Original EQ Had IMMERSION

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns95FDBEA4BF1D7Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:HewQQmxnPdcu1Z8vgs+gFhEjLtYC@4ax.com:
>
> > On 11 Feb 2005 14:50:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...
> >
> > Damn stupid businesses that can't see more than 6 months in the
> > future! 😛
>
> Heh, it's the market that drives the business.

And that could be the first mistake.

The best literature is written because the author wants to tell a story
not sell a book. Its the old 'true to the vision' vs 'pandering to the
lowest common denominator' argument, really.

> It's not like most quasi-
> burned-out EQ old-timers want to revisit the old content, new look or not.
> That would have been interesting for about 10 minutes, I would wager.
> Besides, then the gripe would have been something along the lines of, "I
> can't believe they slap some makeup and a new dress on the same old zones
> and call it an update!"

For $29 bucks sure.

But For $1.00 its hard to find fault with it, *even* if all they did was
rearrange mobs, add some named and quests, and update textures.

I agree people want to *see* something new, so revamps will never be as
satisifying as new zones if they are just re-mobbed/re-itemized/re-
textured. A zone has to be re-geometried too to be really 'interesting'
and new. (And why can't the aviaks build themselves a fortess-aerie in
South K, train their warriors to 70th level, and sign on with one of the
new Dragon factions to unleash their long awaited vengeance....)

I'm confident that for $12.00 per account they can do a dozen real
revamps per year, (completely rebuild the zone) and integrate them with
the current expansion theme, along with a couple dozen quest/mob
rearrangements/re-itemizations of other zones.

$12 may not seem like much, but we're talking largely reusing models and
textures from the current expansion, and we're not adding any code
features (no AAs, no UI features, thus no 'difficult coding' etc etc).

I agree that when a new expansion comes out people for the most part
*do* want to spend the bulk of their time there, but I don't know anyone
that's averse to hitting old zones a bit, especially if its relevant to
the new zones. (e.g. a fair example of what I'm talking about are the
various epic encounters... but a really good example doesn't exist.)

I'd like to see the old zones peripherally integrated with the new
content, so you spend most of your time in the new zones, but the old
zones have relevant contributions... a trigger spawn added to Vex Thal
that's needed as a *small part* of a OOW quest/progressive item. I don't
want to drag the guild to VT night after night when the latest expansion
comes out... but nobody minds spending one day in VT now and then,
especially when the reward is 'modern', and the triggered event is new.

That integration is important. SOE can't put better gear in revamped
zones for obvious reasons: that it would piss off the players *and* hurt
expansion sales, but if they put anything less its only interesting for
10 minutes. But if they tie them together... then it gains traction as
being relevant, without undermining sales.

> I'm all in favor of revamping the old zones, but not at the expense of new
> content.

And I, at least, have never suggested the march of progress on new
content should slow. That said... in practical terms the difference
between a complete revamp and new content is the name of the zone.

 

[Patrik]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

> I'm confident that for $12.00 per account they can do a dozen real
> revamps per year, (completely rebuild the zone) and integrate them with
> the current expansion theme, along with a couple dozen quest/mob
> rearrangements/re-itemizations of other zones.
>
> $12 may not seem like much, but we're talking largely reusing models and
> textures from the current expansion, and we're not adding any code
> features (no AAs, no UI features, thus no 'difficult coding' etc etc).

It may not seem like much until you multiply it by, say, 300,000
accounts. That gives us $3.6 million, which is half again the
development budget for Dark Age of Camelot. That should cover quite a
lot of zone revamping, even taking into account that DAoC was a much
smaller operation.


> I'd like to see the old zones peripherally integrated with the new
> content, so you spend most of your time in the new zones, but the old
> zones have relevant contributions... a trigger spawn added to Vex Thal
> that's needed as a *small part* of a OOW quest/progressive item. I don't
> want to drag the guild to VT night after night when the latest expansion
> comes out... but nobody minds spending one day in VT now and then,
> especially when the reward is 'modern', and the triggered event is new.

