I’m trying to like it but I really cannot digest it all that much.

EverQuest 2 progressively released more and more details about its upcoming (with the expansion) PvP ruleset and it seems to have met the consensus of the majority of the players. Not mine, though.

The full explanations can be found here (nothing new. This is at least one week old).

There are some design choices that I don’t see as interesting nor fun and I believe will turn into experiments gone wrong, in the same way pretty much everything they tried that wasn’t directly derived from WoW (see my “Patterns of EverQuest2” that were at the origin of the lenghty articles below).

Between the sympathizers there’s also Cosmik. So I’ll back up some of his comments at times.

The first note that I have to make, though, is that for the most part this PvP system is a carbon-copy of the (terrible) one used in WoW. Now we’ll have to see if the history repeats and if those few things that EQ2 is trying to do differently will reveal to be so bad that everything will be ultimately patched back to a proper WoW clone in all the tiniest details. The King of Game Design that SOE secretly seems to worship.

The guidelines are the same as WoW, as I already “ranted” about. There are two factions, one is evil, the other good, both share the same classes, there’s a distinction between honorable and dishonorable kills and if you farm enough points you can build up faction and have access to fat loot. Now let’s delve more into the details.

Communication and Interaction

All the first part explains how the comminication between the two factions is regulated. And it goes really in the detail explaining everything you CAN’T do. Even if it would have been so much simpler to explain what you CAN do. Which is: you are free to whack those in the other faction and use emotes. That’s all.

On this level the whole system is clearly copied from WoW till the minimum detail. There isn’t even a minimal difference whatsoever. Let’s hope that at least they didn’t copy even the exploits (like leet speak) that were only patched later in WoW. Maybe they went in lazy mode and just blocked directly the messages instead of adding filters, who knows. I also wonder if they’ll go with DAoC model and use only generic overhead names or they’ll go with WoW’s model and still display the full name on the enemy characters. Oh yes. Rhetorical question, I guess :)

There’s one trait I find extremely interesting, though. But I’ll come on this later. (see the P.S. at the end)

Combat Mechanics

The next part explains how the combat will behave differently from PvE to PvP. They have basically set them as two separate systems where one spell can be adjusted in PvP without affecting PvE, so making the balancing process less problematic and less prone to screw ups.

From the development side this is a solid practice and one that other games have already used in a way or another. It is good that EQ2 was planned from the ground up with this mindset, so I have nothing to criticize.

Instead from the player’s side this could be problematic. I’m wondering how they’ll keep the UI clean and still show how the skills and spells behave in the two different situations. I also believe that the variance will make the game feel less consistent and understandable. Which would require probably too much research to understand all the quirks and use your character at best. So it’s good from a game-y point of view, but less in an attempt to create a world with its own rules and consistency. I can understand the choice, though.

And now we arrive at the problems: Taunts and Hate Reduction.

Cosmik is glad, along with many other players positively surprised, to finally see aggro managment skills finally working in PvP. Yes, they’ll add more tactics into the fight but I really believe this is a bad decision that will make the combat terribly unfun.

The experience in DAoC already taught (to noone, since no game actually addressed this problem) how gameplay-disrupting skills make the combat frustrating. The frustration comes directly from the loss of control. A combat system (no matter if it’s twitch or turn-based) is fun the more you have an active control on it. If you can take decisions and affect how things are going. By definition an attack must imply a defence. Losing control of your character without any possibility to do anything else than stare at the screen feels like being kick-slapped around a room without the possibility to react. It zones you out. It feels passive.

I already examinated at depth (from my point of view) these mechanics and I believe that this sort of frustration is valuable in the game only if it can also find an “exit point”. A “vent valve”. But instead in these combat mechanics the “loss of control” is not a pattern of counterattack. It is instead a pattern of death. When you are losing control you are also going to die.

All these comments come from my direct experience and I know what frustrates me in a PvP combat and I perceive as “unfun”. What I hate the most in WoW’s combat mechanics, for example, is that I pass the majority of the time trying to fight against the controls and gameplay-disrupting situations. I’m constantly feared, Mind Controlled, slowed down or chain-stunned. These interruptions disrupt the gameplay. While I hate being feared, the most frustrating thing is that you also lose your target. Here you are fighting with the interface, which is the most annoying thing in a game: having to re-issue the same commands repeatedly.

This continue loss of control is not fun. It gets in the way of playing the game. So why creating two separate systems for PvP and PvE if this possibility isn’t used to support the fun in the game? Again it’s not a case that the most fun mechanics are those reactive (see again Mount and Blade) instead of those gameplay-disruptive. So I don’t see the innovative implementation of taunts and aggro management in PvP as something that will contribute in a positive way.

