Everyone has different tastes. I find action combat as distasteful as you find tab target / auto attack. I'm more interested in RPGing in an RPG game, what I don't get is why gamers like you would rather change the RPG genre than to just go play a FPS or RTS or AAG where stats and thoughtful strategy no longer cramp your style. Thanks to consoles and some nebulous vocal player base, every RPG, both single player and MMO have started to cater to action junkies and left nothing for the rest of us who were here from the very beginning.
Speaking on EQN itself, why wouldn't stats or strategy be important? Their "stat" system looks more exciting and deep then many traditional RPGs. Every item might not have 20 stats on it, but how they impact each other and the possibilities seems much greater then X suit of gear is the best, the end. Strategy wise, as with the gear, picking the right class, skills, gear, team make up, and then using those all together seems like a place where strat would come into play.
This idea that RPGs have to have slow and or tab combat doesn't make sense to me. I didn't read that as the first bullet point in the RPG handbook. Maybe it's because I started with D&D, MUDs, and more open ended games, but I don't find any of the forced gamey mechanic to be what makes an RPG and RPG.
If I want to play a FPS, I'll play an FPS. I want an fantasy world, the combat type being slow and tabbed based or action and more "realistic" has nothing to do with that.
I don't want to button mash or go for head shots, I want an RPG that doesn't have to be stuck in a tiny box.
Why should every single MMO that comes out be designed for the majority? Why not design several niche games that net you a larger market share over-all? I seriously doubt that homogenized video gaming is the future that MMOs should embrace, let alone be embraced by the majority of gamers.
Which recent and upcoming games go for the majority? I'd actually say that almost all games coming out are fairly niche. Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge, Shards, Albion Online, Pathfinder Online, Camelot Unchained, Shroud of the Avatar, Star Citizen, Repop, WAR 40k, etc. None of those scream "for all" to me.
EQN is one of the few if not the only game that seems to be going after a larger audience, not too unlike WoW, although I believe they are different games entirely.
Problem seems to be, EQ3 as one of the niche games was scrapped at least twice as SOE didn't want just another game. They want/need to make a splash in the market and EQ3 wouldn't have done that, at least looking at EQ/EQ2's history and current importance in the market.
So in the overall picture, the market is doing what you want. EQN is simply one of the few trying to please a variety of folks, will it succeed or not is yet to be seen, but so far I'm very hopeful. Highly doubt it will be WoW popular, but looking long term, I think EQN and Landmark have a lot more life span possibilities then say ESO, Wildstar, and some of the other recent and upcoming games.
My comment about the future is more about the market moving towards more sandbox like or open ended worlds, action combat, options, etc and less about the traditional themepark and static design. While all the games I listed are off in their own little corner, they do share common ground with being more open ended and having player choice matter. Instead of being spoon fed and forced down a narrow path.
Everquest fans were looking for EQ3, and yes they are out of luck. This new game (if it ever sees the light of day) is not EQ3 but nor is it Everquest anything.
If this monstrosity is "a game of the future" then it is a future in which I will not be playing games. So I hope that is not the case.
Because it is Everquest? This is simply a matter of perspective. EQ =/= EQ2 =/= EQOA =/= EQN. All different games. EQ 1999 =/= EQ 2014.
EQN is not EQ reborn, it is a stand along game within the franchise. So the similarities aren't in the mechanics or exact game design. It shares a similar world, history, lore, npcs, names, items, mobs, classes, yadda yadda. Are they 100% exact? No. They've been very clear about this. Yet I'm assuming many won't confuse EQN with Final Fantasy or Warcraft or Elder Scrolls.
If you personally need an EQ game to have XYZ, then that's on you. SOE and the devs are making the game, just as they made the previous ones and they have all the say in the matter. Don't accept or like EQ in the title? Pretend it isn't there I guess. No hurting anyone. To me, having Guk, Freeport, Naggy and crew is more EQ then having corpse runs and tab targeting. All those things made up EQ, but they aren't need to make another title with EQ.
I'm an EQ fan (at least early version) and wasn't looking forward to EQ3. Those still playing EQ/EQ2 have the option to keep playing or try another take on the franchise. Again, no one is being harmed in its creation.
As I said above, my "future" comment was more about games and the genre moving towards more action combat, sandbox and open world content, horizontal progression where player choice and impact on the world is more important, and other such changes that are a fairly decent step away from older games like EQ/EQ2/WoW and even some of the more recent ones.
Allein.. that last part about Item A, B and C is ALL PURE speculation and guesswork on your part.. This is how hype works and leads to disappointment.. Here is another reason why I dislike shooter combat in a PvE world.. Listen up please and get your calculator out..
Combat in any game is based on two things.. 1) "to hit" probability and 2) "reaction" time in hitting spells and skills at the right time.. Traditional games that use auto targeting remove the #1 option.. Everyone has the same accuracy, so when devs have to program a fight, they only have to worry about the second part of button mashing, which accounts for average DPS..
Here comes the math.. Ready? When a poor player can only button mash 200dps due to slow reaction (#2) time, while a good player can button mash 400 dps, the devs know the variance between poor and good is 200.. Now add in shooter combat of hits and misses.. Poor player now can only do 100dps, where as the good player is still doing close to 400.. That variance grows and makes it difficult devs to design battles without alienating the poor the players, without making it too easy that good players become bored..
Shooter combat works OK in a PvP world but has NO BUSINESS in a PvE world.. It's a very divisive mechanic that turns games away from being community builders..
Action-type combat is totally different from "shooter" combat and has been in pve based games for a long long time. This lame-arse tab targeting crap some of you seem to love is mainly the stuff of mmos (especially older ones), and combat was probably structured that way to get around issues of lag/internet speeds that are not such a big issue these days.
I find action combat as distasteful as you find tab target / auto attack. I'm more interested in RPGing in an RPG game, what I don't get is why gamers like you would rather change the RPG genre than to just go play a FPS or RTS or AAG where stats and thoughtful strategy no longer cramp your style. Thanks to consoles and some nebulous vocal player base, every RPG, both single player and MMO have started to cater to action junkies and left nothing for the rest of us who were here from the very beginning.
