:: Updated by Hannar @ 01/20/04 07:56 pm ::

41. General Design Philosophy (Casual v. Hardcore, etc.)


Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:27 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=62829&highlight=#62829

Moorgard wrote:

A video game simply can't be everything to everyone. Thinking that EQ2 or any other upcoming MMOG is going to be perfect for everyone is simply impossible, because different players have different tastes and goals. And after all, that's why we have a marketplace offering a wide variety of play styles. That said, one of the mantras I keep hearing over and over around the office (I'm pretty sure Bill Trost has this phrase tatooed on his butt) is "Make it fun." The team wants to try all kinds of new ideas and experiences, but the ultimate litmus test is to make sure it's fun. Because we want to create content that pulls players in, not pushes them away. But please don't confuse the term "fun" with "easy." The original EQ remains a challenging game, and that's one of the secrets to its success. EQ2 is going to make you work hard to achieve greatness in the world, but we want the effort you expend to be rewarding, not tedious.

Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:52 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=63686&highlight=#63686

Moorgard wrote:

I have no idea, really. Purely speaking personally, I'd have to say that EQ2 doesn't seem like the kind of game that would benefit much from this kind of mechanism. Having exportable stat sheets is nice, but third party sites like Magelo do a nice job for EverQuest, and I'd imagine something like that would crop up for EQ2 at some point. In other words, I'll file this under "it would be nice" or "we'll see," but I really think there will be higher priorities for a while.

Sun Aug 17, 2003 05:33 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=65376&highlight=#65376

Moorgard wrote:

Please don't mistake "fun" for "easy," or "casual" for "lazy." We understand quite well that part of EQ's success has been because it's a challenging game. We have no intention of making a game that anyone can dominate with no effort. If you want the best character with the best gear, you're going to have to work hard to do so. However, we are also very keen on letting people log in for a couple hours at a time and still have a meaningful and fun experience, and to feel like they are making real progress. The casual gamer we're talking about is someone who maybe can't play that many hours a week but puts a strong effort in when they do play. Making the game appeal to them isn't about dumbing it down; it's about providing things that they can do in relatively short blocks of time that are still fun and rewarding.

Tue Aug 19, 2003 03:36 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=66968&highlight=#66968

Moorgard wrote:

Treesong wrote: I think it is a pittrap to try to avoid the way of frustration in a mmorpg and instead choose the way of instant gratification and total availability. Nobody is advocating that at all. This is a common misconception about instancing, that it creates content on demand that you don't have to work for. Nothing could be further from the truth in EQ2. Any instanced high-level content will require you to earn your shot at it. It's not going to be a case of "Oh, here's a dungeon with a dragon in it. Let's all zone in and kill him, and if it doesn't work we can just get a new instance and try again." That would be trivialization, and we aren't doing it that way. I understand your concerns. The team does, too. We've all talked about exactly the same issues, and are well aware of them. Once again, let me stress that we do not intend to remove one iota of the challenge of our game. We're just trying to eliminate artificial constraints that get in the way of the enjoyment of the content. That doesn't mean serving it to you on a silver platter, it means presenting it in a way that as much as possible prevents real-world logjams from interfering with your immersion in the game. Keep in mind that while you might find an overcrowded newbie area to be a social event, other players may find it immensely frustrating to the point of wanting to quit playing. Our goal is of course to avoid that while still maintaining a vibrant, active world. I could talk more about this concept, but until you see it in action it really doesn't do much good. Hold onto your concerns because they're valid; the proof will be in the pudding.

Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:48 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=67758&highlight=#67758

Moorgard wrote:

Lots of good discussion here, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that different playstyles have to find ways to coexist in the world of EQ2. As developers, our job is to provide content that appeals to all kinds of players, whether they're casual or hardcore gamers. But we don't want to artificially insulate people from one another; in the end, it falls upon each person to bring their uniqueness to the world and find the place that suits them best. Like EverQuest, EQ2 will largely be what you make it. On my server we have high-end raid guilds, but we also have wonderful roleplay guilds that have been around for years. They don't take out the biggest ubermobs, but they have entertained countless players with their roleplay skills. I agree that when I created my monk back in June of '99, I didn't think about class balance at all. Back then, most people probably made characters they identified with, or wanted to roleplay for whatever reason. But the fact is, as soon as you have spoiler sites that show the cool items out there somewhere in the world, many people start comparing themselves to other players. It's inevitable. As a solo monk in '99, it was very hard for me to make money and buy nice things. I had a necro friend who could make outrageous amounts of cash, and he started an alt monk. It wasn't long before his monk had gear like black pearl rings and serpentine bracers--items that made me crazy with envy. "Look at the stats on those serp bracers! I'll never have anything that uber!" Fast forward to today. The popularity of sites like Magelo, EQRankings, and Lucy stands as a testament to the fact that players love to compare themselves to others and see what items they might be able to acquire someday. That desire and excitement is certainly something we want to bring to EQ2. (And yes, that means awesome mob drops, not just player crafted stuff.) At the same time, we intend to have lots of meaningful and immersive content that you can enjoy if you never want to think about loot and ubermobs. But if that's the way you want to play, part of that playstyle falls on you to make it work. Because you can't close your eyes and wish that competition and high-end guilds will go away--you have to acknowledge their existence, but just make the world your own. Like EverQuest, a big part of EQ2 about achievement. How you choose to define achievement is entirely up to you.

