[tanknspank]

Originally Posted by Byrjun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How many armor sets can you recognize with just one plate texture? Crafted, Indicolite, Cobalt, Singing Steel, Lambent, Totemic, Jaundiced Bone, Ethereal Mist, Rubicite, Valorium, Mrylokar's, Woven Shadow, Ro, Cleric Sol Ro, Thorny Vine, Blood Ember, and a few dozen more.

I love things being this recognizable. And that there's not an overwhelming number of them so you can actually know most items. It makes them stand out more than if there's 10 similar variations of gear for X class/slot.

Early WoW had this in some limited fashion. There's some weapons/shields and a few armor pieces that stood out and those were awesome, but a lot of the rest was very forgettable. And I'm not just talking about random greens. So many blues, or even purples, look the same as those random greens, or have differences small enough that they don't stand out.

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Except all of these used EXACTLY the same texture only in different color.

Limited texture area was a limitation of 1999. When EQ was developed they had to be very restricted in how much texture they used for global things (like PC gear/models/pets) as these had to be loaded in all zones. WoW came about 5.5 years later which (especially at that time) meant massive improvements in both software techniques and hardware.

I'm not saying EQ shouldn't have more textures, particularly as expansions go on, but if they are sparingly used and with unique colors, that would help items stay recognizable.

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

WoW by contrast had dozens of different of textures right of the start, which is now up to a hundred. WoW does use different approach - the texture looks the same for all races, rather than race specific like in EQ, but at the same time total number of textures far greater.

Same goes for famous weapons - they were only famous when there were too few of them.

I think WoW wasted too many texures/models on greens and at the same time had too many generic blue+ items. With fewer blue+ items and making the greens look the same and more bland it would have made the blue+ items more recognizable.

I feel fewer, more famous items makes for more interesting itemization than a wide variety of forgettable ones. I remember replacing my combine weapon with a SSoY on my warrior, or later getting a Primal then a BoC on my warrior. I remember progressing from Gossamer Robe to FBR to Oracle to Cryosilk on my wizard. I remember my epics, and Shissar bane, my first FBSS, GEBs, brown chitin protector, my Ifir, and a dozen other memorable gear changes.

I played a lot of WoW. In fact I've played WoW for more years (and more /played hours) than I did EQ. And yet I have far fewer memories of the gear I've used there, most of it blending into a forgettable stream of slight upgrades.

Originally Posted by Dunes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My primary complaint with WoW was that you knew exactly where you were going next after you finished up a hub (the fact that you could even "finish" an area was another problem).

This has been my main problem with WoW and pretty much every MMO since. EQ had the freedom to be unexpected. The lack of instancing means everyone else indirectly adds change to your play session. What camps are open, what your group comp will be, etc. The camp model in a way makes each camp be its own mini dungeon with its own quirks, dangers, items. In Guk alone I could play 6 nights in a row and be in a different camp. Then there's Unrest and HHP, just off the top of my head.

In WoW at a given level range I was always on one of 2-3 paths and repeatedly doing the same 2-3 dungeons that consisted of the same rooms, in the same order, with the same bosses that we fought exactly once per run. And because questing was so superior to grinding mobs it was always more beneficial to follow the tracks than just roam, exploring and finding interesting little camps to do. Everything was always ordered too. There was no braving the dangers of a trip from FP to Lake Rathe for the Gnoll camp, or to Unrest across DC.

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As far as WoW solo everything - that was the designers original intent - game supports all modes - solo, group and raid.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I do think all play modes should be viable. The problem was that unless you did dungeons, grouping was counterproductive.

All the limitations it set (quest level, quest sequence, no quest items dropping unless you are on the quest) added a lot of overhead to playing with others outside dungeons to the point that you were better off soloing. If you ran into someone, odds were you were on different stages of the quest chain and one of you had to help the other catch up if you wanted to meaningfully group. If your partner had to AFK for a bit you couldn't just keep loot a few extra quest items and hand them to them when they got back. If your partner was 1 level lower you could end up getting a quest they couldn't yet.

I do think an ideal MMO supports all playstyles, but the rewards from raids/group should be commensurate with the overhead in people wrangling they take. For raids this is never an issue because they typically take place at max level (xp being meaningless) and are typically the source of BiS gear. Grouping however is an activity that needs to happen side-by-side with soloing both at max level and on the way there. And you can't just say "ok, grouping will give good gear, soloing will give good XP" because then both styles of players will feel forced into having to do the thing they don't favor (due to time, likes or whatever).

Originally Posted by Kika Maslyaka [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you should go to zone X next cause it suits your level range is fine, cause otherwise players will do what they do in EQ - they go to alla or to the forums and start asking where is the best place to XP at lev X. Same crap.

More info like that is fine. EQ however has self-correcting mechanisms for that - lack of instancing / relatively slow respawn / group composition. Zone X might be the best XP in a level range, but if it's over-camped you'll actually get better XP in a non-best zone with plentiful mobs to kill. Or that best XP might require having CC or harmony, and your group doesn't so you find a place that yields better XP due to less risk/problems in handling the camp with the classes you have.

Originally Posted by indiscriminate_hater [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

my fondest memory of classic was running my troll SK (first and only toon) to south karana. wading through the swamp, trudging through feerrott jungle, climbing over rathe mountains, swimming through lake rathe, and bolting across the plains to arrive at a gigantic tree house filled with human-sized birdmen.

fucking beautiful.

I have a couple like that. The first time I was ~5 in ECom (which was super-crowded as it was a new server) and one of our group members led us to Misty Thicket. Another one was (a different character/server) a group member telling us about the gnolls in Lake Rathe and us undertaking the journey there for the loots (staff and skull!) and uncrowded XP. Then from there we eventually moved on to KFC as well.