This is a view I have seen posted by a few people on these forums. However, it is misguided to equate tab-targeting combat with RPG, or shooter/FPS with a third person action combat system. There is no rpg I know of outside of some mmos that uses a tab-targeting combat system. To be honest I don't care what type of combat system is implemented as long as it is deep and interesting. Tab-targeting in most games outside of GW2 isn't. Its not a matter of taste, its a style of combat that was designed to accommodate for playing games over the internet, and in most cases it is just boring.
All the great rpgs, from JRPGs like the final fantasy series to the classic Western RPGs like Baulders gate, NWN, or DAO were built around a deep and interesting combat system, in addition to all the amazing story/character development aspects. None of those games had action combat, but neither did they have tab targeting combat as seen in numerous mmos. Many modern rpgs like dragons dogma, dark souls, kingdoms of amalur, etc have action combat - no recent rpg has tab-targeting combat outside of mmos.
So this idea that people who were here "from the beginning" are being left out isn't even true unless you are talking specifically about mmos; it certainly doesn't apply to rpgs in general.
I remember the first mmo I played (Warhammer Online), which I first played many years after playing various console and pc rpgs. I was disgusted at the combat. I couldn't understand what the hype was about mmos when the mobs were completely stupid and just stood around waiting to get wacked on and the combat was laughably simplistic and boring.
To me most mmos are travesties of rpgs, so I find it ironic that you preach to me about wanting to keep the rp in rpgs. From my point of view people like you are trying to drag rpgs down to the most abysmal level, one that no successful/popular single player rpg has ever descended to (as far as I know).
I can't believe people are advocating for dumbing the game down because bad players cant compete. When I played EQ it was about being a big boy/girl and dealing with the harshness of the world, not crying like a manchild that the game was to hard. Aiming adds a whole different skill cap to the game making the game take longer to master, and adding a whole new variance to combat. Honestly what kills community is sites like this. Instead of people getting community in game, they now go to various forums to bond and talk with fellow players.
Everyone has different tastes. I find action combat as distasteful as you find tab target / auto attack. I'm more interested in RPGing in an RPG game, what I don't get is why gamers like you would rather change the RPG genre than to just go play a FPS or RTS or AAG where stats and thoughtful strategy no longer cramp your style. Thanks to consoles and some nebulous vocal player base, every RPG, both single player and MMO have started to cater to action junkies and left nothing for the rest of us who were here from the very beginning.
Ditto.. I just don't get it.. So many of the competitive Esporters want to assimilate RPG games into FPS / action games.. Thing is, these esporters NEVER stay faithful to the games they play.. They bounce around from one action game to another to another and yet to another.. It's as if they can't be ranked in the top 5%, they move on to a new playground to try and achieve fame and fortune.. LOL
Originally posted by Vorthanion
Why should every single MMO that comes out be designed for the majority? Why not design several niche games that net you a larger market share over-all? I seriously doubt that homogenized video gaming is the future that MMOs should embrace, let alone be embraced by the majority of gamers.
Greed and stupidity I"m guessing.. I"m glad that car companies don't build cars based on what "majority" of drivers want.. If that was the case we'd all be driving small 4 cyl. cars.. But companies know that building the right car for the right niche is profitable.. Hello Corvette, Hello Lincoln Navigator, Hello Chevy Equinox..
Originally posted by craftseeker
So why call it "Everquest" anything?
Everquest fans were looking for EQ3, and yes they are out of luck. This new game (if it ever sees the light of day) is not EQ3 but nor is it Everquest anything.
If this monstrosity is "a game of the future" then it is a future in which I will not be playing games. So I hope that is not the case.
Agree.. It's a hell of a gamble on SOE's part, which I'm not sure why they chose to go with shooter style combat.. Was PS2 not enough for them? But then it's not like PS2 is knocking out any records.. I"m curious what is going to happen to Landmark when EQN goes live.. My gut tells me that EQN will follow H1Z1, straight to life support survival mode.. I wonder if either game will last longer then SWG or Vanguard did?
The targeting system in an MMO has nothing to do with it being an "RPG" or not. It is just another way to apply your abilities to the world around you.
Originally posted by Aelious The targeting system in an MMO has nothing to do with it being an "RPG" or not. It is just another way to apply your abilities to the world around you.
I think you are right. The RPG part has to do with stuff that makes you feel like you are controlling a character in a world. If the combat achieves that, then it does its job.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Originally posted by Aelious The targeting system in an MMO has nothing to do with it being an "RPG" or not. It is just another way to apply your abilities to the world around you.
I think you are right. The RPG part has to do with stuff that makes you feel like you are controlling a character in a world. If the combat achieves that, then it does its job.
Yep, and that will be the real trick.. The intangible feeling of playing a role in the world, not just some avatar that is just another number. Will the game world give that to us.. Playing whack a mole like some .25 cent arcade is not role playing. Will people be able to build a reputation within the game? Just like it was back in the days of AD&D, role playing was more then just rolling the dice.. From my experience shooter fast action combat doesn't do that..
I agree with both of you in that the combat should matter and not be a spamfest contest on speed. If the combat is like that in EQN that would be unfortunate. GW2 showed this a bit and I believe the problem there was lack of a resource pool, the great equalizer in action combat against spamming.
The other aspects that have been revealed lend to a very buildable system from a player standpoint and that does speak to a very "RPG" feeling IMO.
I also vehemently believe in the world being and immersive place. The combat has a hand in that but the world design and mechanics have just as big, if not bigger, impact in that regard. This is where the AI will hopefully provide a better world experience than we've seen previously.
As an example I liked how they said a group of Druids would be needed to "cure" the land over a series of "things" to turn that areas influence back to nature. Speaks both to the social and world immersion aspects. We'll see how they attempt to pull that off.