08-25-2003 at 04:29 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=18969#post18969

Moorgard wrote:

I fully anticipate hesitation and skepticism on the part of many people. After all, until the game is in your hands you only have snippets of information to go by, and it's natural that readers will draw conclusions from them. Some of these conclusions will be correct, and many will not be. In many cases I'm being deliberately vague in the things I say. I do this not to aggravate you, but because I'm trying to be cautious for exactly the reasons mentioned above. I really don't want to promise things I'm not sure we can deliver, and I don't want to yank the rug out from anyone who gets excited by some aspect of the game that ultimately won't make it in at release. You should be prepared for the fact that not every feature mentioned in an EQ2 interview over the last two years is going to make it into the game when it comes out (plot housing in the wilderness is an example of this, which I clarified in another post). Some things will be added later, and others have either been replaced by a better idea or are still evolving (such as the death mechanic, which I also discussed elsewhere). Now you see the catch-22 inherent in the Community Manager position. If I say too little I'm seen as evasive; if I say a lot and some of those things don't make it into the game, I'm seen as a liar. At this point I'm planning to err on the side of caution. The topics I've posted about so far on the boards are things I'm pretty confident about making it into the game. We still reserve the right to change our minds about stuff, of course. That doesn't mean I'm a liar, because a lie implies intended deception; it either means I was wrong or the team simply decided to go in a different direction. I reserve the right to be wrong, by the way. On another topic... A number of people seem to panic whenever anything we mention about EQ2 ends up being even remotely similar to something SWG has done. This is especially true in regard to tradeskills. So for the last time, let me make this abundantly clear: We did not copy SWG's tradeskill system. Will there be similarities? Sure, it's likely our tradeskill system has similarities to other MMOGs as well. It doesn't mean we're using the same functionality; we aren't. This is our own design, with our own classes, implementation, etc. Look for a more lengthy discussion on loot and tradeskills in EQ2 from me toward the weekend. Let me also stress once again that EQ2 has had its own development team for years now. Not EverQuest's team, and not Star Wars Galaxies' team. Our tools are different, our designers are different, our goals are different. You can choose to believe me or not; the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding.

Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:11 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=72862&highlight=#72862

Moorgard wrote:

Darkfiend_Lightbearer wrote: No one can expect in a development process of a game, that hasnt even gone thru beta phases, that everything said is going to go in release That has already happened in multiple threads, and will continue to happen for the life of the game. I can guarantee you that five years from now some unhappy user will say "Well, they promised caravans transferring bank goods between towns, and they lied about that too." I know that no matter how careful I am, sooner or later I'll be wrong about something (or, more likely, several dozen things) and people will hold it against me for years and years. That's okay, though. At least my imortality is ensured.

Tue Aug 26, 2003 10:30 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=73241&highlight=#73241

Moorgard wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but it's way too exploitable. Obnoxious people would always be trying to trick newbies. "See that guy over there? Go talk to him, he gives you a really cool quest." "Cool, thanks!" a_bandit_warlord03 shouts "Newbies like you have ruined your own lands, you'll not ruin mine!" "hehe n00b!" In all seriousness, the sometimes unhappy side of developing content is that you have to examine the cool ideas you come up with and look for ways that unscrupulous players could exploit it. Unfortunately, that squashes or limits an awful lot of things that otherwise would be fun for many people.

Wed Aug 27, 2003 02:06 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=74078&highlight=#74078

Moorgard wrote:

Absor once made an observation that I took to heart. Don't use the term "realistic" when discussing fantasy video games, because you're setting yourself up for the "it's not real, it's a game" argument, which you can't really refute. Instead, use the phrase "internally consistent." In developing EQ2, we don't try to make decisions that are realistic; we try to make ones that are internally consistent with the type of game world we're working to create. See how nicely that works?

