sparse, part of the problem is many people have dropped off because SOE is late to the party with their expansion, the other part is IMO there is too much of a steep mountain to climb for a new player. SOE needs to get rid of most of the levels and start players at 70 or something.In your second paragraph you lament the heroic mobs standing in your way. You should have played this game in the first couple of years when heroics were all over the place and you actually got nervous if you had to run an overland zone. That was an exciting time in which grouping was almost required, IMO a much better game and dynamic. But some people love Soloquest, personally I'd rather just play Oblivion or some single player disconnected game at that point, I'd venture to guess a lot of players who don't log on anymore feel the same.</blockquote>I would simply *LOVE* some new overland zones that were simply overrun with ^^^ heroics...and which were properly itemized.It would be *so* cool to need 2-3 people to get from point A to point B in a zone...like in many other games and in older versions of EQ1 and EQ2.If it were only a max of 10% of the available zones, which were designed this way, the must soloto 80/90 cry-babies could simply be advised to skip those zones.The rest of us who enjoy going around in small groups could have a lot of fun again.I think that content targeted to groups of 3 would add some real flavor, and 3 shouldn't be hard to get.Wouldn't it be *sweet* that you zone into such a zone.. and then just loiter around a bit at the zoneline until a couple others are there to move around the zone with?Is there a forum for recommendations the dev's ignore?

Kigneer

11-20-2009, 02:34 PM

<cite>zzilba wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am a community minded individual, so working collaboratively with others is why I play MMO's and not single player console games, but I have to be honest and admit that the majority of the time it feels like a single player experience.</blockquote>Ah, SP is better simply because there is no chat; no outside drama; nothing to distract you from just roleplaying and you earn everything yourself. You can be almost 100% immersed into the world and character.In a MMO, it's a killer as MMOs are designed much like FPS multiplayer for instant gratification and group play (something that may also in time evolve, since online time is now more limited due to more online outlets). Where x4 raids from 1999-2004 was rad due to only a few MMOs to share the thousands of players, where today, a PuG x4 raid can clear world chat of chatters.

Hikinami

11-20-2009, 04:06 PM

<cite>kevincann wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>In reply to your first paragraph the population IS very sparse, part of the problem is many people have dropped off because SOE is late to the party with their expansion, the other part is IMO there is too much of a steep mountain to climb for a new player. SOE needs to get rid of most of the levels and start players at 70 or something.In your second paragraph you lament the heroic mobs standing in your way. You should have played this game in the first couple of years when heroics were all over the place and you actually got nervous if you had to run an overland zone. That was an exciting time in which grouping was almost required, IMO a much better game and dynamic. But some people love Soloquest, personally I'd rather just play Oblivion or some single player disconnected game at that point, I'd venture to guess a lot of players who don't log on anymore feel the same.</blockquote>I would simply *LOVE* some new overland zones that were simply overrun with ^^^ heroics...and which were properly itemized.It would be *so* cool to need 2-3 people to get from point A to point B in a zone...like in many other games and in older versions of EQ1 and EQ2.If it were only a max of 10% of the available zones, which were designed this way, the must soloto 80/90 cry-babies could simply be advised to skip those zones.The rest of us who enjoy going around in small groups could have a lot of fun again.I think that content targeted to groups of 3 would add some real flavor, and 3 shouldn't be hard to get.Wouldn't it be *sweet* that you zone into such a zone.. and then just loiter around a bit at the zoneline until a couple others are there to move around the zone with?Is there a forum for recommendations the dev's ignore?</blockquote>Some well done outdoor dungeons would be cool. It's a shame new tunaria didn't get used so much and was lacking as it was beautiful graphically.

Banditman

11-20-2009, 05:13 PM

New Tunaria is a great looking zone, but there really wasn't much loot worth having there and it's a long, long way from anything. I understand "why" it is where it is, but that zone could have been so much better if it was more accessible.

Kkolbe

11-20-2009, 05:47 PM

Come to Nagafen, we have a healthy population from 1-79. Thats if you dont mind be ganked every now and then. :p

dawy

11-20-2009, 10:41 PM

<cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote>New Tunaria is a great looking zone, but there really wasn't much loot worth having there and it's a long, long way from anything. I understand "why" it is where it is, but that zone could have been so much better if it was more accessible.</blockquote>Have to agree even all these years on i'll grab an alt and just go and have a mooch round that zone for my money its the best looking in the game by far even if theres little to do there

Eliezer

11-24-2009, 12:41 PM

<cite>kevincann wrote:</cite><blockquote>Wouldn't it be *sweet* that you zone into such a zone.. and then just loiter around a bit at the zoneline until a couple others are there to move around the zone with?</blockquote>Seriously? You think it would be fun to just stand around at a zoneline and wait for someone else to show up who wants to group with you? We had that game, it was called EverQuest :-pYou would zone into a dungeon and there would be like half a dozen people sitting at the zoneline. You'd /yell Camp check! and the various groups would sound off the piece of real estate they claimed. You would send a tell back to the area you were interested and see if they needed you. More often then not they'd say there was a list. You'd ask to be put on the list.The camp group plays, you sit at the zone line. When the named drops the good loot, the lucky guy who got the loot leaves group, they invite the next person on the list. Rinse and repeat until it was your turn to get into the group. I helped a friend of mine camp the FBSS for over 24 hours.Sorry, while I get as nostalgic as anyone for old school EQ, being unable to play unless you are lucky enough to find people who want to play with you isn't a viable model in this day and age. If you didn't like the crowds in EQ, where were you going to go? Ultima Online? Nowadays you can't browse a forum without getting inundated with free trial offers for a dozen MMOs. Sitting around and waiting to play is a broken model.

Lethe5683

11-24-2009, 01:26 PM

.

Kigneer

11-24-2009, 02:34 PM

<cite>mrsmall wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are incorrect Sir. I take it you have not played on Nagafen?</blockquote>Who would want too? PvP in EQ2 is a joke. It's not as tough as the MUD PvP, it's not even as tough as F2P PvP. It's the carebear PvP of MMOs.