Everyone has different tastes. I find action combat as distasteful as you find tab target / auto attack. I'm more interested in RPGing in an RPG game, what I don't get is why gamers like you would rather change the RPG genre than to just go play a FPS or RTS or AAG where stats and thoughtful strategy no longer cramp your style. Thanks to consoles and some nebulous vocal player base, every RPG, both single player and MMO have started to cater to action junkies and left nothing for the rest of us who were here from the very beginning.
Speaking on EQN itself, why wouldn't stats or strategy be important? Their "stat" system looks more exciting and deep then many traditional RPGs. Every item might not have 20 stats on it, but how they impact each other and the possibilities seems much greater then X suit of gear is the best, the end. Strategy wise, as with the gear, picking the right class, skills, gear, team make up, and then using those all together seems like a place where strat would come into play.
This idea that RPGs have to have slow and or tab combat doesn't make sense to me. I didn't read that as the first bullet point in the RPG handbook. Maybe it's because I started with D&D, MUDs, and more open ended games, but I don't find any of the forced gamey mechanic to be what makes an RPG and RPG.
If I want to play a FPS, I'll play an FPS. I want an fantasy world, the combat type being slow and tabbed based or action and more "realistic" has nothing to do with that.
I don't want to button mash or go for head shots, I want an RPG that doesn't have to be stuck in a tiny box.
D&D is turn based. The majority of older single player RPG's were turn based. It had nothing to do with latency and everything to do with personal tastes and preferences. I have nothing against action adventures, but I'm tired of them being homogenized into the RPG genre to the point that people demand less dependence on stats and strategy and more on reflexes and mindless button mashing as fast as you can. There is a reason why the genres were separated in the first place, combining them just irritates both audiences that would greatly prefer one over the other. The point of the matter is that there is a large audience for both slow paced games and fast paced ones, but the industry seems to be incapable or unwilling to cater to both without forcing them into singular games and dissatisfying both while they're at it.
Everyone has different tastes. I find action combat as distasteful as you find tab target / auto attack. I'm more interested in RPGing in an RPG game, what I don't get is why gamers like you would rather change the RPG genre than to just go play a FPS or RTS or AAG where stats and thoughtful strategy no longer cramp your style. Thanks to consoles and some nebulous vocal player base, every RPG, both single player and MMO have started to cater to action junkies and left nothing for the rest of us who were here from the very beginning.
Speaking on EQN itself, why wouldn't stats or strategy be important? Their "stat" system looks more exciting and deep then many traditional RPGs. Every item might not have 20 stats on it, but how they impact each other and the possibilities seems much greater then X suit of gear is the best, the end. Strategy wise, as with the gear, picking the right class, skills, gear, team make up, and then using those all together seems like a place where strat would come into play.
This idea that RPGs have to have slow and or tab combat doesn't make sense to me. I didn't read that as the first bullet point in the RPG handbook. Maybe it's because I started with D&D, MUDs, and more open ended games, but I don't find any of the forced gamey mechanic to be what makes an RPG and RPG.
If I want to play a FPS, I'll play an FPS. I want an fantasy world, the combat type being slow and tabbed based or action and more "realistic" has nothing to do with that.
I don't want to button mash or go for head shots, I want an RPG that doesn't have to be stuck in a tiny box.
D&D is turn based. The majority of older single player RPG's were turn based. It had nothing to do with latency and everything to do with personal tastes and preferences. I have nothing against action adventures, but I'm tired of them being homogenized into the RPG genre to the point that people demand less dependence on stats and strategy and more on reflexes and mindless button mashing as fast as you can. There is a reason why the genres were separated in the first place, combining them just irritates both audiences that would greatly prefer one over the other. The point of the matter is that there is a large audience for both slow paced games and fast paced ones, but the industry seems to be incapable or unwilling to cater to both without forcing them into singular games and dissatisfying both while they're at it.
Many titles, both MMO and otherwise, have combined the two successfully. There will still be people who do not like it, which is fine as individual tastes differ, but just because there is a reticle doesn't mean it's a CoD knockoff devoid of depth and substance.
D&D is turn based. The majority of older single player RPG's were turn based. It had nothing to do with latency and everything to do with personal tastes and preferences. I have nothing against action adventures, but I'm tired of them being homogenized into the RPG genre to the point that people demand less dependence on stats and strategy and more on reflexes and mindless button mashing as fast as you can. There is a reason why the genres were separated in the first place, combining them just irritates both audiences that would greatly prefer one over the other. The point of the matter is that there is a large audience for both slow paced games and fast paced ones, but the industry seems to be incapable or unwilling to cater to both without forcing them into singular games and dissatisfying both while they're at it.
Could you give some example games where people have demanded mindless game play? I don't see many people shouting for no challenge or catering to the lowest common denominator.
I would never want mindless button mashing, no matter what type of game. Unfortunately, there are some games made in such a way that playing that way is not only an option, but THE option. Little to do with what the players want and simply what is provided.
I enjoy a wide variety of games. If EQN had the typical tab system, I'd have no problem with it, but the fact that it doesn't, makes me even more happy.
RPG doesn't mean anything. Just another buzzword like Sandbox or Dynamic. We each have our own take on it. I'm tired of people trying to demonize or make certain designs and play styles to be terrible or less, simply because they don't like them. I laugh at the idea that EQ was a "thinking mans game" as has been said around here. These are silly video games, nothing too brainy going on.
No different then how people use "carebear" and "casual" as negative terms. Yet being "hardcore" is the pinnacle of awesomeness for some reason.
As you said, it is all about our preferences. If X isn't an RPG and EQN has X, then maybe it isn't an RPG. These big generalized terms don't dictate anything.
SOE devs have even said EQN might not fit within the MMORPG title.
While I do not doubt there are plenty out there that only want a slower paced game, looking at gaming in general, they are being passed over. No matter if it is PC, console, phone, tablet, handheld, etc. We've come a long way since D&D and turned based games. Tech can handle "realistic" action and games are reflecting that. Sucks for those that want the slower style, but it is what it is. With VR on the horizon, I'd imagine it will get even more engaging and sitting back hitting tab 12345 tab 12345 isn't going to be an option.