Wed Aug 27, 2003 07:42 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=74829&highlight=#74829

Moorgard wrote:

First let me say that the issues presented here are largely valid. Generally speaking, I'm glad people are thinking about these topics and are concerned about them. It's a bit frustrating in ways because I can't just tell you to log in and see something for yourself; many such concerns can't be adequately addressed in text and have to be demonstrated in game, which obviously won't be happening for a while yet. Strayx wrote: And every NPC I have encountered in EQ is either ignored or used for the purpose of gaining an item. This being said, reassure me on how this is going to be different in EQII? I mean, am I honestly supposed to believe after this game has been out for a year, people will still take NPC's seriously and interact with them like players? Hmmm, I dunno. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. Our game, like EQ, is ultimately about advancing your character through various (though not always the same) means. As such, most NPCs are ultimately a mechanism for that advancement, whether it be through killing them or questing for them or whatever. Will every NPC always retain meaning? Probably not, at least until the point that NPCs can evolve their behavior and truly adapt to the world like a player can. That's a long, long way off, of course. Quote: Whether it be reputations, items or simply quests, wont the whole maintenance thing get tiresome and old pretty quick? This is a legitimate concern. I don't want to be required to complete quests just so I can uphold a reputation or be required to *do* stuff if I am to maintain anything. Is this casual player friendly? I guess this is as good a place as any to announce that the idea of items degrading over time is gone. They will still wear when players die, and repairs will become necessary, but they won't simply degrade while sitting in your bank, for instance. As for other factors like your status in the city, yes, you will have to maintain those. But it's up to us to come up with ways to make that an entertaining part of your character development, not something cumbersome or un-fun. I think we will. Quote: I don't know what they are trying to prove, but games should be hard. They should be challenging and they should be thought provoking. As others have noted, I already responded to this concern elsewhere. Our game will be challenging. Quote: It seems the whole having to "activate" an encounter thing is pretty contrived. I mean what adventurer has to "activate" an enounter? I'm not sure what you mean here. If your party is walking through the Commonlands and you come across an orc camp, you "activate" the encounter the same way you would in EQ: you run up and attack the orcs. Quote: Why should I have to deal with a whole mob of monsters when maybe I only want to attack one? How fake and synthetic. If I am a hero, I want to slaughter my pray without having to have so much hassle. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I agree with the others that this statement seems incongruous with the idea of a game being challenging. Single pulling and absolute crowd control make an encounter easy, not hard. Quote: I commend the developers for trying to make EQII fun for everybody, but you simply cannot please everyone. I think that by curing a lot of these problems, you limit the average players freedom, which becomes very confining. Anyone else see where I am coming from? Actually I do, and I fully agree that our game won't please everyone. I've already posted responses that people don't like, and there will be other issues that arise where opinions will be divided in the community. Ultimately we're committed to making our own kind of game, not one that caters to every player's whims. Hopefully our notion of what's fun is close enough to that of a large number of players, in which case our game will be successful. Again, I think it will be, but I can't prove it to you until you can actually play the game and see our world.

Thu Aug 28, 2003 02:33 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=75720&highlight=#75720

Moorgard wrote:

Obviously I like to hear your reactions to the various topics I discuss. The feedback of the community is listened to, even at this stage of development. However, keep something in mind: We're the ones playing the game right now. We saw the decay mechanic in action, and we made our decision based on the feedback of people who experienced it firsthand. What you're saying you like or don't like about the game is in reaction to concepts only, not how those concepts actually work in practice. When beta begins. you will probably formulate vastly different opinions about some things. That's a natural part of the process. This is not to say that your concerns now are invalid; you're just stating them based on a limited level of information. By all means, keep us on our toes with your feedback. Just keep in mind, though, that as we play our game we will tune it to fit our stated goals, not to match an arbitrary feature list. When we open EQ2 up to others to play, the value of your feedback will be even higher, because you'll be reacting to the actual implementation of all those concepts.

8/28/03 2:52pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=55515747&start=55557974

Moorgard wrote:

The key is content. If you have content that appeals to many types of players, you have a much better chance for success. Our goal is to have deep, intimate, meaningful, and entertaining content. That doesn't mean it can't be immensely challenging, too. In the same way an encounter designed for 90 people doesn't guarantee it will be challenging, an encounter designed for 24 doesn't have to be easy. If anything, we can make it more difficult, because we have a much tighter control over all the possible factors involved.

Wed Sep 03, 2003 04:20 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=81257&highlight=#81257

Moorgard wrote:

I don't want people to think that they can't disagree with a decision we've made in the game's design. We are human and are certainly capable of making mistakes, and as I've said before we are quite willing to change our minds on something if we find a solution that works better. Bear in mind, though, that the devs here have a *lot* of experience designing games (including the original EverQuest), so while some decisions may seem questionable in your eyes, there has usually been a lot of thought put into them on our end. As far as criticism goes, I've developed a pretty thick skin over the course of my tenure at Mobhunter. For the most part, my idiocy filter allows me to ignore posts that have no point other than to antagonize. One of my favorite phrases is "Don't bring me problems; bring me solutions." It's all well and good to criticize something, but it's infintely more valuable to say, "Here's what you're doing wrong. Now, here's what you can do to fix it." This is the key which differenciates a good rant site from a bad one. It takes no skill at all to say "This sucks" or "This is stupid." Unless the writer at leasts attempts to offer a reasonable solution, they're really just being lazy. Be on your guard, though. The successful ranter is as skilled as any carnival huckster or flim-flam man to ever walk the planet. The clever ranter begins by presenting facts that are true, then proceeds to draw conclusions that he cleverly disguises as facts, when in reality they're simply suppositions designed to provoke a reaction. A is true. B is true. Therefore, C must be true, right? That's how the trap is sprung.

Wed Sep 03, 2003 06:00 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=81399&highlight=#81399

Moorgard wrote:

RihkotixInvisifists wrote: so we cant complain unless we suggest a solution? i like that. I didn't say you couldn't, because just the act of pointing out a problem might cause us to figure out a solution ourselves. I'm just saying that suggesting a fix makes your post that much more relevant. At the risk of tooting my own horn, this policy helped make my own site credible. I was critical about some things in EverQuest, but I presented the problems in a constructive manner and never attacked the developers personally. Because despite what many people claim on the boards, the people who make these games aren't out to lie to you and screw you over. Shockingly, we actually want you to enjoy them.

Mon Sep 15, 2003 02:26 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=89123&highlight=#89123

Moorgard wrote:

Maraxus wrote: Mythic did a well all-arround game with 10 times less people than Verant has at this moment working on EQ2. I wish we had a limitless army of engineers and coders hanging around waiting to implement any concept the designers dream up. I assure you, however, this isn't the case. I'm not sure how many people you think work on EQ2 or other games, but no development team has infinite resources. We have to make decisions about what features we will include now and which ones we'll work on down the road. In order to ship our game with the level of quality we all want, there has to be a significant amount of time set aside to polish our content and make sure the features we have in the game are working as intended. To accomplish this, we need to focus on a concrete feature set that will meet the needs of the vast majority of our players. EQ2 is a PvE game with an emphasis on grouping. While we intend to support multiple styles of play, our focus will be on elements that enhance those core concepts.

Mon Sep 15, 2003 02:35 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=89134&highlight=#89134

Moorgard wrote:

Certainly there would be advantages to going with a completely new and unique name for our game. However, the fact remains that our story takes place on Norrath, so going with a name that doesn't have "EverQuest" in the title simply doesn't make sense, from either a practical or a marketing standpoint. Then there's the problem that pretty much any title you come up with that has "EverQuest" in it sounds like it's an expansion, not a new game. Thus, we come back to EverQuest II. It may not be perfect, but it works.

Wed Sep 17, 2003 03:49 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=90998&highlight=#90998

Moorgard wrote:

Keep in mind, if you go see a movie and it has a crappy ending, all you've wasted is a couple hours of your time and a few (well, more than a few) bucks. If you buy a CD and don't like half the songs, you can sell it used or simply skip the tracks you think are lame. Adventure RPGs are designed to last, whether it's for a finite amount of time (as in the case of a single-player game that has a conclusion) or an unlimited period (as with a persistent online world). In the case of MMOGs, that's a lot of pressure on developers, because they don't just have to come up with an hour or two of entertaining content; they have to create literally hundreds of hours of fun stuff to do on a consistent basis. Movies and albums can take years to make, but that's due at least in part to physical limitations (location availability, actor availability, etc.). MMOGs have entirely different design constraints that can add significantly to the length of the production process. As the gaming industry matures, it becomes better at repeating existing processes. Certainly if someone today was going to write a game with the exact same specifications as EverQuest, it would take them significantly less time to do so than the people who originally did it. But that's not how the gaming industry works. You have to constantly rewrite the book and make it better. As long as that's the case, you're going to have trouble estimating how long certain things take to be "finished." There are great benefits to being on the new frontier of gaming, but there is a constant stream of new challenges that must be faced to stay there.

