I absolutely love this game, BUT...

[erin]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Aanadorn68 wrote:

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.

Your not getting the purpose, as well, there is none.

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]

zzilba wrote:

 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.

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.

zzilba wrote:

 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

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.

zzilba wrote:

 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.

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

[Yimway]

erin wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Aanadorn68 wrote:

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.

Your not getting the purpose, as well, there is none.

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.

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]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

erin wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:

Aanadorn68 wrote:

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.

Your not getting the purpose, as well, there is none.

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.

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.

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]

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]

erin wrote:

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.

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]

NrthnStar5 wrote:

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. =-(

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]

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]

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]

Mythanote@Runnyeye wrote:

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.

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: http://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=...+and+understand

[Kigneer]

NrthnStar5 wrote:

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.

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]

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]

NrthnStar5 wrote:

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.

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]

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]

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]

Atan@Unrest wrote:

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.

[Gisallo]

zzilba wrote:

 ...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.

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 out

2. 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]

Banditman wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:

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.

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]

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]

Banditman wrote:

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. 

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. lol

What 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]

Banditman wrote:

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. 

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]

Galibier@Lucan DLere wrote:

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.

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]

erin wrote:

Galibier@Lucan DLere wrote:

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.

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).

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]

 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 Massively to forums in which people ask. "What Server has the Best population?" 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, trimming another 63 last march and most recently merging yet another pair of Servers 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. Guild Wars 2 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 Cataclysm. 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]

Banditman wrote:

Atan@Unrest wrote:

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.

Actually, no its not, not remotely.

You need to look at net xp AA + Adventure / time.  I assure you its much faster net xp to grind soloquests.  There are some rare exceptions like FG if you can run it once thru and catch 80% or more of the nameds up, it will keep pace with doing soloquests over the same time.

If you look at only adventure experience, yes dungeons are faster.  If you adjust your slider to match the aa progress of soloquests, dungeon xp is deficient.

[Rorasis]

zzilba wrote:

 ...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.

This attitude makes me laugh.  Because WoW is vastly more popular and successful, one cannot compare EQ2 to it?

[Yimway]

Rebaleo@Antonia Bayle wrote:

This attitude makes me laugh.  Because WoW is vastly more popular and successful, one cannot compare EQ2 to it?

It is fair to say eq2 is a 'niche' game when compaired to wow. 

What I find strange is you ask wow players their opinions of eq2, and most will say its designed for 'hardcore' players, or its too hardcore, etc.

Which amuses me as much as eq2 has bent itself over backwards to become as easy to play as wow.

Note, I'm not saying any of those observations are accurate, just my experience talking to other gamers, and the stigmas and opinions they have.  They're very well unfounded.