EverQuest 2 – The Longest Journey (Part 2)

In the part 1 I traced a pattern that from my point of view summarizes “all things EQ2”. I believe it portrays perfectly the WHOLE situation, not just the small example I used.

Noone negates that EQ2 team is doing a whole lot for the game. They are trying HARD to do a good work and they surely did a whole lot more than Blizzard in the last year, there is no comparison. They also achieved a lot and this is apparent if you read the comments of the players. No other game that went through as many significant changes received the same amount of overall positive feedback. Today, without a doubt, EverQuest 2 is a better game.

But I still find curious how this game had to “jog” all over the place to arrive at the same conclusions of WoW (and reuse its concepts). For a whole year EQ2 kept running restlessly just to arrive near to the same spot where WoW was sitting already from a long time. WoW didn’t need to budge at all. As static as it is it didn’t need to go through all that work and experimentation because “it got things right” already from the very beginning.

It is so similar to the story of the ant and the grasshopper. WoW is the result of a long and focused work along five, if not more, years. It probably “consumed” Blizzard more than every other game. This while SOE preferred to not focus on anything and start a bunch of different projects, all lacking a solid direction. They pretended too much and felt untouchable. They cared more for the marketing value of the development than the actual passion about building something valuable. When the two games were released the difference was obvious and Blizzard was and still is rewarded. They did a so much better work and the result of that focus paid them back largely.

During this year the situation pretty much reverted. Blizzard continued with its trend. Starting to farm what they sowed, but definitely failing at creating new developments and ideas. They just reiterated more of the same to the point of even putting a strain on it. Most of the partially new ideas, imho, failed. From the PvE endgame raids, to the faction points farming, to the most horrid PvP system ever created. But the game was already so solid that it didn’t need anything else to impose itself on the market and trigger a recursive, growing (and now even self-feeding) success.

In the meantime EQ2 became a better game, it didn’t just crumble to pieces as I was expecting but instead it resisted and changed completely attitude. That work is now paying them back, I believe, but at the same time they still suffer and probably will continue to suffer some core differences.

The design in WoW is extremely polished. Here “polished” means simplified. Compared to EQ2 design which is instead more cluttered. The UI is a perfect example of this, but the same happens for every other element of the game, from the general design to the technical aspects and even the graphic. EQ2 feels a lot less consistent and polished. It is more a mess. Sometimes this mess is even mistaken for a “richness”. While WoW’s polish, sleekness and simplification is mistaken for absence of value.

The truth is that WoW has still a considerable advantage over its competitor(s) and it probably will retain it without much effort for the next few years.

This doesn’t mean that EQ2 cannot continue on its journey. If it was already viable, it will remain so now that it is a better game and seems to winback more and more players. Far from being a commercial success but it is surely the one in the better condition between those in SOE’s portfolio, as I already commented. We can even argue whether they should focus completely on it or not (I think yes, by the way. And from many years).

So WoW is already the perfect mmorpg that has found the best recipe for a game? It is truly the “one mmorpg to rule them all”?

Of course no, I do not think that WoW achieved the best design possible as I concluded at the end of the first part of this article. There are many parts of WoW design that could be improved and so many possibilities that WoW didn’t even care to explore.

The point is that I do not see EQ2 taking advantage of those possibilities either. Or even try to move past the boundaries traced by WoW. In fact, as written in the first part, EQ2 often stops right in the same place of WoW. It seems its natural, unavoidable destination. Without trying to move past it or find new directions. I have this image of EQ2 like someone driving a car and trying to surpass the other car next to it. It is so absolutely focused on what the rival is doing that his eyes are locked on the other car. To the point that it doesn’t look anymore forward and risks to crash right into a wall. EQ2 seems so completely focused on WoW that it seems to be blind at the possibilities that could be opened.

Its upcoming PvP system is a carbon-copy of the one used in WoW (l’ll come to the PvP but I hope to write just some terse comments about one particular aspect). The class system, as explained, is now as close as possible to the one used in WoW. The two games seem to progressively converge instead of defining their own unique space and quality. They are so completely focused on a tiny dot that noone sees how big is the space of the possibilities. Every element of the game seems to mimic this trend.