With the little shown of EQN and what is up and coming in Landmark (big patch incoming finally), I see plenty of ways that "stats", strat, team work, roles, character development and other RPG like elements will easily live side by side with faster, more engaging combat. They aren't mutually exclusive.
You can play a very slow (years) or very fast (seconds) game of chess, yet it is still chess.
I think I've said this before but I believe this game is not being designed for the traditional (older) mmorpg type player, it's being aimed at the new younger generation of player, hence the action style combat system and the planned merging with console. So if you are a long time EQ1 or EQ2 player you will be bitterly disappointed.
While it will upset many of us it's the business decision SOE have run with so there is nothing we can do about it. Whether they can entice enough of the younger generation to play it to make is successful remains to be seen but I'm doubtful. I was initially very interested in this title but with the direction they have decided to take with it I now struggle to maintain a passing interest.
D&D is turn based. The majority of older single player RPG's were turn based. It had nothing to do with latency and everything to do with personal tastes and preferences. I have nothing against action adventures, but I'm tired of them being homogenized into the RPG genre to the point that people demand less dependence on stats and strategy and more on reflexes and mindless button mashing as fast as you can. There is a reason why the genres were separated in the first place, combining them just irritates both audiences that would greatly prefer one over the other. The point of the matter is that there is a large audience for both slow paced games and fast paced ones, but the industry seems to be incapable or unwilling to cater to both without forcing them into singular games and dissatisfying both while they're at it.
Turn based is not tab-targeting. I have played many games with great turn based combat systems that are deep and exciting. The combat systems in WoW and the like are nothing like that, they are just kind of mediocre and boring, requiring little skill except for timing a "rotation" in pve and are almost totally based on gear/stats- not using your brain.
To me, the tab-targeting type of combat seen in most mmos is the antithesis of what RPG is about. Slow or fast is fine as long as it is good. Tab-targeting style combat doesn't exist in rpgs outside the world of mmos because it is probably one of the most lacklustre ways to implement a combat system.
I think I've said this before but I believe this game is not being designed for the traditional (older) mmorpg type player, it's being aimed at the new younger generation of player, hence the action style combat system and the planned merging with console. So if you are a long time EQ1 or EQ2 player you will be bitterly disappointed.
While it will upset many of us it's the business decision SOE have run with so there is nothing we can do about it. Whether they can entice enough of the younger generation to play it to make is successful remains to be seen but I'm doubtful. I was initially very interested in this title but with the direction they have decided to take with it I now struggle to maintain a passing interest.
This pretty much sums up how i feel as well. It's being made for the MOBA crowd, which i can't stand.
I think I've said this before but I believe this game is not being designed for the traditional (older) mmorpg type player, it's being aimed at the new younger generation of player, hence the action style combat system and the planned merging with console. So if you are a long time EQ1 or EQ2 player you will be bitterly disappointed.
While it will upset many of us it's the business decision SOE have run with so there is nothing we can do about it. Whether they can entice enough of the younger generation to play it to make is successful remains to be seen but I'm doubtful. I was initially very interested in this title but with the direction they have decided to take with it I now struggle to maintain a passing interest.
This pretty much sums up how i feel as well. It's being made for the MOBA crowd, which i can't stand.
+1.
I'm following the development of EQN but not really looking forward to play it. Doesn't look like something for my taste.
I think I've said this before but I believe this game is not being designed for the traditional (older) mmorpg type player, it's being aimed at the new younger generation of player, hence the action style combat system and the planned merging with console. So if you are a long time EQ1 or EQ2 player you will be bitterly disappointed.
While it will upset many of us it's the business decision SOE have run with so there is nothing we can do about it. Whether they can entice enough of the younger generation to play it to make is successful remains to be seen but I'm doubtful. I was initially very interested in this title but with the direction they have decided to take with it I now struggle to maintain a passing interest.
This pretty much sums up how i feel as well. It's being made for the MOBA crowd, which i can't stand.
+1.
I'm following the development of EQN but not really looking forward to play it. Doesn't look like something for my taste.
I think no matter the medium, be it music, clothing or other styles, if it changes over time there will be a "stop" point for some. That is the point at which something is as it's "supposed to be", freezes and irrevocably becomes the only accepted state. I completely understand this as in other areas I have come to "stop points." Luckily this isn't the case with EQN and I think what they seem to be putting together can be really enjoyable.
MMO designs move forward. For such a long... long time the formula has stayed the same so it's nice to see some mold breaking. Who knows, maybe EQN will bring a lot of nice AI features but will be milk toast enough that those features are brought back to a "classic" MMO setting. Progress is progress even if the very next step isn't the ideal one. At least it's moving.
The combat systems in WoW and the like are nothing like that, they are just kind of mediocre and boring, requiring little skill except for timing a "rotation" in pve
To me, the tab-targeting type of combat seen in most mmos is the antithesis of what RPG is about. Slow or fast is fine as long as it is good. Tab-targeting style combat doesn't exist in rpgs outside the world of mmos because it is probably one of the most lacklustre ways to implement a combat system.
I think that part I highlighted in red is a perfect "Freudian slip" by you and one shared by many in the MMORPG genre these days.. You honestly don't view mmorpg games a "RPG" games, but skill games.. When I first started playing AD&D back in the 70's there was NO FREAKING SKILL to play it.. It was pure role playing and fun.. It didn't take skill to roll a d12 or a d20 die, and watch how combat unfolded.. If anything it was a thinking persons game.. EQ combat played much the same way.. Sure there was times that "timing" meant everything, but not often.. It was always more about thinking your way thru the fight, not how physically fast you can react to fast past skill combat..
HUGE ASS DIFFERENCE
I hope some day we get back to ROLE playing, not some skill based game like today's MOBA or RTS games.. But it is crystal clear that some here on the forums are trying to turn "role playing" into skill playing esport..