Lethe5683

11-24-2009, 04:32 PM

<cite>Kigneer wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>mrsmall wrote:</cite><blockquote>You are incorrect Sir. I take it you have not played on Nagafen?</blockquote>Who would want too? PvP in EQ2 is a joke. It's not as tough as the MUD PvP, it's not even as tough as F2P PvP. It's the carebear PvP of MMOs.</blockquote>Not to mention it's messed up as heck.

kevincann

11-24-2009, 05:02 PM

<cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote> Sitting around and waiting to play is a broken model.</blockquote>I agree completely!That's what I do in eq2... sit around and wait to play... at least for mylevel 80 characters...Once I hit 80, I cant get a group... so i start another alt... and get themto 80... then I can't get a group... it's crazy.I've tried multiple servers. I've tried multiple guilds. I've created mostly thehighest in demand characters (healers, illusionist, etc).I ask for groups in chat.I ask for groups in guild.I try the /lfg tool.I post on forums to get hints about the best way to get groups..Then I stop wasting my time.. and go back to 2-boxing alts.I don't know how much more soloquest and 2-boxing I can toleratebefore I quit.-Kev

Xisi

11-24-2009, 05:26 PM

I blame on the ease of multi-box and mentoring system and heirloom, the guild hall system. As if the developers are happy with old customers only, they make new customers experience as hell as possible. Now you have self-mentoring, heirloom system. There is no reason for old players to group on their alts at all.I started playing 2 year ago. At that time, there were many lowbies in starting areas. I constantly grouped for all lowbie instances. I just returned again. No single player in the new zone! no players in butcher mountain. I joined a guild and found out why! people have multiple accounts. 1 guildie has 5 accounts and he cleared level 80 instances all by himself. lol. Other guildies simply powerlevel alts with each other's level 80 in dungeons. If this trend goes on, you might as well make people all level 80 instantly.I missed the days when we had all legitimate lowbeis doing RE, reivervale. That was only 2 year ago. Now I am the only person in bucherblock while everyone else is powerling their alts in dungeons.This game is great except the developers do not know how to attract and retain new players./end rants

fawdown

11-24-2009, 05:58 PM

Yimway

11-24-2009, 06:11 PM

<cite>Xisi@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>I blame on the ease of multi-box and mentoring system and heirloom, the guild hall system. </blockquote>Customer retention vs Customer Growth.It may be easier and cheaper to milk your current customers than make all the changes + marketing required to create customer growth.

Aanadorn68

11-25-2009, 10:33 AM

I hear you, but I'm very attached to my guild, some very cool and fun people on there, and we still have scheduled raids 3 days a week. I still think the beginning levels need to be gotten rid of. Content won't be an issue because they can revamp the content to be in whatever level range they do keep, let's say 70-80. And as I suggested, make the crawl from 70 to 80 hell levels, make it as long as 1 to 80, change ALL the pre 80 content to fit in that 70-80, I'll bet you find a ton of groups.Yes I realize I am VERY jaded and would rather rush my toon to level 80, it's my 5th or 6th toon getting to 80 and I've seen the content ad naseum. But I'm also suggesting this for the NEW player. They log on and see this huge mountain in front of them, 90 levels, 250AA, 150 shards (or whatever new currency will be), 20 masters, fabled then mythical weapon. Now give them a single player Soloquest type game that is extremely lonely and anti social. At that point I'll bet many of them say Hell I'll just play Demon's Souls (which is an incredible RPG BTW), or Oblivion, etc. Much of the Everquest addiction is social, not just social interaction but of course social pecking order and having the "gear". But you really miss out on a lot of this social interaction from 1 to 80.I just am not getting what the purpose of 1 to 80 is. It's not to learn how to group. You can learn the basics of the game in 5 levels on the beginner island. Lets just merge everyone into 70-90, make 70-80 hell levels, and I'll bet there will be plenty of groups and more of an original Everquest type social feel to the game.<cite>fawdown wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>In reply to your first paragraph the population IS very sparse, part of the problem is many people have dropped off because SOE is late to the party with their expansion, the other part is IMO there is too much of a steep mountain to climb for a new player. SOE needs to get rid of most of the levels and start players at 70 or something.In your second paragraph you lament the heroic mobs standing in your way. You should have played this game in the first couple of years when heroics were all over the place and you actually got nervous if you had to run an overland zone. That was an exciting time in which grouping was almost required, IMO a much better game and dynamic. But some people love Soloquest, personally I'd rather just play Oblivion or some single player disconnected game at that point, I'd venture to guess a lot of players who don't log on anymore feel the same.</blockquote>Perhaps you should change servers then. I think it's quite busy when I am on. Better late with an expansion rather than only having a few lousy ones in the same amount of time. A game where you can level a character to 30 in 3 days does not need a quick fix way to get to 70 or 80.</blockquote>

Pervis

11-25-2009, 10:57 AM

<cite>kevincann wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote> Sitting around and waiting to play is a broken model.</blockquote>I agree completely!That's what I do in eq2... sit around and wait to play... at least for mylevel 80 characters...Once I hit 80, I cant get a group... so i start another alt... and get themto 80... then I can't get a group... it's crazy.I've tried multiple servers. I've tried multiple guilds. I've created mostly thehighest in demand characters (healers, illusionist, etc).I ask for groups in chat.I ask for groups in guild.I try the /lfg tool.I post on forums to get hints about the best way to get groups..Then I stop wasting my time.. and go back to 2-boxing alts.I don't know how much more soloquest and 2-boxing I can toleratebefore I quit.-Kev</blockquote>I find it hard to believe that a player willing to play either a healer or an illusionist can't get a group in TSO.Unless, of course, you advertise for a group and then log out after 30 seconds if no one has contacted you. Then I could understand it.

erin

11-25-2009, 11:04 AM

<cite>Pervis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>kevincann wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eliezer wrote:</cite><blockquote> Sitting around and waiting to play is a broken model.</blockquote>I agree completely!That's what I do in eq2... sit around and wait to play... at least for mylevel 80 characters...Once I hit 80, I cant get a group... so i start another alt... and get themto 80... then I can't get a group... it's crazy.I've tried multiple servers. I've tried multiple guilds. I've created mostly thehighest in demand characters (healers, illusionist, etc).I ask for groups in chat.I ask for groups in guild.I try the /lfg tool.I post on forums to get hints about the best way to get groups..Then I stop wasting my time.. and go back to 2-boxing alts.I don't know how much more soloquest and 2-boxing I can toleratebefore I quit.-Kev</blockquote>I find it hard to believe that a player willing to play either a healer or an illusionist can't get a group in TSO.Unless, of course, you advertise for a group and then log out after 30 seconds if no one has contacted you. Then I could understand it.</blockquote>For once I agree with Pervis. I don't buy it. I have both an illusionist and several healers, and on any of them if I go lfg, I get a group. Even when I don't go lfg, I get group invites. It generally takes less than 10 minutes to find a group with these chars. And no, I'm not uber, I'm talking T2 gear, maybe fabled epic in most cases. My troub? Don't even think about it <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Can't log in without getting invites, everyone wants a troub and not enough out there.