The same I could say for the “Control Spells”. This isn’t a new problem for the genre and I already explained what I think about it and how I’d try to solve it (same link as above). EQ2’s model isn’t anything new, regulated through immunity timers (as DAoC). In this case probably a better choice than the one used in WoW (through diminished returns). While the latter is more consistent, it is also less fun for the reasons listed above.

So I do not like how EQ2 is going to address this problem, but it’s also in line with what all the other games are doing.

About the behaviour of stealth I won’t comment much because it depends a lot on the implemention than general design. I just hope that they copy WoW, in this case, and not DAoC. Hiding the overhead names while stealthed. That’s pretty much all I ask. It would be also interesting to have a variable visibilty based on range or skill/level check instead of just a visible/invisible boolean status. Another detail that I find important is that WoW uses sounds to help you detect hidden targets (both friendly or not). That’s another very good idea.

Death System

This is crucial in every PvP implementation and the one that made WoW’s PvP so popular and successful. Here I agree with Cosmik. This choice to add an exp debt on a PvP death is plain bad. I just don’t see any good coming out of this. There is no advantage whatsoever and on top of this there’s even the incentive to grief by attacking a player when he is engaged in combat to make him suffer the full exp debt (and loss of money).

I also agree with Cosmik on the doubts on the honorable/dishonorable system. It is something that never worked in WoW. I don’t even think it’s possible to make it work without adding a further layer of complexity that wouldn’t add anything worthwhile to the game. Here the solution is rather simple and the one WoW implemented before kicking everything to hell whith the launch of the honor system. More feedback on this here.

Here SOE is trying to outsmart Blizzard by implementing a system that faied in WoW and was discared among the complaints of the players pointing at the page of the manual where it was described. I think this new solution will be also short-legged since it doesn’t really address the *origin* of the problem. No useful solution can be found if this part is examined superficially as it currently is.

Forcing the players to check the exact percents of health on a target before attacking to avoid to incur in a penalty is bad. Very, very bad. Broken design on multiple levels (even if the actual threshold to matter is the one at 20% with the latest revised mechanics). I also do not understand the “Kill List” used to address the problem of repeated kills. This is another system that failed in WoW and an occasion for EQ2 to do better, but its solution convinces me even less. This is another core mechanic of every PvP implementation. My suggested solutions and further thoughts are here (adding “bounty points” and incentives to survive instead of penalties).

There’s also a possibility that you drop some junk in a PvP death. I don’t think this idea will add anything worthwhile. Fluff. Instead dropping gold will be annoying and adds to the death penalty. Again a bad move.

I note that at the higher levels there isn’t any penalty or discouragement for ganking. This while the victim will still receive the exp debt and drop gold that will be looted by the happy ganker. The ganker is allowed to farm lower level players and loot their gold without any penalty.

At the lower levels, instead, ganking will be forbidden, since you won’t be able to initiate the combat with a character 8 levels below you. Cosmik commented about this and I agree with him. This pretty much erases all the qualities of an open PvP system. WoW outsmarted pretty much everyone on this aspect with the idea of “friendly” and “contested” zones. It wins hands down and the evidence of this will show.

All these points stacks up to form a death system that doesn’t look nowhere fun nor solid or even accessible. While encouraging the griefing and cheap ganking mechanics. Pretty much the opposite of the results it should try to achieve.

—
No mentions about the PvP rewards and factional gains, so it’s hard to figure out the impact of this system. I only know that doing worse than WoW is pretty much impossible in this case (yeah, Honor System).

So, I expected to write a few terse notes and instead I got this. I have many gripes about the death system and the combat mechanics and I expect that this PvP ruleset won’t be popular. I wouldn’t be surprised if SOE pushes this back in the list of priorities after it is launched.

Pretty much the same destiny of EverQuest 1.

P.S.
At one point I wrote that there was an interesting trait but then I forgot to write about it. I don’t know if I’m correct but there’s a part where they hint there aren’t just two alignments possible, but three (good, evil, betraying). They don’t explain this part but it may have lots of potential. One of my ideas on the “dream mmorpg” (also tied to the “permeable barriers” concept) was about letting the players betray the original two hardcoded factions to create new ones, with the possibility also to switch from good to evil and vice versa. I’m curious to see what will happen in EQ2 from this perspective.

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?

A few days ago the last, massive patch went live with some significant changes, in particular about the newbie experience. The classes don’t branch up as you level your character, but you can choose your specialization right away, trying to make each character more unique already from the start, while still fitting it in its archetypical role.