The combat systems in WoW and the like are nothing like that, they are just kind of mediocre and boring, requiring little skill except for timing a "rotation" in pve
To me, the tab-targeting type of combat seen in most mmos is the antithesis of what RPG is about. Slow or fast is fine as long as it is good. Tab-targeting style combat doesn't exist in rpgs outside the world of mmos because it is probably one of the most lacklustre ways to implement a combat system.
I think that part I highlighted in red is a perfect "Freudian slip" by you and one shared by many in the MMORPG genre these days.. You honestly don't view mmorpg games a "RPG" games, but skill games.. When I first started playing AD&D back in the 70's there was NO FREAKING SKILL to play it.. It was pure role playing and fun.. It didn't take skill to roll a d12 or a d20 die, and watch how combat unfolded.. If anything it was a thinking persons game.. EQ combat played much the same way.. Sure there was times that "timing" meant everything, but not often.. It was always more about thinking your way thru the fight, not how physically fast you can react to fast past skill combat..
HUGE ASS DIFFERENCE
I hope some day we get back to ROLE playing, not some skill based game like today's MOBA or RTS games.. But it is crystal clear that some here on the forums are trying to turn "role playing" into skill playing esport..
I agree that thinking your way through a fight is a lot of fun. Unfortunately the tab-targeting system seen in most mmos requires no thought.
I think that part I highlighted in red is a perfect "Freudian slip" by you and one shared by many in the MMORPG genre these days.. You honestly don't view mmorpg games a "RPG" games, but skill games.. When I first started playing AD&D back in the 70's there was NO FREAKING SKILL to play it.. It was pure role playing and fun.. It didn't take skill to roll a d12 or a d20 die, and watch how combat unfolded.. If anything it was a thinking persons game.. EQ combat played much the same way.. Sure there was times that "timing" meant everything, but not often.. It was always more about thinking your way thru the fight, not how physically fast you can react to fast past skill combat..
I hope some day we get back to ROLE playing, not some skill based game like today's MOBA or RTS games.. But it is crystal clear that some here on the forums are trying to turn "role playing" into skill playing esport..
Could you define or list features that makes something qualify as "role playing?"
I see RPG and role playing tossed around all the time as something lacking in today's games, but I rarely see exactly what people mean by it.
Literally role playing as in pretending to be an evil elf shadow knight, staying in character, only doing what an evil elf SK would do?
Or something else? Such as playing a role in the group? Like "tank", "healer", Enchanter, Rogue, whatever.
I don't believe I've ever played an online game, video game, mmorpg, etc that didn't require some form of skill. Be it hand eye coordination with aiming/shooting, using movement/terrain, puzzle solving, chaining actions together to be effective and to reach an outcome, math skills, micromanaging skills, the meta, etc.
I didn't spend a lot of time with D&D before moving on to MUDs, but it too required some "skill" in how you play or the DM isn't doing their job maybe? Your decisions have consequence and to me that requires some thought and skill. But clearly Larping, D&D, and video games are not all equal in the RPG department.
Maybe I'm missing it, but I do not see a huge difference between EQ 1999 and today's games, be it FPS, MOBA, WoW, Pokemon... We play to earn or do something that makes us feel achieved. Be it against the game or others or both.
From a lot of what you've said, I get the impression that you want to remove all forms of "skill" and just want to chill with friends. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not sure how you do that and still have a video game, at least in this genre that appeals to a lot people. If you want to play D&D, play D&D. If I expected everyone to stay in character and really play a role, I'd be a LARPer. Different experiences.
To me there is little difference between how fast we react physically compared to chaining a bunch of attacks together. Both require different forms of skill, but skill none the less.
EQ required quite a bit of it. As I'm sure the majority of long time players will and do say, EQ was "hard." You couldn't just prance around the world care free. From lvl 1 on up, timing was a big deal as combat was rather slow and skills were limited, not too far from turned based in some cases. How you put actions together was important.
Wasn't any face rolling to victory that some games have today. While I don't look back on EQ and find it that challenging or deep now, I would much rather have something like the idea behind it then the modern take on mmorpgs. Where you can literally have no skill beyond hitting buttons as fast as possible in any order or just stand there and let someone else do the work. I want my actions to have consequences and meaning. Missing a shot or hitting the wrong button should matter, not omg the end of the world, but not meaningless since I'll push 29 more buttons in the next 10 seconds so who cares.
Maybe it's just a matter of different definitions of what "skill" and "RPG" mean, but I really don't get what some are talking about.
How would you inject RPG back into these game, if it ever was there? What would you like to see? As I've said you to, you freely complain and have issues with modern games and EQN in particular, yet you really don't give alternatives or solutions. What could SOE or another company do?
Also, this notion of esport doesn't make sense to me either. I have no wish to compete or beat anyone else, nor do I see many others focusing on wanting it. I don't attempt a cross word puzzle to prove my greatness to others. It is simply wanting a challenge and trying to overcome it. Big difference between that and running around going "look at me, look at what I can do!" But I think that is just part of life. Like someone finally making enough money to buy their dream car. To some it might be showing off, but to the owner it might just be them enjoying something for themselves. In other cases it is clearly a "look at me" symbol.
Originally posted by Orious I think people keep forgetting Landmark and EQN are two different games.
Yeah but Landmark is the testbed for EQN so there is understandable comparison. Landmark is also the Sandbox project whereas EQNext feels like the version the Devs have for their own doodling, with a slight amount of player customization.
Combat is Landmark is about a small amount of weapons without classes to use them, EQN is about a lot of "Classes" with a normal amount of weapons and a small number of buttons to use. If the aiming and CD between the two games is vastly different it will surprise me.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
"EQN definitely has their work cut out for them.. Personally what I saw so far in ALL combat videos, is bouncing bunny twitch zerg.. Now some are saying that SOE will address this by changing the energy pool interaction to prevent players from spamming jumps, double jumps, and shooting off skills like air soft PvP.. Be ready for the recipe to backfire tho.. If you increase the cool downs, and energy cost so much that you truly have to watch what you do and when you do it, this will aggravate "ALL" of the players that are not very accurate in twitch shooter combat.. Sure the gent that is 80% accurate will not feel the change in the energy pool, but someone that is only 40% sure as hell will and will LEAVE and QUIT the game..