They did this in Omens of War, for the new epics. I'm not sure how it
worked out, since I've never been anywhere near that level of the
game, but it does sound like a good idea.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 15 Feb 2005 10:23:16 +0100, patrik@nordebo.com wrote:
>It may not seem like much until you multiply it by, say, 300,000
>accounts. That gives us $3.6 million, which is half again the
>development budget for Dark Age of Camelot. That should cover quite a
>lot of zone revamping, even taking into account that DAoC was a much
>smaller operation.

The problem is that if they only revamped one or two zones at a time,
hardly anyone would get that excited about it, or hell even notice it.
What would be cool is if they revamped say, a dozen zones and waited
to release them all at once. If all of the zones had changes due to a
single storyline (say, orcs have allied with giants and taken over
Faydwer) it could be made into a big deal, and people would notice
that their money is going somewhere good.

You could have a huge fortress built in Lesser Faydark, maybe an area
of Greater Faydark clearcut in order to get lumber for the fortress in
LF, uber strong Giants in Butcherblock or Dagnor's... the
possibilities are endless and very cool. In fact, it's the kind of
content I had hoped would occur regularly when I signed up back in
March of '99.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:MPG.1c7aea33ade3f3989a2e@shawnews:

> In article <Xns95FDBEA4BF1D7Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:HewQQmxnPdcu1Z8vgs+gFhEjLtYC@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On 11 Feb 2005 14:50:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>> > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...
>> >
>> > Damn stupid businesses that can't see more than 6 months in the
>> > future! 😛
>>
>> Heh, it's the market that drives the business.
>
> And that could be the first mistake.
>
> The best literature is written because the author wants to tell a
> story not sell a book. Its the old 'true to the vision' vs 'pandering
> to the lowest common denominator' argument, really.

The primary difference there being the fact that the author would be
content to write his story, successful or not, whereas big business
lives on the bottom line out of necessity.

>> It's not like most quasi-
>> burned-out EQ old-timers want to revisit the old content, new look or
>> not. That would have been interesting for about 10 minutes, I would
>> wager. Besides, then the gripe would have been something along the
>> lines of, "I can't believe they slap some makeup and a new dress on
>> the same old zones and call it an update!"
>
> For $29 bucks sure.
>
> But For $1.00 its hard to find fault with it, *even* if all they did
> was rearrange mobs, add some named and quests, and update textures.

Sounds reasonable to me.

>> I'm all in favor of revamping the old zones, but not at the expense
>> of new content.
>
> And I, at least, have never suggested the march of progress on new
> content should slow. That said... in practical terms the difference
> between a complete revamp and new content is the name of the zone.

I guess that depends on what the revamp entails. If it's just better
graphics, then no, they are not equivalent.

I like the idea of revamping old content, though within reason.
Seriously, like I said, how much time do you really expect to spend in
the "new" Lavastorm Mountains? What effort is going to provide the
better return on investment while still keeping the playerbase
entertained as a whole?

I can certainly see why we don't see a lot more of it.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

The Other John <spamblock@blockit.com> wrote in
news😱lv311968giabci19g6l7jhst2dquaeb2q@4ax.com:

> On 15 Feb 2005 10:23:16 +0100, patrik@nordebo.com wrote:
>>It may not seem like much until you multiply it by, say, 300,000
>>accounts. That gives us $3.6 million, which is half again the
>>development budget for Dark Age of Camelot. That should cover quite a
>>lot of zone revamping, even taking into account that DAoC was a much
>>smaller operation.
>
> The problem is that if they only revamped one or two zones at a time,
> hardly anyone would get that excited about it, or hell even notice it.
> What would be cool is if they revamped say, a dozen zones and waited
> to release them all at once. If all of the zones had changes due to a
> single storyline (say, orcs have allied with giants and taken over
> Faydwer) it could be made into a big deal, and people would notice
> that their money is going somewhere good.
>
> You could have a huge fortress built in Lesser Faydark, maybe an area
> of Greater Faydark clearcut in order to get lumber for the fortress in
> LF, uber strong Giants in Butcherblock or Dagnor's... the
> possibilities are endless and very cool. In fact, it's the kind of
> content I had hoped would occur regularly when I signed up back in
> March of '99.
>