As an example I commented a thread on FoH’s forums that describes some changes about the aggro system. It was changed to be closer to WoW, once again. With the result that there are now “design leftovers” from the old system that make grey mobs aggro despite their color code would state the opposite. It’s like trying to mark a difference where there is none. The old system used was simply “bad design” to the point that it was largely exploited (low level players grouping with high level ones to get a “free pass” and avoid completely the aggro code – defined “passporting”), and the new one is close to the one used in WoW, yet different. Where that difference is now a design inconsistency then generates other problems.

But are we truly limited to JUST ONE pattern (and, incidentally, the one that WoW used for a long time)? Of course not!

There are so many possibilities for an “aggro mechanic”. In my comment on that thread I suggested to make the “grey con” mobs to run away from high level characters. I think it would be cool. Already innovative enough to define a small quality. But you can use this as an example for a whole new approach: try to make the aggro mechanics more and more realistic, varied and entertaining (and not strictly game-y).

For example we could mix both WoW and EQ2 mechanics. In WoW the aggro system consists in a variable range depending on the difference in levels. Mobs with a level higher than yours will aggro from further away, while mobs below your level will have a very small aggro radius. In EQ there’s no dynamic radius (maybe it’s based on the type of mob, but not factoring the levels) but the aggro varies depending solely on your level. So that grey con mobs won’t aggro even if you sit right on top of them.

Mixing them would be adding value and depth to the system. To begin with we could create a base system where every creature type is linked to a small group of “behavioral general patterns”. For example some creatures will never start an attack, or always run away from threat. We could implement different reactions depending on specific environments, light sources or night and day cycles. Where the predators could “aggro” and try to ambush the players during the night, or try to stay away if the player has a light source or is walking around in a group instead of alone. Some creatures could attack no matter of the conditions, because they are too stupid to figure a menace and so on. Already on this level the possibilities are endless and the gameplay more varied. It just depends on how much you want to “push the boundaries”.

On a simpler level you could start with a small number of basic groups defining the “type” of creature. One for those aggressive, one for those neutral, one for those friendly, for example. Then adding a simple level check that goes to match within the group that particular pattern that is appropriate for the situation. For example walking between creatures that should be aggressive but that are much below your level could make them run away from you, scared. Not just always aggroing, or ignoring you, or having just small or bigger aggro radiuses. Mixing instead these in more varied and realistic behaviours. A “green con”, but neutral, mob could try to ignore or avoid you but still bite you *once* and run away if you trigger an “annoy check” (for example by standing too close for an amount of time). While an aggressive mob could show a defensive behaviour only when the difference in levels is wider.

A system like this can be then even extended to the combat encounters themselves. Think for example to a pack of wolves that during the night starts to move closer to you and then circling you, with one or two wolves running in from opposite directions, biting and running back. Effectively “kiting” the player. This is what’s “cool”. The possibilities are ENDLESS. You can design a very simple and stylized method that just repeats a few rules (the basic groups types + the level check mechanic to pick the specific pattern) or go in depth and add as much “substance” as you want. It’s easily scalable to the complexity you desire to achieve.

All these ideas would make these mobs much more like “animals” or creatures, instead of just “bags of experience”. It’s a direction that I would love to see explored and that could mark a rather strong difference from WoW.

Yet it’s completely absurd. Impossible. Dave Rickey and Raph Koster love to talk about AI, but here we are BILLION years away from that. It would be already *unbelievable* to see these mobs follow some very simple, yet entertaining, behavioral patterns. But it’s already science fiction.

This was just an example to explain how these games offer so many possibilities if you only open a little your eyes to embrace what the genre truly offers, instead of just remaining trapped in the exact same model and rinse and repeat it endlessly without any enthusiasm.

In fact that’s what I believe the industry misses: the enthusiasm. The desire to discover new things. The sense of wonder. Feeling like a kid to discover the world a second time.

But aren’t games exactly this?

Leave a Reply