However, if you leave the energy pool close to what it is now, you get mindless rapid fire bunny hopping combat that will lose it's appeal and again, many will quit and leave the game.. IMO, there are many more benefits for auto targeting in a PvE game community, then shooter combat that targets PvP players.."
This doesn't sound good. While I'm certainly for more player controlled action combat in my MMORPG combat, I believe that too much of it is bad as well. Cases in point, stuff like mindless free zerging and dodging via constant bunny hopping represents the dark side of too much player controlled action combat. It turns combat into an erratic, formless mess which could be seen as a bad joke.
I still believe that a good hybrid between WoW-like combat and player controlled action combat is the future. It just has to be implemented and tuned correctly. Wildstar had the right idea, but implemented it wrong, IMO.
Waiting for:Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on:www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
It's not about the number of skills on your bar. It's about the importance of choice in forming one's build and the complexity of the skills available.
8 skills can be used to an incredible degree if the 8-skill system is used to force player choice. In this, a large part of the value of the combat system lies in adaptability and buildcrafting strategy, and this is something that is largely missing from the typical multiple-bar skill systems utilized by most MMOs.
I would encourage a different set of questions towards the EverQuest Next developers. How many skills will there be to choose from? How specialized can builds become? Is buildcrafting strategy a major part of the game's core philosophy? Their answers to those will go a long way in setting their game above other action combat games.
We've yet to see an action combat game with specialized skill design and deep build crafting. The closest we've had to a modern free-form buildcrafter is TSW. Think of the unrealized potential.
Comments
Speaking on EQN itself, why wouldn't stats or strategy be important? Their "stat" system looks more exciting and deep then many traditional RPGs. Every item might not have 20 stats on it, but how they impact each other and the possibilities seems much greater then X suit of gear is the best, the end. Strategy wise, as with the gear, picking the right class, skills, gear, team make up, and then using those all together seems like a place where strat would come into play.
This idea that RPGs have to have slow and or tab combat doesn't make sense to me. I didn't read that as the first bullet point in the RPG handbook. Maybe it's because I started with D&D, MUDs, and more open ended games, but I don't find any of the forced gamey mechanic to be what makes an RPG and RPG.
If I want to play a FPS, I'll play an FPS. I want an fantasy world, the combat type being slow and tabbed based or action and more "realistic" has nothing to do with that.
I don't want to button mash or go for head shots, I want an RPG that doesn't have to be stuck in a tiny box.
Which recent and upcoming games go for the majority? I'd actually say that almost all games coming out are fairly niche. Wildstar, ESO, ArcheAge, Shards, Albion Online, Pathfinder Online, Camelot Unchained, Shroud of the Avatar, Star Citizen, Repop, WAR 40k, etc. None of those scream "for all" to me.
EQN is one of the few if not the only game that seems to be going after a larger audience, not too unlike WoW, although I believe they are different games entirely.
Problem seems to be, EQ3 as one of the niche games was scrapped at least twice as SOE didn't want just another game. They want/need to make a splash in the market and EQ3 wouldn't have done that, at least looking at EQ/EQ2's history and current importance in the market.
So in the overall picture, the market is doing what you want. EQN is simply one of the few trying to please a variety of folks, will it succeed or not is yet to be seen, but so far I'm very hopeful. Highly doubt it will be WoW popular, but looking long term, I think EQN and Landmark have a lot more life span possibilities then say ESO, Wildstar, and some of the other recent and upcoming games.
My comment about the future is more about the market moving towards more sandbox like or open ended worlds, action combat, options, etc and less about the traditional themepark and static design. While all the games I listed are off in their own little corner, they do share common ground with being more open ended and having player choice matter. Instead of being spoon fed and forced down a narrow path.
Because it is Everquest? This is simply a matter of perspective. EQ =/= EQ2 =/= EQOA =/= EQN. All different games. EQ 1999 =/= EQ 2014.
EQN is not EQ reborn, it is a stand along game within the franchise. So the similarities aren't in the mechanics or exact game design. It shares a similar world, history, lore, npcs, names, items, mobs, classes, yadda yadda. Are they 100% exact? No. They've been very clear about this. Yet I'm assuming many won't confuse EQN with Final Fantasy or Warcraft or Elder Scrolls.
If you personally need an EQ game to have XYZ, then that's on you. SOE and the devs are making the game, just as they made the previous ones and they have all the say in the matter. Don't accept or like EQ in the title? Pretend it isn't there I guess. No hurting anyone. To me, having Guk, Freeport, Naggy and crew is more EQ then having corpse runs and tab targeting. All those things made up EQ, but they aren't need to make another title with EQ.
I'm an EQ fan (at least early version) and wasn't looking forward to EQ3. Those still playing EQ/EQ2 have the option to keep playing or try another take on the franchise. Again, no one is being harmed in its creation.
As I said above, my "future" comment was more about games and the genre moving towards more action combat, sandbox and open world content, horizontal progression where player choice and impact on the world is more important, and other such changes that are a fairly decent step away from older games like EQ/EQ2/WoW and even some of the more recent ones.
This is a view I have seen posted by a few people on these forums. However, it is misguided to equate tab-targeting combat with RPG, or shooter/FPS with a third person action combat system. There is no rpg I know of outside of some mmos that uses a tab-targeting combat system. To be honest I don't care what type of combat system is implemented as long as it is deep and interesting. Tab-targeting in most games outside of GW2 isn't. Its not a matter of taste, its a style of combat that was designed to accommodate for playing games over the internet, and in most cases it is just boring.
All the great rpgs, from JRPGs like the final fantasy series to the classic Western RPGs like Baulders gate, NWN, or DAO were built around a deep and interesting combat system, in addition to all the amazing story/character development aspects. None of those games had action combat, but neither did they have tab targeting combat as seen in numerous mmos. Many modern rpgs like dragons dogma, dark souls, kingdoms of amalur, etc have action combat - no recent rpg has tab-targeting combat outside of mmos.