This change doesn’t seem too bad, in particular if coupled with a new character progression system that will be added to the game later this month, with the launch of the second expansion. Taken from an interview with the ubiquitous Scott “Gallenite” Hartsman:

GamerGod:
Can you give more detail on the new Achievement system? Will this be like the AA’s from EQLive?

Scott Hartsman:
Achievements are abilities that you earn, ideally during the course of normal gameplay – things you’re already doing. You’re not diverting from primary advancement in order to invest in Achievement.

Achievements really can’t be directly compared to Alternate Advancement from EQLive. Earning them, spending them, changing them, and the way they let people specialize their characters are all handled differently.

As you’re accomplishing things in the world you’re also earning Achievement Points. Doing particularly adventurous things for the first time (such as defeating specific foes or doing a certain quest) can gain you bonus Achievement Points as well.

Achievement Points can be spent in a tree of abilities that’s based on your class. Most abilities have multiple ranks. Some people might choose to specialize by spending their points to ensure they have all ranks of a small number of abilities. Other people may choose to spend their points more broadly to gain some amount of proficiency in as many as they can.

This system isn’t about providing a never-ending path of growth – there are a set number of Achievement points that any given character can have. If you don’t like what you’ve chosen or want to try something new, you can re-specialize your character to try out a different path entirely.

This system is about doing heroic, adventurous things in the world, taking your character’s knowledge from having done them, and investing it in further enhancing your character in ways that you choose.

This is one idea I really like and one I examined during some freeform brainstorming sessions. It’s like a linear, evolutionary path.

We start with the original mmorpgs where questing was a only side activity. The main source of experience and character progression was killing repeatedly the same monsters in a zone. This is the repetitive pattern that brought to all the critics about treadmills and grinds. The quests had a purpose in the advancement but they didn’t integrate well, or tried to replace, the camping. The second step is with World of Warcraft. It streamlined the whole questing system by making it the primary focus of the character progression. Making it more efficient and worthwhile than just camping a spot. This type of questing added variation in the game, directing the players around the zones, moving between the sub-areas, each with its own mood and story. The quests become “segments” that the players reorder to create their own “stories”. The repetition is hidden or dissimulated because the attention is focused on smaller, frequent goals that break up the monotony of longer and longer levels. After WoW we have another attempt with DDO (Turbine). Camping mobs is not anymore an option. This mechanic is completely removed and replaced by a mission system that rewards the player only on its completion. The repetition is (supposedly) removed since the experience (and so the progression) is driven directly by “content”. Till there is “stuff to do” the character can progress. This step was partially flawed in the implementation but was still an attempt to find new patterns to mitigate the boredom, giving the developers a more direct control on the “flow”. Then we have the last step that is also described in the quote above.

I went with this superficial excursus because it’s how I arrived to this idea myself. The purpose was to detach the progression completely from the quest system (or mission system) so that it could have been more powerful. You could award points not only for completing quests, but for every type of activity offered in the game. So removing the strict dependence (you complete the quest and gain one point) to create a system that covers a wider range of possibilities. You could gain points for the first time you kill a particular mob type (and only the first time), for killing a named mob, for completing selected quests, discover hidden areas in the map, discovering new resources, create crafting recipes, achieve PvP goals and so on. A system not tied to a particular sub-set of the game, but embracing the whole experience in all its parts, following the character from the beginning to end and encouraging the players to explore all the game has to offer. A diversification of activities.

This was a positive goal because I wanted to fight the tendence in other games to encourage (or enforce) the specialization. In SWG, for example, you were encouraged to specialize on a combat role or on a “roleplay” role (like the politician or the entertainers) or on the crafting. Something similar is happening in WoW, where they are trying hard to force the players to specialize on either PvP or PvE. The designers try to “force” the players into player-types. This is a trend that I always tried to fight. I never believed on the “player-types” and I always fought against games designed around this concept. I believe it’s detrimental and it doesn’t help the fun.

When I play a game I never feel the desire to specialize into one activity only and I dislike the games designed to force me in that direction. Instead I like to experiment and explore what the game has to offer in all its possibilities. I think that this approach makes the game more rich and helps to push back the boredom that comes as the consequence of repetition. It feels more like a virtual world where you can access different possibilities, making the game more complete and varied. This is why I always criticized SWG specialized gameplay. What the game has to offer should be linked by “AND” operators, instead of “OR” operators. Letting the players specialize into HOW they tackle an activity, but NOT by forcing them to choose only one.