Sparxx

11-25-2009, 12:12 PM

<cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just am not getting what the purpose of 1 to 80 is. It's not to learn how to group. You can learn the basics of the game in 5 levels on the beginner island. Lets just merge everyone into 70-90, make 70-80 hell levels, and I'll bet there will be plenty of groups and more of an original Everquest type social feel to the game.</blockquote>I think 1-80 and soon to be 1-90 is needed. The reason is the same as why I don't believe people should be able to buy accounts. You get somebody who has no clue how their class works. They start out at 80 and are lost, getting group after group killed. Even soloquesting to 80, I still have classes that I do not fully understand. I use the 1-80 range to quest and get familiar with my toon, try different spells and see what they do. I do understand that the group dynamic and playstyle is different than soloing, so it doesnt' make you an expert, but at least you learn the basics.That said, I do agree that population is getting sparse on PVE servers. I have sat and waited for 2 hours or more to get a group on multiple occasions with lvl 80 content doing shard zones. This is hardly fun and has me weighing the better options of transferring servers or quitting EQ2 altogether. I personally think that another server merge is well overdue.

Yimway

11-25-2009, 12:22 PM

<cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just am not getting what the purpose of 1 to 80 is. It's not to learn how to group. You can learn the basics of the game in 5 levels on the beginner island. Lets just merge everyone into 70-90, make 70-80 hell levels, and I'll bet there will be plenty of groups and more of an original Everquest type social feel to the game.</blockquote>Your not getting the purpose, as well, there is none.They could make all content in game start at level 70 and have players start at level 70, and it wouldn't really affect anything. So long as shattered lands is scaled for 70 and 0 AA, and newer expansions scale higher. The entire game could be compacted to a 20 level span, and you don't even need to make them 'hell' levels, just make AA level be the more significant level indicator.I don't seriously think they'd make a change like that, but I'd agree it would be healthier for the game. Its been my opinion since DoF that there is too much vertical growth in this game. I've felt strongly since DoF they should have increased in 5 level increments causing the span of current 'tier' content to be MUCH wider. This ever rising level cap feels like 'miracle growth' mudflation of class levels, and only serves to increase the barrier of entry for new players.

erin

11-25-2009, 01:01 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just am not getting what the purpose of 1 to 80 is. It's not to learn how to group. You can learn the basics of the game in 5 levels on the beginner island. Lets just merge everyone into 70-90, make 70-80 hell levels, and I'll bet there will be plenty of groups and more of an original Everquest type social feel to the game.</blockquote>Your not getting the purpose, as well, there is none.</blockquote>Because 1-80 is fun? Yup folks I know its a real shock to your system, but some of us just actually enjoy leveling a character, enjoy the content between 1 and 80. Stunning, I know.

MurFalad

11-25-2009, 01:17 PM

<cite>zzilba wrote:</cite><blockquote> Unfortunately, in the face of the juggarnaut that is WoW, comparions and parallels are distinctly unfair - apples and oranges. So, I'm not going to do that. But I will point out a few things that really inhibit my experience as a player in what I believe is the best MMO on the market.</blockquote>As a former WoW player I do compare it though to WoW, and favourably, there's a lot that people complain about in EQ2 that is taken forgranted as something you live with in WoW and I'm just not sure why. One example is the naked toons thing, in WoW sometimes I'd log in and until I logged out everyone is naked and remains naked, that bug has been there for a year or maybe longer, so in terms of polish I'd actually rate EQ2 highly.<cite>zzilba wrote:</cite><blockquote> I'm level 55 on LDL. The population *feels* incredibly sparse, and i have gone days without running into another player. The most I have seen simultaneously is 5 players. Now, let me point out that the keyword used here is *Feels* not *is.* The world of Norrath is enormous and diversity in levels contribute greatly to spontaneous run-in's with other</blockquote>Its true, its often to see an adventurer here and there in the pre-80 zones but rarely a crowd, I guess for SOE to fix this though they either need to merge/make servers have larger populations which I think will have problems at the busy spots, or alter the game to funnel players in specific zones. They do the latter a bit but maybe they should do it on some of the pre-80 zones? Dunno here, I like the free roaming nature of the game so I wouldn't want to lose this.I'm fairly happy with the current state of things, more people around when I'm soloing just is competition, although its nice to team up for the odd elite or area now and then, a better LFG tool though would be good, the current one just doesn't seem to get used for some reason.<cite>zzilba wrote:</cite><blockquote> I understand that there will be a sector of players who will want to meet my comments with the obligatory inflammatory remarks, but regardless, a lack of thriving population impacts the game on many levels; Accessibility to large scale encounters - many of mine turned gray due to lack of players to participate with; The economy is greatly diminished. Selling and purchasing from a broker, even the most rare items and necessary skills will only set me back a couple of gold, but I'm lucky to make that through consignments due the the little demand. Heroic mobs seem excessive when venturing alone; They're everywhere and often present an unfathomable obstacle between a solitary player and a quest objective. In a discussion the other day, someone had said to another individual who was disappointed in the visibility of other players and the large amounts of Heroic mobs that he could not solo that "Everquest 2 was never intended to be a solo game." Thats truly fair enough; Then the experience should not feel isolated. Some people are quite contented with an undeniably small community where everyone knows everyone else via the chat channel - But the cons far outweigh the pros when considering a goal driven environment, even for the most casual player.</blockquote>A couple of things there, firstly on the consignments and making money from tradeskilling etc at low levels, basically the money you get from quests is pretty low until you hit Maj'Dul and 50+ areas, at 80 you are earning 60g or so from a daily mission, or at least the Tupta ones I'm rather fond of give this sort of reward.Couple that with the way tradeskills work for levelling and there is a glut of stuff out there with only the very best gear in demand, so as a new player you are in a good position if you want to buy average sort of gear off the broker and in a great position if you want to sell anything truly rare and in demand (level 40-50 rares can go for 1-2 plat easy, more then enough money to buy average quality gear for every slot). But the downside is always going to be if you want to buy say a full set of mastercrafted at level 50 your going to need to spend ~20 plat, a ridiculously high amount for a player that level.Personally I stuck with the bargain basement equipment until I hit level 70, if you really want that full set of mastercrafted plate early your best off harvesting days on end to get it.Secondly on heroic mobs I've found a lot of the time some very impossible looking mobs are possible but its just a question of really getting the most out of your class and/or having the best gear, on my rangers for example I can kill most mobs in the game by just standing toe to toe and going through the combat arts after an initial bow pull. But for a heroic mob using snares, buffs, roots and stuns just right can really take down some very hard mobs, its the same deal for a guardian I play.So I think right now there is a big wide range of content at each level in this way, unlike say in WoW where I could handle anything that was worth killing, a solo player cannot handle everything that is their level in EQ2, but the upside I think is that for those times you are overpowered (if you've just picked up mastercrafted gear or you have a ton of AA for the level) then there is something challenging you can still do.That's my take on it though, there are downers sometimes in EQ2 for me though, one of them recently was in Loping plains and fortunately isn't something I see in later levels. Basically its a great atmospheric zone to adventure in, but (at least for me) its got the crummiest mob spacing in the game, basically they took an area and put mobs in randomly all over the zone, you cannot walk 10 foot without aggroing a mob or three.While I loved the zone, at the same time it did cheese me off just with the endless mob pulls I made every time I tried to travel somewhere which felt grindy after a while, maybe its meant for groups (although there is a sub zone there with elites only that does cater for groups perfectly), but I much prefer the zones where the mobs are hanging around like they have a purpose (and not bandits wandering past lurking crocodiles that seem to be good friends!). While it is easier to handle I do much prefer the logical placement of mobs every time, in one way Loping plains also had some of the best here too with lookouts for camps that really were able to intercept you when you tried to sneak in, although the downer here was a bear/Blood thing/whatever would probably be aggro'd at the same time <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Yimway

11-25-2009, 01:18 PM

<cite>erin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just am not getting what the purpose of 1 to 80 is. It's not to learn how to group. You can learn the basics of the game in 5 levels on the beginner island. Lets just merge everyone into 70-90, make 70-80 hell levels, and I'll bet there will be plenty of groups and more of an original Everquest type social feel to the game.</blockquote>Your not getting the purpose, as well, there is none.</blockquote>Because 1-80 is fun? Yup folks I know its a real shock to your system, but some of us just actually enjoy leveling a character, enjoy the content between 1 and 80. Stunning, I know.</blockquote>Grats on failing to get the point.Did I say remove any content? No.I said condense the level range so that players can be generally congregated into the same ranges for doing content together. I simply stated that the ever growing spanse of levels only serves to restrict the growth of the playerbase.The content doesn't really change if its condensed to a 20 level range, its still all there to go do.But like I said, its a change that would never happen, I simply stated it would be healthier for the game for the levels to be condensed rather than ever expanding.There is no reason a new level raise needed to be 10 levels a shot. Had you read my post you'd see the arguement I made against how they've done it.

erin

11-25-2009, 01:25 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>erin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aanadorn68 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I just am not getting what the purpose of 1 to 80 is. It's not to learn how to group. You can learn the basics of the game in 5 levels on the beginner island. Lets just merge everyone into 70-90, make 70-80 hell levels, and I'll bet there will be plenty of groups and more of an original Everquest type social feel to the game.</blockquote>Your not getting the purpose, as well, there is none.</blockquote>Because 1-80 is fun? Yup folks I know its a real shock to your system, but some of us just actually enjoy leveling a character, enjoy the content between 1 and 80. Stunning, I know.</blockquote>Grats on failing to get the point.Did I say remove any content? No.I said condense the level range so that players can be generally congregated into the same ranges for doing content together. I simply stated that the ever growing spanse of levels only serves to restrict the growth of the playerbase.The content doesn't really change if its condensed to a 20 level range, its still all there to go do.But like I said, its a change that would never happen, I simply stated it would be healthier for the game for the levels to be condensed rather than ever expanding.There is no reason a new level raise needed to be 10 levels a shot. Had you read my post you'd see the arguement I made against how they've done it.</blockquote>I actually did read your post. I just totally disagree with you. There is satisfaction, especially for the casual gamer, in that level ding. At early levels its very fast gratification, then it slows down. If you consolidate the whole game to 20 levels, there isn't that feeling of satisfaction that a casual gamer gets from a little playing.

NrthnStar5

11-25-2009, 01:28 PM

My problem is groups before level 80. I have a 75 Warden, and I haven't been able to get a group for over a week now. My play time starts around 8-9 PM CST and I'm on the blackburrow server. I'm tired of grinding out the solo quests in Kunark. They all start to run together anymore. And the massive faction grinding going there is not fun! How is faction grinding considered fun??I like to run dungeons, and I hardly ever do. I am in a relatively large guild, I am constantly advertising for group and willing to mentor.I thought all the TSO dungeons scaled down as low as 50? Why are the only TSO dungeon runs being done at 80? Why does it feel that grouping doesn't start until 80? And from what I am seeing right now, as a Warden, I'm not that much in demand.Not much to look forward to and is making me look at other games. =-(

Yimway

11-25-2009, 01:43 PM

<cite>erin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I actually did read your post. I just totally disagree with you. There is satisfaction, especially for the casual gamer, in that level ding. At early levels its very fast gratification, then it slows down. If you consolidate the whole game to 20 levels, there isn't that feeling of satisfaction that a casual gamer gets from a little playing.</blockquote>You'd gain the same satisfaction from the AA dings that would happen at relatively the same pace.You'd also gain from there now being hundreds of people in your level range actively playing on your server, instead of what, a dozen?What you're casually dismissing is the barrier of entry a prospective new player sees when they look at a tittle that is several years old and has an astronomically high level cap with the playerbase overloaded at the top.Most MMO players want to get in and play in a populated, vibrant game culture, the quiet solice of grinding to catch up is daunting to most players, and honestly they're not going to even give the game a try for how daunting getting 90 levels to catch up sounds.I'm glad you like the leveling game, I loved it the first time, I liked it the 2nd-10th time, the 19th time it felt like a chore, but the issue is centered more around new players not veterans repeating content.

