Classic EQ with modern graphics

[stormlord]

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

I think the game would fail (sorry).

Too many classes are simply easy mechanically in the origial EQ. You'd have to update the lacking classes, remove penalities that don't make sense and buff certain classes.

Sorry anyone that would leave ranger as is and call it good game design is probably pretty high on the idiot meter.

"Lets make a class that really doesn't have a role!" .. Mediocre at a bunch of things and good at none.

The druid was mediocre in groups. They had a lot of dots and dots don't work well in groups. Their heal wasn't on the level of a cleric. So were necromancers. They also had a lot of dots. But both these classes were really good at soloing. Rangers, by comparison, were (far) better than warriors at soloing, and while ok in groups, their dps and tanking ability falls short of the classes that focus on those things.

I still feel to this day that there was something in the code that genuinely made rangers overpowered. That's why they added the exp penalty. Unfortunately, it's missed on the vast majority of us. My guess is it was an argument made on loose logic and in the long run failed. Maybe, for example, they thought root or snare was too powerful. However, it turned out that dps and tanking were more important for the ranger in a group and the ranger wasn't good enough at those things. Clearly, the classes that focused on something were more popular and made it to the higher levels at a greater rate.

Maybe they did make a bad build, kind of like how players do that in skill-based games.

Go here to see how the class popularity fared on project 1999:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...7&postcount=48

You can see the paladins and shadowknights had worse (lasting) popularity than rangers. In fact, rangers did better than druids at translating popularity in -all- previous level tiers to max level.

Of course, the popularity of rangers, like paladins and shadowknights, never exceeded about 9% of the class population share, and at max level, never exceeded 2%. (note: on this particular chart)

Btw, I played a ranger starting in Mar 99. I didn't even know back then that they had an exp penalty. I liked to be able to do lots of different things, whether on my own or in a group. Another reason I liked them was their connection to the forest and their ability to wield weapons effectively - I'm not a pure caster. I later created another ranger in 2001 (i think) on a different server and played him for several years after.

[Messianic]

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

[Droog007]

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

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

Classic EQ deserved / deserves a graphics makeover that didn't / doesn't utterly suck... I think that's really all the OP is driving at.

I like the old-school graphics as much as anyone, but I won't say they are flawless. Proportions an animations should be untouched, essentially... Rounder boobs, hookpoints for weapons when out of combat... that sort of thing, could be awesome.

Enough to make it mass-marketable again? Probably not.

[fadetree]

Rangers were originally too powerful in beta; they were the equivalent of the classic OP tank/mage archetype. So, they got whacked. Too hard imo, but oh well.

Thats not where the hybrid penalty came form tho, I don't think, I think it was from a general idea found in DD games about multiclassing.

[TarukShmaruk]

Originally Posted by t0lkien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't like anything about Luclin art beyond the higher fidelity, including the models and animations. It was amateur (the attack animations were embarrassing), and without any feeling for what went before it. However, the box art on classic expansions represents a good example of what the game would have looked like had it been made on current/future tech. Nothing companies release artistically is "one person's rendition". Trust me on this. There would have been 5 different people sign off on those drawings, and there would have been several revisions of them at least before that point.

The box art is an example only. The main source is the game itself. I'm the last person you have to convince of the nastiness of what happened after Velious - both art and systems, which they broke beyond repair.

You're looking at how things are now, not how things were then.

Have you watched the documentary about EQ and how it was made? This was all experimental for them. Hell back in '97-'98 when this was in development games didn't have the massive studios that they do now.

It was literally a couple of dudes that got in touch with an artist and said "yeah that looks great" - and to be fair the box art was pretty good except for the ogres and trolls.

There is literally nothing in common with the art direction on the box for those two races and their implementation in the game - it wasn't just a technological limitation, there was a clear effort to make the trolls and ogres look goofy and cute, which doesn't match up with the box art at all.

The mentality of "Let's remake EQ, but better!" just puts you in Blizzard's position in like 2002-2003. Already been done.

May have been corrupted afterward, but it was done. The only thing left is to emulate original EQ and enjoy it for what it was.

This is a really silly point of view that has been proven wrong time and time again.

I'm sure someone said that about the original XCOM - and then firaxis came along and made XCOM:EU and it was fucking awesome.

That's the great thing about the medium of video games - remakes and sequels can improve so much on the original, yet maintain the fiber of what the original was all about.