All these ideas bring back to the progression system defined above. Since the game should encourage the diversity of the gameplay, there was the need to design a progression system that could be used in all these cases, uniformly. Hence the idea to detach the “experience points” from the quest system to create something more malleable where you could flag every kind of activity. Each new type of interaction added in the game should be implemented with an “hook” that you could use for the flag system so that the game was designed from the ground up with that idea in mind.

This is pretty much what suggests the idea of “Achievements” described in the quote, even if it misses my design reasonings and purposes. It’s not used to encourage the players to discover the qualities of “sandbox” game (that is founded on a variation of activities instead of a focus on combat), but instead to complement what EQ2 is.

Despite my ideas and goals diverge from those of this game, I still think this is a truly solid mechanic even for EQ2. With the removal of the branching classes system there was the need to add some specialization to the characters. In DAoC we have points to spend on specialization lines (directly as “skills”), in WoW we have the talent system that “bends” a class toward a more specialized role, by adding incentives and perks. In EQ2 (if I’m not wrong) this design role was implemented through the branching classes. You started the game with one of the basic archetypes (useful as an accessible learning mechanic for the new players and to keep the game balanced) and then progressively specialized your character by selecting sub-classes as you levelled up.

All these systems are never unambiguously good or wrong. The old system used by EQ2 achieved those goals but felt too generic for the first twenty levels or so. The new decision to remove the branching and let the players select their class right as they start the game solves the generic feeling, but probably reintroduces the other two problems: accessibility and balance. Actually the first is a special case because the original design didn’t achieve the intended goal and the new system was designed to reiterate on that problem. In fact what was intended to be an aid for the players in the old system (letting them choose just a general archetype so that they could make the more meaningful choices later on) revealed to be a problem (it was hard for the players to pick up an archetype so that they could “land” on a specific sub-class they liked later on. It was just too hard to figure out how a class would play in the longer term). So still forcing the “blind decision” that they were supposed to counter.

Now if you follow this line of thoughts and if my assumptions are correct you’ll probably arrive at my same conclusions. Imho this just BEGS to be transformed into a completely different system. It’s the same concept of “permeable barriers” that I repeated many times in the last months. It’s the natural, spontaneous drift of this type of system. The next step: the characters should just not be locked into a class. They shouldn’t be locked at level 1 as they shouldn’t be at level 70. This is how you directly remove the “blind decision” both at character creation and later on. Letting the player experiment, similarly to what already happens in FFXI or SWG (old style). The classes should become “permeable barriers” that, while defining a role, still allow the players to go back on that choice and experiment something else, retaining the character’s identity and social ties they already build, if they wish.

EQ2 didn’t arrive at this point and still sticks to the standard commonplaces of a class-based game. With the removal of the branching classes the game loses its specialization system and I believe that the new “Achievements” system to be introduced with the expansion was built with the purpose to fill that precise role. It should mirror more or less what the talent system represents in WoW. This is why I said that it complements the design of the game. It goes to fill that particular function that was lost with the recent changes. It re-adds the customization to the classes without creating the same design inconsistences of the AA points in EQ1 (nor trying to achieve the same goals since it’s not a “never-ending path of growth”):

GamerGod:
How extensive are Achievements going to be? Are they designed to cater to the power gamers that are wanting more, and are they trying to keep the game gear towards the casual player? The adding of AA points may make balancing the mobs so high that you have to have so many AA’s to be the right “level,” making the game geared more to power gamers.

Scott Hartsman:
You’re exactly right. That’s why we don’t think of Achievement as a system in the same way as EQ’s Alternate Advancement. They’re a fun new dimension for everyone’s character development, not the sole domain of the power gamer.

If we made a system that caused characters to grow infinitely, without changing their level, and characters advanced down it by spending time that was an addition to the time they had already spent leveling up, we’d end up in a situation where we had to make content for any given level progressively harder, until having tons of Achievements became a requirement of basic gameplay. Over time, the game would get progressively less approachable, which isn’t the direction we’re choosing to take EverQuest II.

This further confirms that the functional role of this system is identic to the talent system in WoW. The only element to differ is about how these specialization points are awarded. In WoW they are a byproduct of the levelling system (you gain one point for each level above the tenth), while EQ2 they’ll be linked to a flagging system that may be tied to specific quests or specific mobs, as explained above. Since the focus of the game is on the “killing” it makes sense to grant points in those cases.

I don’t criticize EQ2’s design. In fact I still find this idea solid and fitting the purpose and functional role.

I just find fun that, after this long journey and experimentation, they could only arrive at the conclusion that the system used by WoW is actually the best one ;)

Which leads me to the “Part 2” (that I’ll try to write later)