Yimway

11-25-2009, 01:50 PM

<cite>NrthnStar5 wrote:</cite><blockquote>My problem is groups before level 80. I have a 75 Warden, and I haven't been able to get a group for over a week now. My play time starts around 8-9 PM CST and I'm on the blackburrow server. I'm tired of grinding out the solo quests in Kunark. They all start to run together anymore. And the massive faction grinding going there is not fun! How is faction grinding considered fun??I like to run dungeons, and I hardly ever do. I am in a relatively large guild, I am constantly advertising for group and willing to mentor.I thought all the TSO dungeons scaled down as low as 50? Why are the only TSO dungeon runs being done at 80? Why does it feel that grouping doesn't start until 80? And from what I am seeing right now, as a Warden, I'm not that much in demand.Not much to look forward to and is making me look at other games. =-(</blockquote>1) Most players group with other level 80s.2) You may have some success mentoring down lowbies advertising in 1-9.3) TSO dungeons scale down, however the missions that give the bulk of the xp for doing the zones do not. So, well, without a reasonable reward for the time spent, no one does them.4) It does feel like grouping doesn't start until 80, cause well, thats where the bulk of players are at grouping.It's daunting, but at level 75, you've got maybe 8 more hours of solid quest grinding to get over the hump. I'd urge you to just grit your teeth and get at it as you'll have more fun later. The only viable alternative I see is mentoring lowbies and doing t2-t6 dungeons as you can find them, but its going to take significantly longer to get those last 5 levels that way.The higher the level cap gets and the more concentrated the playerbase is at the cap, the more I see a need for them to use a 'sidekick' model that allows people to mentor up. Even with all the bonuses and incentives for mentoring down that they add, very little grouping opportunites happen in that direction.

Mythanote

11-25-2009, 02:46 PM

This is still going on? wow. Atan, arent you the one that brags how many alts you have, tradeskillers, etc, and usually in the same post bragging how easy it is to level? So tell me again, if it's easy to level, why do we need get rid of levelling/ consolidate levels? Pot meet kettle.

NrthnStar5

11-25-2009, 04:07 PM

Thank you for the tips Atan.I am just getting a tad burnt out on the whole process, so we'll see. Maybe a brief break, who knows. The bigger issue here is SOE really needs to look at the situation, and figure out some creative and unique ways to solve this grouping dilemma. Grouping should not be mainly at level 80. Grouping should be much more throughout the entire span of levels, not to force it, or take away the solo option, but to somehow encourage it and make it worthwhile.

Despak

11-26-2009, 04:53 AM

<cite>Mythanote@Runnyeye wrote:</cite><blockquote>This is still going on? wow. Atan, arent you the one that brags how many alts you have, tradeskillers, etc, and usually in the same post bragging how easy it is to level? So tell me again, if it's easy to level, why do we need get rid of levelling/ consolidate levels? Pot meet kettle.</blockquote>Wow you need a carrot and a sugar lump. Try actually reading the post and topic instead of skimming to find something to attempt (and fail) to make yourself look clever and witty.As Atan is replying to this post his talking to the OP and a few others, not relating his experience and enjoyment (or not) of alts. He is referring to new players and existing low level players.May I humbly suggest: <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-GBGB354GB354&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=how+to+read+and+understand">http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=...+and+understand</a>

Kigneer

11-26-2009, 08:17 AM

<cite>NrthnStar5 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thank you for the tips Atan.I am just getting a tad burnt out on the whole process, so we'll see. Maybe a brief break, who knows. The bigger issue here is SOE really needs to look at the situation, and figure out some creative and unique ways to solve this grouping dilemma. Grouping should not be mainly at level 80. Grouping should be much more throughout the entire span of levels, not to force it, or take away the solo option, but to somehow encourage it and make it worthwhile.</blockquote>When at level 32 folks are asking for specific classes...level 32s meet how it's like in level 80...whole classes sitting on the benches not used to even get into groups.The whole concept of grouping needs to change. Not spend more time looking for a group; looking to find enough players; looking for some mentor for a zone. Some type of smart linking system, where you can input you're available, and when you get a "green light" from a group needing an extra hand, you're ready to roll. Chat is totally inefficient for this purpose, more so when so many now are anonymous.

Seidhkona

11-26-2009, 01:48 PM

I've been on Lucan D'Lere since I started the game all these years ago and have a full stable of alts. I've never had any problems getting groups when I wanted them at any level.They key is to use level chat, both 50-59 AND 1-9 to look for groups. Don't just say "53 wizard LFG". Figure out what exactly you want to do and organize a group yourself. "Starting group for Claymore Questing! PST!" "Need more for questing through all of Lesser Faydark, PST!" "Forming group for Klak'Anon! PST!" etc. will get you MANY more responses.

Yimway

11-26-2009, 03:10 PM

<cite>NrthnStar5 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Thank you for the tips Atan.I am just getting a tad burnt out on the whole process, so we'll see. Maybe a brief break, who knows. The bigger issue here is SOE really needs to look at the situation, and figure out some creative and unique ways to solve this grouping dilemma. Grouping should not be mainly at level 80. Grouping should be much more throughout the entire span of levels, not to force it, or take away the solo option, but to somehow encourage it and make it worthwhile.</blockquote>I feel if grouping dungeons was the defacto fastest way to gain net xp (adv+aa), it would go a long way towards making that happen.As it sits, I know I can soloquest xp very quickly, forming a lowbie group with 6 strangers isn't likely to keep pace with the sologame, so verterans like me leveling an alt are nearly removed from the available pool of players to group with.If I knew finding my way into RoV, RE, CT, etc while leveling would be faster than soloquests, I'd have my /lfg tag up and advertising in channels.In the end, I blame the developers. I think if you removed the doubling of quest xp 1-70 that was added at RoK launch and maybe did a minor tweak to dungeon quests, the game might be more 'centered' and there would be more motivation for knowledgable players to do heroic content pre-80.

Babayaaga

11-27-2009, 12:05 PM

Sounds to me like there needs to be more incentive (other than bonus AA) to mentor in older zones. So let's turn this one back on the older players:What would encourage YOU to mentor down and group with people in older content? Keep in mind, this would be something you would opt to do INSTEAD of what you normally do (raid, run shard zones, etc.).

Babayaaga

11-27-2009, 12:08 PM

I'll start:Give me value to mentoring... not just AAs. What if running older instances somehow yielded shards (since you need so many of them these days, especially if you have Alts). Perhaps killing X named bosses in dungeons, or completing Y quest timeline yielded 1 shard instead of (or in addition to) the regular rewards? What if completing a heritage timeline also gave a bonus shard (or two)?THAT would make me run old content. Would be nice to have a change of pace for earning shards too. If the "instead of" option was granted as certain quest line rewards, it could give newer players the option to get a head start on their shards for the day that they reach 80. After all, to obtain a full set of T2 shard armour plus jewellery you need 200+ of them, and that's just starter gear these days.