*That* would make for a much more living world vibe in the game, no doubt.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns95FE808281C16Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:MPG.1c7aea33ade3f3989a2e@shawnews:
>
> > In article <Xns95FDBEA4BF1D7Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
> >> Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:HewQQmxnPdcu1Z8vgs+gFhEjLtYC@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> > On 11 Feb 2005 14:50:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> >> > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...
> >> >
> >> > Damn stupid businesses that can't see more than 6 months in the
> >> > future! 😛
> >>
> >> Heh, it's the market that drives the business.
> >
> > And that could be the first mistake.
> >
> > The best literature is written because the author wants to tell a
> > story not sell a book. Its the old 'true to the vision' vs 'pandering
> > to the lowest common denominator' argument, really.
>
> The primary difference there being the fact that the author would be
> content to write his story, successful or not, whereas big business
> lives on the bottom line out of necessity.

There are teams of developers who are content to 'make the game they'd
want to play'. Hopefully, MMORGs will sink out of the stratosphere of
Big Business and come within reach of the dreamers one day.

> >> It's not like most quasi-
> >> burned-out EQ old-timers want to revisit the old content, new look or
> >> not. That would have been interesting for about 10 minutes, I would
> >> wager. Besides, then the gripe would have been something along the
> >> lines of, "I can't believe they slap some makeup and a new dress on
> >> the same old zones and call it an update!"
> >
> > For $29 bucks sure.
> >
> > But For $1.00 its hard to find fault with it, *even* if all they did
> > was rearrange mobs, add some named and quests, and update textures.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> >> I'm all in favor of revamping the old zones, but not at the expense
> >> of new content.
> >
> > And I, at least, have never suggested the march of progress on new
> > content should slow. That said... in practical terms the difference
> > between a complete revamp and new content is the name of the zone.
>
> I guess that depends on what the revamp entails. If it's just better
> graphics, then no, they are not equivalent.
>
> I like the idea of revamping old content, though within reason.
> Seriously, like I said, how much time do you really expect to spend in
> the "new" Lavastorm Mountains?

I am not level 10-20 any more. But I've got a couple alts, and I'll be
sure to run them in there for sure!

That said, I concede that I'm not -that- excited about lavastorm. But
then lavastorm wasn't rebuilt for -me-. Its not aimed at high level
players at all, and has nothing for them (to my knowledge at least), so
its a poor example. Its a pretty enough zone though and if it was
itemized and populated like WoS it would be just as popular.

> What effort is going to provide the
> better return on investment while still keeping the playerbase
> entertained as a whole?

That question hinges on the assumption that SOE actually has to choose
just one. I am not arguing that they change their expansion strategy at
all.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c7be2c442113509989a35@shawnews:

> In article <Xns95FE808281C16Rumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1c7aea33ade3f3989a2e@shawnews:
>>
>> > In article <Xns95FDBEA4BF1D7Rumbledorhotmailcom@204.127.204.17>,
>> > Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>> >> Frank E <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:HewQQmxnPdcu1Z8vgs+gFhEjLtYC@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >> > On 11 Feb 2005 14:50:13 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>> >> > <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Damned greedy businesses trying to make money...
>> >> >
>> >> > Damn stupid businesses that can't see more than 6 months in the
>> >> > future! 😛
>> >>
>> >> Heh, it's the market that drives the business.
>> >
>> > And that could be the first mistake.
>> >
>> > The best literature is written because the author wants to tell a
>> > story not sell a book. Its the old 'true to the vision' vs
>> > 'pandering to the lowest common denominator' argument, really.
>>
>> The primary difference there being the fact that the author would be
>> content to write his story, successful or not, whereas big business
>> lives on the bottom line out of necessity.
>
> There are teams of developers who are content to 'make the game they'd
> want to play'. Hopefully, MMORGs will sink out of the stratosphere of
> Big Business and come within reach of the dreamers one day.
>
>> >> It's not like most quasi-
>> >> burned-out EQ old-timers want to revisit the old content, new look
>> >> or not. That would have been interesting for about 10 minutes, I
>> >> would wager. Besides, then the gripe would have been something
>> >> along the lines of, "I can't believe they slap some makeup and a
>> >> new dress on the same old zones and call it an update!"
>> >
>> > For $29 bucks sure.
>> >
>> > But For $1.00 its hard to find fault with it, *even* if all they
>> > did was rearrange mobs, add some named and quests, and update
>> > textures.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>> >> I'm all in favor of revamping the old zones, but not at the
>> >> expense of new content.
>> >
>> > And I, at least, have never suggested the march of progress on new
>> > content should slow. That said... in practical terms the difference
>> > between a complete revamp and new content is the name of the zone.
>>
>> I guess that depends on what the revamp entails. If it's just better
>> graphics, then no, they are not equivalent.
>>
>> I like the idea of revamping old content, though within reason.
>> Seriously, like I said, how much time do you really expect to spend
>> in the "new" Lavastorm Mountains?
>
> I am not level 10-20 any more. But I've got a couple alts, and I'll be
> sure to run them in there for sure!
>
> That said, I concede that I'm not -that- excited about lavastorm. But
> then lavastorm wasn't rebuilt for -me-. Its not aimed at high level
> players at all, and has nothing for them (to my knowledge at least),
> so its a poor example. Its a pretty enough zone though and if it was
> itemized and populated like WoS it would be just as popular.
>
>> What effort is going to provide the
>> better return on investment while still keeping the playerbase
>> entertained as a whole?
>
> That question hinges on the assumption that SOE actually has to choose
> just one. I am not arguing that they change their expansion strategy
> at all.

Huh. I'm speaking in favor of their current approach, myself. If you're
not arguing for change, then why exactly are you debating my every word
on the matter?

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[user]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns95FEB0A33BEFCRumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...

> >> What effort is going to provide the
> >> better return on investment while still keeping the playerbase
> >> entertained as a whole?
> >
> > That question hinges on the assumption that SOE actually has to choose
> > just one. I am not arguing that they change their expansion strategy
> > at all.
>
> Huh. I'm speaking in favor of their current approach, myself. If you're
> not arguing for change, then why exactly are you debating my every word
> on the matter?

I am not arguing for change of their expansion strategy. I am arguing
for change of their revamp program... or more precisely I am arguing
that they should actually have a real revamp program.

You asked the question "which effort provides a *better* return on
investment..."

Its a false dilemma. They can do *both*.

There is no need to change the expansion strategy to add a revamp
strategy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:MPG.1c7c1ebba9fc3c57989a38@shawnews:

> In article <Xns95FEB0A33BEFCRumbledorhotmailcom@63.240.76.16>,
> Rumbledor@hotspamsuxmail.com says...
>
>> >> What effort is going to provide the
>> >> better return on investment while still keeping the playerbase
>> >> entertained as a whole?
>> >
>> > That question hinges on the assumption that SOE actually has to choose
>> > just one. I am not arguing that they change their expansion strategy
>> > at all.
>>
>> Huh. I'm speaking in favor of their current approach, myself. If you're
>> not arguing for change, then why exactly are you debating my every word
>> on the matter?
>
> I am not arguing for change of their expansion strategy. I am arguing
> for change of their revamp program... or more precisely I am arguing
> that they should actually have a real revamp program.
>
> You asked the question "which effort provides a *better* return on
> investment..."
>
> Its a false dilemma. They can do *both*.
>
> There is no need to change the expansion strategy to add a revamp
> strategy.

If you say so. Personally, I wasn't in on the budget meetings. All I can
say for sure is which of the two is more effective assuming one must get
the majority of their attention and investment.

--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin