EverQuest Sequel Shows Complexity, Ditches PvP

Thanks to GameSpy for its hands-on preview of Sony Online's forthcoming PC MMO EverQuest II, as the author discusses the graphics ("EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"), the play style ("EQ2 has a smaller, more intimate feel, more like tabletop roleplaying games centered on small parties"), and the complexity ("Everyone starts on the same island, then has to choose allegiance to one of two main cities (and belief systems!) From there, more and more options open up, sort of like an inverted gameplay pyramid.") Elsewhere, over at EQ2 Stratics there's further confirmation from devs that: "There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."

Comments

Why change a winning formula?

[BlueCup]

Everquest was by far the most popular mmorpg the US has ever seen... so why are they changing some of the formulas? The major thing that first drew me into the game was the different starting locations for races... it made it feel more like a world than an AIM Client with pictures...

Looking through the preview..

[CashCarSTAR]

I would say, that with a downgrade in graphics, and a few slight tweaks, this is basically Final Fantasy XI. Not that this is a BAD thing....

Actually, that guild system seems like too much of a pain. I like the Linkshell I'm in FFXI, tons of people, always helping each other out, like a strong large community, always growing, and there's no real motive for us not to grow, meet new people and join together.

No PvP is a big improvement 'tho...PvP attracts the immature set..

No PvP = no subscription for me

[Osmosis_Garett]

Its sort of sad to see games moving in this direction. There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being, and nothing more boring than fighting the same NPC mobs over and over to get the ph4t l00tz. I belong to a PvP guild, and our average member age (of around 140 members) is about 25 years old. I can assure Sony that none of my guild will be playing this game. To be honest, none of us were really considering playing it in the first place, because the EQLive team has never given any serious consideration to the PvP crowd as their crappy PvP servers can attest to. There are much more interesting PvP games on the way (Darkfall, Dragon Empires, or Guild Wars to name a few) to want to lose a few pounds on this level treadmill.

To the people who feel that 'pvp attracts the immature crowd', mabye you're just a bit too old (or too mature) to be playing video games. We'll be all practiced up and waiting for you when you get bored of kiting a_hill_giant01 for the 100th time to get that last bubble of lvl 35.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Psychochild]

Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased since I run my own PvP-focused game, Meridian 59, but I'm going to have to disagree with this assertion. While it may feel ultimately hollow in many games, there are some games out there that focus on providing an interesting experience when fighting against other players; it depends on the game.

Fighting against another player can be a lot of fun because other players can come up with creative strategies and use their abilities in interesting ways in order to fool their opponent. In Meridian 59, you can take over an opponent's guild hall if you can sneak in behind another player. So, one player used a polymorph spell to change himself into a small monster (a dreaded giant rat of all things!) and used the size difference to hide easier.

In another example, there's a spell called "Mark of Dishonor" which reduces the target's vigor if they are evil. Since vigor is important in regeneration, this can be a crippling blow to an opponent. However the spell is an enchantment that prevents you from recasting the spell. However, you can cast a spell that is normally helpful that removes negative enchantments to remove Mark of Dishonor and cast it on an opponent again. This strategy has the disadvantage that if an ally is trying to cast a harmful spell, like Hold, on the target, you could remove that as well. We simply can't program an A.I. to come up with strategies like that on the fly and realize the consequences of the strategy.

So, in M59 you have challenge, skill, and the accomplishment of vanquishing a worthy opponent. A bit contrary to your assertion.

Of course, there are games where this isn't true. Many games are dominated by character level and equipment. A weak opponent has no chance to fight against a much more powerful opponent. When your only strategy is to have a higher level and use your most powerful damage abilities repeatedly, then the game becomes shallow and superficial. Victory means nothing since it was mathematically guaranteed before the first blow was even landed.

Have fun,

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Ayaress]

Haven't played Everquest since my 7 free days I got when I bought the game (way back when it came out) expired, but that doesn't count for all MMORPGs.

The way Ashen Empire's PvP combat works, it comes down to skill, much as players say otherwise. A lot of people just fight it out by beating on each other and clicking their potions, switching to a staff and casting remedy, etc, but the experienced PvPers all know that if you time your movements, you can get in hits on your opponent without them being able to hit you.

The good PvP players (the old FU guild (Fear Us) being some of the best in their day) would regularly kill level 60's and 80's with level 16 and 20 newbie characters. That's harder now with the rebalances, but it's still more about timing than stats. Not very long ago, a major PKer actually quit the game when a dozen or so level 10's looted his Staff of Enervation. To loot, you have to keep a person away from their body for about three minutes, meaning this guy got killed at least two or three times by people 80 and 90 levels below him. It's rare, but not at all unheard of for high level characters to loose items to groups of newbies.

One step backward is two steps forward

[MMaestro]

Without complaining about EQ2 copying FFXI, I think its a good idea that they're taking the no PvP system seriously. Ever since the release of Ultima Online, PvP hs generated largely unpopular support. Yeah it was cool you could kill your friends or some random people you just ran into. But it wasn't cool if you were on the recieving end. Or if you got 'PKed' for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. PvP was largely, uncool in MMO games.

With the expection of the unique cases (Planetside and Lineage 2 FOCUSING on PvP) PvP has largely be unsuccessful in MMO games. GM support is woefully outstretched with most players takings matters into their own hands (spam in a high populated area and guess how many people will mute you... and leave you muted as long they play the game.) One of the most unbelieved results was when players in Ultima Online formed anti-PK clans and went around PKing PKers.

Bah...still same old EQ

[Lord_Dweomer]

"EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"

Right, maybe when you first start playing, but eventually you figure out where you need to run, and you don't even bother exploring every inch, because there's nothing worth looking for there. Your goal is to get from Town A to Zone B and camp so you can continue the level grind.

I'm sorry, but I'm extremely jaded from EQ. At least with Ultima Online you could wander around and forage for herbs, and find random wildlife, and harvest natural resources from *gasp* nature.

This is all without mentioning the fact that now people are able to host their own UO servers.

When EQ 2 comes out, they could make a LOT of money selling a dev kit for letting people make their own worlds/servers. They could even sell server space. But no...of course not, that would never happen.

Re:PvP

[Mongoose Disciple]

Disclaimer: I have, in the past, spent significant time as an administrator of a PK MUD. Obviously, this puts a certain spin on my opinions here.

The outcome of PvP combat in a MMORPG is heavily dependant on the class and level of the participants.

Historically, this has been true, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.

It's possible to create a game in which one or two classes don't dominate PvP.

It's equally possible to create a game in which the higher level character does not win 90% of the time.

I'd further add that I believe that it's possible to do both without creating a game that's stupid or boring.

When I think about PvP, oddly, I often think of the movie My Cousin Vinny. There's a scene in there where Vinny explains that even though the prosecution's case seems very solid, it really can't be because the boys are innocent. He uses cards as an analogy for their witnesses, showing that while they look perfect and respectable taken from one angle, viewed from another, there's nothing there. I'm not explaining it very well, but those who have seen the movie will know what I'm talking about.

I think the balance of various character types in a PvP game needs to be like that. There should be no other character type in the game that yours can't beat with a little ingenuity and the proper setup. If you can engineer a situation that pits the "square" face of your card against some less ideal face of theirs, you should be able to win. The reverse, of course, is also true: there should be no character type in the game that yours can't lose to if you fight dumb enough.

Now, it's probably true that few, if any, MMORPGs currently in existence are deep enough, strategically, for that kind of class balance model to be possible. In my mind, that's a sign that we should be demanding more from games, rather than give up on the PvP model for this kind of game.

PvP = no subscription for me

[metamatic]

Yeah, but PvP = no subscription for me.

And if you look at the top selling video games, PvP combat games are (a) the minority in terms of sales, and (b) a market that's glutted with competition.

It makes perfect sense for Sony to go for the non-PvP MMOG market. It's wide open.

The question for me is whether they'll do a Mac and/or Linux version, and offer a demo...

Re:So?

[Number 110]

I would disagree. Games like Super Mario Brothers do not have statistics associated with the character and so do not have as clear a leveling concept as a game such as Everquest, however you are not able to start a completely new game of SMB, turn left and confront the final boss. You position within these games in very much akin to your level. Unfortunately this does not generally work for games like Everquest where the basic storyline is non-linear. Games by their nature have to give some form of reward. If they do not then people will grow bored and stop playing them. The leveling system of Everquest is the simplest but you could use a skill gains system similar to Sims Online or Starwars Galaxies or an item acquisition based system. In the end though people need to feel some form of forward progression or else they will soon stop playing. Now this isn't to say that a game necessarily requires grinding. It is entirely possible to make a game in which a character is able to move from well written quest to well written quest all the way through their life until they reach the end of their character advancement, but as you have said creating that much content is problematic (read: expensive).