So this idea that people who were here "from the beginning" are being left out isn't even true unless you are talking specifically about mmos; it certainly doesn't apply to rpgs in general.
I remember the first mmo I played (Warhammer Online), which I first played many years after playing various console and pc rpgs. I was disgusted at the combat. I couldn't understand what the hype was about mmos when the mobs were completely stupid and just stood around waiting to get wacked on and the combat was laughably simplistic and boring.
To me most mmos are travesties of rpgs, so I find it ironic that you preach to me about wanting to keep the rp in rpgs. From my point of view people like you are trying to drag rpgs down to the most abysmal level, one that no successful/popular single player rpg has ever descended to (as far as I know).
I think you are right. The RPG part has to do with stuff that makes you feel like you are controlling a character in a world. If the combat achieves that, then it does its job.
Yep, and that will be the real trick.. The intangible feeling of playing a role in the world, not just some avatar that is just another number. Will the game world give that to us.. Playing whack a mole like some .25 cent arcade is not role playing. Will people be able to build a reputation within the game? Just like it was back in the days of AD&D, role playing was more then just rolling the dice.. From my experience shooter fast action combat doesn't do that..
The other aspects that have been revealed lend to a very buildable system from a player standpoint and that does speak to a very "RPG" feeling IMO.
I also vehemently believe in the world being and immersive place. The combat has a hand in that but the world design and mechanics have just as big, if not bigger, impact in that regard. This is where the AI will hopefully provide a better world experience than we've seen previously.
As an example I liked how they said a group of Druids would be needed to "cure" the land over a series of "things" to turn that areas influence back to nature. Speaks both to the social and world immersion aspects. We'll see how they attempt to pull that off.
D&D is turn based. The majority of older single player RPG's were turn based. It had nothing to do with latency and everything to do with personal tastes and preferences. I have nothing against action adventures, but I'm tired of them being homogenized into the RPG genre to the point that people demand less dependence on stats and strategy and more on reflexes and mindless button mashing as fast as you can. There is a reason why the genres were separated in the first place, combining them just irritates both audiences that would greatly prefer one over the other. The point of the matter is that there is a large audience for both slow paced games and fast paced ones, but the industry seems to be incapable or unwilling to cater to both without forcing them into singular games and dissatisfying both while they're at it.
Many titles, both MMO and otherwise, have combined the two successfully. There will still be people who do not like it, which is fine as individual tastes differ, but just because there is a reticle doesn't mean it's a CoD knockoff devoid of depth and substance.
Could you give some example games where people have demanded mindless game play? I don't see many people shouting for no challenge or catering to the lowest common denominator.
I would never want mindless button mashing, no matter what type of game. Unfortunately, there are some games made in such a way that playing that way is not only an option, but THE option. Little to do with what the players want and simply what is provided.
I enjoy a wide variety of games. If EQN had the typical tab system, I'd have no problem with it, but the fact that it doesn't, makes me even more happy.
RPG doesn't mean anything. Just another buzzword like Sandbox or Dynamic. We each have our own take on it. I'm tired of people trying to demonize or make certain designs and play styles to be terrible or less, simply because they don't like them. I laugh at the idea that EQ was a "thinking mans game" as has been said around here. These are silly video games, nothing too brainy going on.
No different then how people use "carebear" and "casual" as negative terms. Yet being "hardcore" is the pinnacle of awesomeness for some reason.
As you said, it is all about our preferences. If X isn't an RPG and EQN has X, then maybe it isn't an RPG. These big generalized terms don't dictate anything.
SOE devs have even said EQN might not fit within the MMORPG title.
While I do not doubt there are plenty out there that only want a slower paced game, looking at gaming in general, they are being passed over. No matter if it is PC, console, phone, tablet, handheld, etc. We've come a long way since D&D and turned based games. Tech can handle "realistic" action and games are reflecting that. Sucks for those that want the slower style, but it is what it is. With VR on the horizon, I'd imagine it will get even more engaging and sitting back hitting tab 12345 tab 12345 isn't going to be an option.
With the little shown of EQN and what is up and coming in Landmark (big patch incoming finally), I see plenty of ways that "stats", strat, team work, roles, character development and other RPG like elements will easily live side by side with faster, more engaging combat. They aren't mutually exclusive.
You can play a very slow (years) or very fast (seconds) game of chess, yet it is still chess.
I think I've said this before but I believe this game is not being designed for the traditional (older) mmorpg type player, it's being aimed at the new younger generation of player, hence the action style combat system and the planned merging with console. So if you are a long time EQ1 or EQ2 player you will be bitterly disappointed.
While it will upset many of us it's the business decision SOE have run with so there is nothing we can do about it. Whether they can entice enough of the younger generation to play it to make is successful remains to be seen but I'm doubtful. I was initially very interested in this title but with the direction they have decided to take with it I now struggle to maintain a passing interest.
Turn based is not tab-targeting. I have played many games with great turn based combat systems that are deep and exciting. The combat systems in WoW and the like are nothing like that, they are just kind of mediocre and boring, requiring little skill except for timing a "rotation" in pve and are almost totally based on gear/stats- not using your brain.
To me, the tab-targeting type of combat seen in most mmos is the antithesis of what RPG is about. Slow or fast is fine as long as it is good. Tab-targeting style combat doesn't exist in rpgs outside the world of mmos because it is probably one of the most lacklustre ways to implement a combat system.
This pretty much sums up how i feel as well. It's being made for the MOBA crowd, which i can't stand.
+1.
I'm following the development of EQN but not really looking forward to play it. Doesn't look like something for my taste.
I think no matter the medium, be it music, clothing or other styles, if it changes over time there will be a "stop" point for some. That is the point at which something is as it's "supposed to be", freezes and irrevocably becomes the only accepted state. I completely understand this as in other areas I have come to "stop points." Luckily this isn't the case with EQN and I think what they seem to be putting together can be really enjoyable.
MMO designs move forward. For such a long... long time the formula has stayed the same so it's nice to see some mold breaking. Who knows, maybe EQN will bring a lot of nice AI features but will be milk toast enough that those features are brought back to a "classic" MMO setting. Progress is progress even if the very next step isn't the ideal one. At least it's moving.
I think that part I highlighted in red is a perfect "Freudian slip" by you and one shared by many in the MMORPG genre these days.. You honestly don't view mmorpg games a "RPG" games, but skill games.. When I first started playing AD&D back in the 70's there was NO FREAKING SKILL to play it.. It was pure role playing and fun.. It didn't take skill to roll a d12 or a d20 die, and watch how combat unfolded.. If anything it was a thinking persons game.. EQ combat played much the same way.. Sure there was times that "timing" meant everything, but not often.. It was always more about thinking your way thru the fight, not how physically fast you can react to fast past skill combat..
HUGE ASS DIFFERENCE
I hope some day we get back to ROLE playing, not some skill based game like today's MOBA or RTS games.. But it is crystal clear that some here on the forums are trying to turn "role playing" into skill playing esport..
I agree that thinking your way through a fight is a lot of fun. Unfortunately the tab-targeting system seen in most mmos requires no thought.
Could you define or list features that makes something qualify as "role playing?"
I see RPG and role playing tossed around all the time as something lacking in today's games, but I rarely see exactly what people mean by it.
Literally role playing as in pretending to be an evil elf shadow knight, staying in character, only doing what an evil elf SK would do?
Or something else? Such as playing a role in the group? Like "tank", "healer", Enchanter, Rogue, whatever.
I don't believe I've ever played an online game, video game, mmorpg, etc that didn't require some form of skill. Be it hand eye coordination with aiming/shooting, using movement/terrain, puzzle solving, chaining actions together to be effective and to reach an outcome, math skills, micromanaging skills, the meta, etc.
I didn't spend a lot of time with D&D before moving on to MUDs, but it too required some "skill" in how you play or the DM isn't doing their job maybe? Your decisions have consequence and to me that requires some thought and skill. But clearly Larping, D&D, and video games are not all equal in the RPG department.
Maybe I'm missing it, but I do not see a huge difference between EQ 1999 and today's games, be it FPS, MOBA, WoW, Pokemon... We play to earn or do something that makes us feel achieved. Be it against the game or others or both.
From a lot of what you've said, I get the impression that you want to remove all forms of "skill" and just want to chill with friends. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not sure how you do that and still have a video game, at least in this genre that appeals to a lot people. If you want to play D&D, play D&D. If I expected everyone to stay in character and really play a role, I'd be a LARPer. Different experiences.
To me there is little difference between how fast we react physically compared to chaining a bunch of attacks together. Both require different forms of skill, but skill none the less.
EQ required quite a bit of it. As I'm sure the majority of long time players will and do say, EQ was "hard." You couldn't just prance around the world care free. From lvl 1 on up, timing was a big deal as combat was rather slow and skills were limited, not too far from turned based in some cases. How you put actions together was important.
Wasn't any face rolling to victory that some games have today. While I don't look back on EQ and find it that challenging or deep now, I would much rather have something like the idea behind it then the modern take on mmorpgs. Where you can literally have no skill beyond hitting buttons as fast as possible in any order or just stand there and let someone else do the work. I want my actions to have consequences and meaning. Missing a shot or hitting the wrong button should matter, not omg the end of the world, but not meaningless since I'll push 29 more buttons in the next 10 seconds so who cares.
Maybe it's just a matter of different definitions of what "skill" and "RPG" mean, but I really don't get what some are talking about.
How would you inject RPG back into these game, if it ever was there? What would you like to see? As I've said you to, you freely complain and have issues with modern games and EQN in particular, yet you really don't give alternatives or solutions. What could SOE or another company do?
Also, this notion of esport doesn't make sense to me either. I have no wish to compete or beat anyone else, nor do I see many others focusing on wanting it. I don't attempt a cross word puzzle to prove my greatness to others. It is simply wanting a challenge and trying to overcome it. Big difference between that and running around going "look at me, look at what I can do!" But I think that is just part of life. Like someone finally making enough money to buy their dream car. To some it might be showing off, but to the owner it might just be them enjoying something for themselves. In other cases it is clearly a "look at me" symbol.
Yeah but Landmark is the testbed for EQN so there is understandable comparison. Landmark is also the Sandbox project whereas EQNext feels like the version the Devs have for their own doodling, with a slight amount of player customization.
Combat is Landmark is about a small amount of weapons without classes to use them, EQN is about a lot of "Classes" with a normal amount of weapons and a small number of buttons to use. If the aiming and CD between the two games is vastly different it will surprise me.
This doesn't sound good. While I'm certainly for more player controlled action combat in my MMORPG combat, I believe that too much of it is bad as well. Cases in point, stuff like mindless free zerging and dodging via constant bunny hopping represents the dark side of too much player controlled action combat. It turns combat into an erratic, formless mess which could be seen as a bad joke.
I still believe that a good hybrid between WoW-like combat and player controlled action combat is the future. It just has to be implemented and tuned correctly. Wildstar had the right idea, but implemented it wrong, IMO.
Waiting for: Citadel of Sorcery. Along the way, The Elder Scrolls Online (when it is F2P).
Keeping an eye on: www.play2crush.com (whatever is going on here).
It's not about the number of skills on your bar. It's about the importance of choice in forming one's build and the complexity of the skills available.
8 skills can be used to an incredible degree if the 8-skill system is used to force player choice. In this, a large part of the value of the combat system lies in adaptability and buildcrafting strategy, and this is something that is largely missing from the typical multiple-bar skill systems utilized by most MMOs.
I would encourage a different set of questions towards the EverQuest Next developers. How many skills will there be to choose from? How specialized can builds become? Is buildcrafting strategy a major part of the game's core philosophy? Their answers to those will go a long way in setting their game above other action combat games.
We've yet to see an action combat game with specialized skill design and deep build crafting. The closest we've had to a modern free-form buildcrafter is TSW. Think of the unrealized potential.