Banditman

11-27-2009, 12:28 PM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I knew finding my way into RoV, RE, CT, etc while leveling would be faster than soloquests, I'd have my /lfg tag up and advertising in channels.Actually, it is. Much faster in fact. The problem is that up until recently doing that got you zero AA. Now there is entirely too much momentum in just running solo quests. Breaking that momentum would be painful at this point, and unfortunately not a great solution for every server.In the end, I blame the developers. I think if you removed the doubling of quest xp 1-70 that was added at RoK launch and maybe did a minor tweak to dungeon quests, the game might be more 'centered' and there would be more motivation for knowledgable players to do heroic content pre-80.The real problem is the (*@# database. There should be one server. Everything instances anyway, why do we have multiple servers? It makes zero sense! Think about it for a minute. Every single zone, including shared dungeons, overland zones and cities. Every single zone in the game can instance - I've seen it. Why do we need multiple servers? The only reason I can come up with is that the database simply can't handle it, and that's a problem that can be solved if anyone cared to do it. Take a look at EVE. All players, one server. 35k+ players online at any one time (Yes, they publish their ACTUAL player count!). 700 in a single zone. And it works.SOE could do it, if they wanted. I pray that EQ3 has this, I imagine it's not happening for EQ2.</blockquote>

Gisallo

11-27-2009, 07:49 PM

<cite>zzilba wrote:</cite><blockquote> ...Despite being an enthusiastic, but casual player, there are a few things that really damper the experience at times. Now, if you ask me, I do believe that Everquest II far superceeds the vast majority of MMO's out there. The quality is unsurpassed, and the devs have done a fantastic job maintaining it's coherency over time. Unfortunately, in the face of the juggarnaut that is WoW, comparions and parallels are distinctly unfair - apples and oranges. So, I'm not going to do that. But I will point out a few things that really inhibit my experience as a player in what I believe is the best MMO on the market. I'm level 55 on LDL. The population *feels* incredibly sparse, and i have gone days without running into another player. The most I have seen simultaneously is 5 players. Now, let me point out that the keyword used here is *Feels* not *is.* The world of Norrath is enormous and diversity in levels contribute greatly to spontaneous run-in's with other members of the community. Tht said, the adventuring would feel remote and solitary if it were not for the ocassional chatting in a global chat channel. I am a community minded individual, so working collaboratively with others is why I play MMO's and not single player console games, but I have to be honest and admit that the majority of the time it feels like a single player experience. The open world spontenaity of running across playing hunting or questing, gathering crafting goods or feeling as though you are a part of a much bigger picture in terms of an established and thriving society and culture is what seems to be missing. I have read so many threads where some players claim they have no issues running into players, or alleging that AB is the most populated server, which is great - if you're a player on AB. I understand transferring is an option, and I haven't ruled it out. I understand that there will be a sector of players who will want to meet my comments with the obligatory inflammatory remarks, but regardless, a lack of thriving population impacts the game on many levels; Accessibility to large scale encounters - many of mine turned gray due to lack of players to participate with; The economy is greatly diminished. Selling and purchasing from a broker, even the most rare items and necessary skills will only set me back a couple of gold, but I'm lucky to make that through consignments due the the little demand. Heroic mobs seem excessive when venturing alone; They're everywhere and often present an unfathomable obstacle between a solitary player and a quest objective. In a discussion the other day, someone had said to another individual who was disappointed in the visibility of other players and the large amounts of Heroic mobs that he could not solo that "Everquest 2 was never intended to be a solo game." Thats truly fair enough; Then the experience should not feel isolated. Some people are quite contented with an undeniably small community where everyone knows everyone else via the chat channel - But the cons far outweigh the pros when considering a goal driven environment, even for the most casual player.I fully intend to continue my adventures here, so please don't consider this an end-of-the-world post. Just a few impressions from a dedicted player.</blockquote>I am on the same server as you are and I agree with you to an extent but I think with what I see as the reasons its not likely to change anytime soon. (reasons are in no particular order).1. Guilds Halls. The existance of guild halls and their amenities have basically created a situation where, if you are grouping, there is little reason to be in the former gathering place, the harbors docks and the like. basically you have an express line from Guild hall to the zones where the instances are and then its just a sokokar, griffon, balloon whatever to your zone in, and thats if someone in your guild didn't put down a flag. There are also a number of guilds that have these travel amenities open for anyone to use so even people without guild tags, if they are in the know, have little reason to not go to a guild hall.2. Lvl 80. The level cap has been 80 for 2 expansions now and its about to get to 90. Because of this A LOT of people are simply rolling on their 80's or even taking a break waiting for the level cap to jump to 90. This of course will also have an impact on low level grouping.3. Guilds in general. If you are a member of a good/large/active guild you won't really do a lot of PUGS. You will have guildies with alts (even if they aren't taged) or guildies willing to mentor down, especially if they are not at the AA cap yet. Again not a lot of insentive to look for pugs.4. There is so much soloing in this game that is brain dead easy that if you are in one of the above categories there is no real reason to look for a PUG.It kinda stinks, especially for new players coming in blind, but really this appears to be a factor of a game that is 5 years old. Add in the existance of guild halls and the amenities that they can provide and you only compound the issue. There really is no easy way to deal with the issue. So I wouldn't say there is not a thriving population but rather than population currently is operating in distinct cliques with level and/or guild tag being the defining factors. I think the PUG environment will get a little more active come Feb. when the expansion gets released but again this will just be for the 80-90 crowd, which is why SOE is bending over backwards to make leveling to 80 that much easier. The solutions (if you want to call them that) really appear to fall into the following...1. Look and get into a large guild with lots of active peeps willing to help out2. solo to 80. Its really not that hard. I soloed a Ranger and mostly a Zerker to 80 and still have solo quests left over on both toons from all tiers.3. do both 1 and 2.Like I said none of the solutions are really ones that everyone would call "good" ones. A lot of people come to MMO's and think/feel/hope that the PUG environment will be a vibrant one but especially on a server that has 5 years of game time and 5 years of inter and intra-guild soap operas, the PUG environment is going to be weaker. Heck I can tell ya right now its A LOT weaker than Pre-ROK but as I said this seems to be primarily a factor of max level and age and the inclusion of guild halls. With that in mind there doesn't seem to be much to do about it.

Gisallo

11-27-2009, 07:55 PM

<cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>If I knew finding my way into RoV, RE, CT, etc while leveling would be faster than soloquests, I'd have my /lfg tag up and advertising in channels.Actually, it is. Much faster in fact. The problem is that up until recently doing that got you zero AA. Now there is entirely too much momentum in just running solo quests. Breaking that momentum would be painful at this point, and unfortunately not a great solution for every server.In the end, I blame the developers. I think if you removed the doubling of quest xp 1-70 that was added at RoK launch and maybe did a minor tweak to dungeon quests, the game might be more 'centered' and there would be more motivation for knowledgable players to do heroic content pre-80.The real problem is the (*@# database. There should be one server. Everything instances anyway, why do we have multiple servers? It makes zero sense! Think about it for a minute. Every single zone, including shared dungeons, overland zones and cities. Every single zone in the game can instance - I've seen it. Why do we need multiple servers? The only reason I can come up with is that the database simply can't handle it, and that's a problem that can be solved if anyone cared to do it. Take a look at EVE. All players, one server. 35k+ players online at any one time (Yes, they publish their ACTUAL player count!). 700 in a single zone. And it works.SOE could do it, if they wanted. I pray that EQ3 has this, I imagine it's not happening for EQ2.</blockquote></blockquote>The reason for multiple servers is that its really only through servers that communities build up fast and become vibrant. One of the weakness brought up by me, other players and just about every MMO review magazine and web site for Champions on-line is that due to the lack of servers (they have one but multiple "shards" or instances you can pop between) makes the forming of the community difficult at best. The quickest guilds to form were RP guilds believe it or not and thats because they formed their own Roleplayers web site and did their own recruiting via that web site and a few PvP guilds coming from other games got up to speed quick as well. For the most part though that game is a solo/PUG fest because you need to slogg through 10's of shards on your little list to try and find where a person on your friends list is because depending on the zone you have a rolling max of 30-100 people (30 for a non quest social instance like Club Caprice and 100 for an outdoor open quest zone like the Burning Sands). Pretty awkward and not exactly encouraging of the server community that the OP was speaking to, especially when you even find your friends you now need to try and find an open zone that has enough open slots for all of you to get to. There was more than one time I would click to go to the group leaders shard only to be told "to many people" and have to bother him/her with finding a new one.That kinda thing may work for a more Xbox live style of play where its just about the game and not about a "community" but in an MMO thats got an in game economy, guilds with guild halls and the desire on the part of the players and the devs to see both grow a serverless system just doesn't seem to work.

Banditman

11-27-2009, 08:14 PM

I have exactly the opposite experience with EVE, a single server game. It's extremely easy to find people to play with, guilds to play with.

Kigneer

11-27-2009, 08:28 PM

<cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have exactly the opposite experience with EVE, a single server game. It's extremely easy to find people to play with, guilds to play with. </blockquote>EvE is also micromanaged. They even have a Ph.D in economics running their economy. It's comparing a pro football team with a minor league one. lolWhat EQ2 has that is well done is production values. The game is "polished" in it's own right, yet I believe even SoE understands it's time for another game engine and roll out EQ3, too.5 years, it's about time.

Gisallo

11-27-2009, 08:29 PM

<cite>Banditman wrote:</cite><blockquote>I have exactly the opposite experience with EVE, a single server game. It's extremely easy to find people to play with, guilds to play with. </blockquote>Don't get me wrong I am not saying it isn't possible at all period, I played EVE as well and agree it has worked there BUT I think PvP has a lot to do with and so did not add this into my calculations. In any open PvP game you almost HAVE to form guilds or join one, or just group in the PvP areas else you will be nothing but fodder for the rest of the game. In a PvE centric game however you do not have this bonafide NEED to group and join guilds, Corps what have you. I think the PvP dynamic of EVE makes it different than PvE centric games such as CO and EQ2 etc. Now if with EQ Next they add a sizeable PvP component it could indeed work I would suspect, but if it maintains the intense PvE focus that EQ2 has I don't think so. I suspect they will have a PvP component, every MMO (most of which have failed) have done so but SOE for sometime has not really been an innovator. I also think it will be largely console based which will alienate a lot of the hard core MMO crowd so they really won't be risking the loss of a portion of their player base that wouldn't already get wacked by the console focus. So EQ Next is likely the game that may do this, but in my opinion ONLY if they diverge greatly from the paradigm established by EQ and EQ2.

erin

11-27-2009, 09:00 PM

<cite>Galibier@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Guilds Halls. The existance of guild halls and their amenities have basically created a situation where, if you are grouping, there is little reason to be in the former gathering place, the harbors docks and the like. basically you have an express line from Guild hall to the zones where the instances are and then its just a sokokar, griffon, balloon whatever to your zone in, and thats if someone in your guild didn't put down a flag. There are also a number of guilds that have these travel amenities open for anyone to use so even people without guild tags, if they are in the know, have little reason to not go to a guild hall.</blockquote>This has never ever been true in EQ2. Nobody every gathered in "gatherin places" to find groups. There were no central gathering places. Guild halls have nothing to do with any grouping problem (if such exists).

Gisallo

11-27-2009, 09:05 PM

<cite>erin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Galibier@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>1. Guilds Halls. The existance of guild halls and their amenities have basically created a situation where, if you are grouping, there is little reason to be in the former gathering place, the harbors docks and the like. basically you have an express line from Guild hall to the zones where the instances are and then its just a sokokar, griffon, balloon whatever to your zone in, and thats if someone in your guild didn't put down a flag. There are also a number of guilds that have these travel amenities open for anyone to use so even people without guild tags, if they are in the know, have little reason to not go to a guild hall.</blockquote>This has never ever been true in EQ2. Nobody every gathered in "gatherin places" to find groups. There were no central gathering places. Guild halls have nothing to do with any grouping problem (if such exists).</blockquote>This was going to this part of his post..." The population *feels* incredibly sparse, and i have gone days without running into another player. The most I have seen simultaneously is 5 players."At least on LdL before GHs I would always find a hoarde of people just chilling out in QH, at the various vendors and crafting stations etc. The QHs are the single largest cause of the "feel" that the OP speaks of.

zzilba

12-02-2009, 12:19 AM

Thank you all for the incredibly helpful feedback! Obviously these forums have a very strong community behind it. I read each one of your replies after I did some homework of my own. I thought a look at the server/population trends from the past might have shed some light on which ones would impose the least feeling of general isolation or that dreaded single player sensibility that some have developed. I noticed that the material was pretty consistant, including a few in this thread who had gone from 1 to 80 solo and didn't really find easy access to groups until end game. Server populations seem to have always been an issue for both old and new players for a plethora of reasons; The most common being the distinct lack of social interaction (75 and below groups/larger guilds for end game encounters/more players around disperate levels) beyond a shared global chat channel. The question of servers is always the same when new players come aboard. No one wants the isolated experience from an MMO that they are paying for when they can achieve the same on a console platform. People generally want populated servers - from the article at <a href="http://www.massively.com/2008/06/05/going-back-to-eq-or-eq2-but-which-server/" target="_blank">Massively</a> to forums in which people ask. "<a href="http://vnboards.ign.com/eq2_general_board/b22210/109250847/r109470146/" target="_blank">What Server has the Best population?</a>" Back in 2008, one player stated that the current "server populations are dwindling by the day." When I googled "EQ2 server population" I was shocked by the amount of people who felt this was a sincere issue that has significantly impacted their experience. One thing I discovered was that Antonia Bayle has a pretty stable population, which peaks at Medium Load, while the rest typically remain low. Many newcomers and veterans alike begin on or tranfer to Antonia Bayle to maximize their collaborative EQ2 experience and immerse themselves in an active society of players - which appears to be the catalyst for the dwindling numbers that other servers are suffering. This suprised me because the majority of the time, the most popular servers are PVP oriented!Any game that has been around as long as EQ2 needs reinvigorated to some degree to lure in both new players and older ones. A few strong statements were made in this thread that ring incredibly true: New players are thwarted by the steep climb from 1-80 (90) and that frightens many off. The task sounds very daunting to people looking to acclimate or reacclimate themselves to Norrath. Had I not already had a mid-range character, I don't think I would have reactivated with as much enthusiasm as I did. As I barrel through my 50's, even the journey to 80 seems a bit staggaring.I remember when Dark Age Of Camelot began introducing more end game content and implemented the quest that gave as much experience as an entire level - which was only available to player of a certain level, and if they pased that level they were ineligible and had to task through the next ten on their own before being eligible for a free level in the next tier. The quests were not simple, but it lessened the sharp incline players had to tread and allowed more people to get to the point where they could engage in these end game activities. The challenge was still there, most certainly, but the distance between one and the final ding was narrowed just slightly. It also presented a goal every ten levels. With EQ2's level cap raising to 90, I don't think such an implementation would hurt. A new expansion is always a welcome sight so the game never feels stale, but with a platform that has an ever expanding horizon and a "low visibility" playerbase below 80, you have a lot of space in between that isn't used. The new expansion hold great promise for those going from level 80-90 (It is being marketed as a producted intended to expand content from 80-90) but the incentive for new or younger players seems non-existant. Another comment in this thread was regarding EQ3. It was speculated last year at E3 that this announcement was impending. Alas, it wasn't. Often when a game finds itself running low on fuel and appealing primarily to a demographic already In the game (Level 80+) it's time to figure out how to pull more people to a product. EQ2 is an outstanding game and the SOE sector of Devs dedicated to it have astounded me with their constant dedication and dynamic content, lush events and air-tight additions to the experience. That said, it also seems mindblowing that population is such a substantial issue in a game where the quality is A+. EQ3 has possibility given that a great many gamers where only 10 when EQ2 first arrived on shelves. They're now teenagers and EQ2 operates very much under the shadow of WoW, their monster marketing campaigns and culture phenomenon. There isn't so much awareness. There isn't so much hype. It's completely true that there has not been one single strong contender to appear in the industry since that unforgetable November in 2004 when both WoW and EQ2 hit stores just weeks apart. They were followed 5 months later by the last big game in the family of those that would become iconic, Guild Wars. There have been hopefuls that have appeared, games like Pirates of the Burning Sea, Aion, City of Heroes, Age of Conan, Warhammer Online... for the most part, they were products of a hype machine and made barely a ripple in the wave of those that came before. There is always room for improvement, and you will notice if you played any of the aforementioned that each one incorporated elements of the Major three titles that dominated the industry as a trio. Interfaces suddenly looked very much like EQ2's, looting systems, combat and grouping options echoed that institued by World of Warcraft. Warhammer Devs were so certain that he had adequately adapted the strongest content from each of the three that they launched on opening day with a WoW-like amount of servers and quickly began shaving them off, <a href="http://www.warcry.com/news/view/90103-Warhammer-63-Servers-Getting-Shutdown" target="_blank">trimming another 63 last march</a> and most <a href="http://warherald.com/warherald/NewsArticle.war?id=987" target="_blank">recently merging yet another pair of Servers</a> November 29th. While their implemenation of the elements invented by the three Major titles was lackluster, they did however invent their own winning addition that we will see more of in the future. Public Quests. In 2007, NCsoft announced a sequel to their hugely popular game. <a href="http://www.guildwars2.com/en/" target="_blank">Guild Wars 2</a> will keep the free play model but strengthen the weaknesses that Guild Wars suffered from, primarily the segmented population (Districts took the place of servers) and reduce the amount of instanced adventuring. The chain of instances prevented players from spontaneous interactions and groupings that are necessary to create a persistant world and strong community. Blizzard is about to turn Azeroth on it's head with its fourth expansion <a href="http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/cataclysm/?rhtml=y" target="_blank">Cataclysm</a>. They not just adding a few new zones and more levels to conquer. They're taking the entire experience and turning it upside down from level 1-90, tearing apart the familiar terrains and environments of Azeroth entirely. All of this driven by with a wicked storyline that literally redefines the experience regardless of your level. If you're 80, most will want to start a level 1 simple for the new content. All eyes turn to EQ2 now. They were the first to drum up a powerful sequel to their iconic franchise, obviously setting a precedence. Is EQ3 out of the question? Or will they do something of mammoth proportion to the world of Norrath as we know it in order to invigorate the title? Right now it seems to me the most deserving of it, and the most in need. I tip my hat to the developers who have remained so committed to providing us with a great product over the last 5 years. That said, at the 5 year milestone, Sentinel's Fate seems a bit like a week delivery in a highly competitive market.

Yimway

12-02-2009, 12:30 PM

Rorasis

12-02-2009, 12:56 PM