Lastly, one thing EQ has gotten right that few MMOs do is how fluid the game feels. EQ plays very well and is very responsive - you'll notice the difference in the engine here with other MMOs like DAOC or SWTOR etc.

[RevengeofGio]

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

The druid was mediocre in groups. They had a lot of dots and dots don't work well in groups. Their heal wasn't on the level of a cleric. So were necromancers. They also had a lot of dots. But both these classes were really good at soloing. Rangers, by comparison, were better than average at soloing, and while ok in groups, their dps and tanking ability falls short of the classes that focus on those things.

I still feel to this day that there was something in the code that genuinely made rangers overpowered. That's why they added the exp penalty. Unfortunately, it's missed on the vast majority of us. My guess is it was an argument made on loose logic and in the long run failed. Maybe, for example, they thought root or snare was too powerful. However, it turned out that dps and tanking were more important for the ranger in a group and the ranger wasn't good enough at those things. Clearly, the classes that focused on something were more popular and made it to the higher levels at a greater rate.

Go here to see how the class popularity fared on project 1999:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...7&postcount=48

You can see the paladins and shadowknights had worse (lasting) popularity than rangers. In fact, rangers did better than druids at translating popularity in -all- previous level tiers to max level.

Of course, the popularity of rangers, like paladins and shadowknights, never exceeded about 9% of the class population share, and at max level, never exceeded 2%. (note: on this particular chart)

Btw, I played a ranger starting in Mar 99. I didn't even know back then that they had an exp penalty.

I played a ranger back in 99 also.

Here's the thing... you're just wrong. Who solos worse than rangers? Rogues, warriors, clerics and *maybe* paladins (they can fight undead pretty well).

So how can that be better than average? Its actually mediocre or worse.

They were one of the least desirable in groups also... even druids got more groups and they were much better in other areas.

I loved my ranger, but mainly because of the idea of the class; not because of actual gameplay value. The ONLY thing rangers did well was track in classic EQ... that's it. You can insinuate that people don't get it, but they do.... the class blows.

Give something that the ranger does better than the majority of other classes besides track?

[TarukShmaruk]

^^

I'm not sure who you are arguing against here. SOE themselves acknowledged this as they started giving rangers/sks/paladins their own stuff in later expansions, instead of just shitty warrior skills and low level druid/necro/cleric spells.

[RevengeofGio]

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

^^

I'm not sure who you are arguing against here. SOE themselves acknowledged this as they started giving rangers/sks/paladins their own stuff in later expansions, instead of just shitty warrior skills and low level druid/necro/cleric spells.

The guy I quoted.

[t0lkien]

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

You're looking at how things are now, not how things were then.

Have you watched the documentary about EQ and how it was made? This was all experimental for them. Hell back in '97-'98 when this was in development games didn't have the massive studios that they do now.

No but I'd love to! Do you have a link?

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

It was literally a couple of dudes that got in touch with an artist and said "yeah that looks great" - and to be fair the box art was pretty good except for the ogres and trolls.

Everyone seems a little stuck on the ogres and trolls. I'm only referencing the box art as a style (because I was answering something someone said). I agree about the ogres and trolls, and the only way to do them would be to remain true to the pre-Luclin ingame versions. That's a given. Any modern revamp of graphics would have to look like the game now only with the detail suddenly dialed in. To do less would be a failure.

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

Lastly, one thing EQ has gotten right that few MMOs do is how fluid the game feels. EQ plays very well and is very responsive - you'll notice the difference in the engine here with other MMOs like DAOC or SWTOR etc.

I'm actually happy someone else has noticed this. It's one of my "tent pegs" about EQ and what has happened to the genre since. People have raved about WoW's fluidity, and really top class animations aside, it feels slow and unresponsive compared to EQ. That has a lot to do with movement speed too. WoW's movement speed was always slow by design, and was the thing I disliked about it most (even when I was loving beta and vanilla). WoW set a lot of precedents that have been negative actually, and devs are still putting the tracing paper over it when they build a new game, even today.
__________________

[Khaleesi]

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

Rangers were originally too powerful in beta; they were the equivalent of the classic OP tank/mage archetype. So, they got whacked. Too hard imo, but oh well.

Thats not where the hybrid penalty came form tho, I don't think, I think it was from a general idea found in DD games about multiclassing.

Fadetree, are you past 40 yet!??!
I hope you've left High Keep.