09-18-2003 at 10:15 PM
http://www.eqlounge.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=22973#post22973

Moorgard wrote:

Scatch Maroo wrote: Could the product of the offline progression be programmed easily and quickly enough so that the development team is not distracted from the bread and butter content? This is a dangerous type of question to ask, because it's so easy for the average person to say "I don't see what would be difficult about it" without having any real idea of the processes that would be required to implement such an idea. It's really only the kind of thing a developer who understands the underlying structure of our game can accurately comment on. That's why I cringe whenever I see posts that being "It would be so easy for SOE to..." because an idea that sounds simple on paper can actually be quite complex to plan out and execute. Anyway, I do actually think this is an interesting idea if done carefully and in very limited ways. But it's not something we'd implement in our game anytime soon.

Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:25 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=94595&highlight=#94595

Moorgard wrote:

Derisor wrote: I dont want a game that is "Easy to Play." I want a game that is HARD to play. Only things that are hard to do are worth doing. "Easy to play" is too prone to misinterpretation, as witnessed by this thread. What we mean on the EQ2 site is "easy to learn." Games should not be hard to learn. Granted, those that have a steep learning curve do make players feel special in a way, as if they figured out some secret code that others didn't. But the longest lasting, most popular games are those that are quite easy to learn while offering the opportunity for innovative strategy. I'm not necessarily talking about computer games here. Chess is a good example, because you have very few actual rules to remember, but it encourages a multitude of possible playstyles. Poker is the same way: a simple rule set that encourages smart gameplay. The statement quoted from the EQ2 page is in essence talking about the game interface. The interface is the way for the player to interact with the virtual world; if something mechanically prevents the player from doing that, then the designer needs to figure out the cause. Of all the possible things that could stop someone from playing a game, the last thing you want it to be is the interface. Gameplay is another issue entirely. Gameplay should be challenging, not easy. It should be easy to immerse yourself in it, but actually succeeding at that content should be a considerable challenge that grows as you get further into the game. Again, this applies just as well to poker as it does to online games. We intend our game to be easy to jump into and play. But the way to keep people playing is not to spoon-feed them an infinite supply of trivial content. To keep people playing, you need a deep, meaningful experience that makes them feel a part of the world. You need to challenge them, make them push their skills and intellect. And you need to do it in a world that is interesting and fun. So that's what we intend to do.

Wed Sep 24, 2003 01:20 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=97018&highlight=#97018

Moorgard wrote:

Solarmute wrote: It seems like the trend these days is to release a game with a bunch of new gee-wiz gameplay and graphics and no meat. That is not a trend we subscribe to. There will be a significant number of fully populated dungeons and adventure areas at release. I'm not going to tell you how many, because part of the fun is discovering them. But down the road you will be able to look back and assemble a list of them, and I think that list will satisfy you.

Thu Oct 02, 2003 09:51 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=104417&highlight=#104417

Moorgard wrote:

Derisor wrote: I wish more people would be aware that the ONLY goal of SOE is to make money. The bosses at SOE could care less if it is a fun or good game. The only way we get a fun or good game is to add ammunition to the coders in the trench that want to make a fun game. We do this by female dog about bad decisions and offereing ideas to these coders and ripping on the execs when they make lame decisions. Of course pretty much every company wants to make a profit. The misconception, however, is that the desire for profit means one doesn't care about making a quality product. A lot of companies operate on the principle that the way you succeed is by releasing quality products. Makes sense to me, and it's certainly our intention with EQ2. Also, you have to realize that "the suits" aren't designing our game. The decisions I've shared with the community--soloing, grouping, raid size, banks, customization, and the other controversial topics--have come from the designers. Executives have a major impact on the marketing of our game and certainly offer suggestions, but they don't tell us how game systems are supposed to work. Everything I've seen indicates that they trust the designers to make a fun game, which is ultimately what determines how many copies we sell. Finally, you seem to be saying that complaining loudly is how you instigate change. It isn't. You do that by offering rational suggestions in a constructive manner. Yelling eventually causes people to stop listening.

Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:51 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=105443&highlight=#105443

Moorgard wrote:

There's no question that every MMOG maker is looking for ways to get players more involved in their games. Camping spawns and raiding ubermobs appeal to only a small percentage of the potential playerbase out there, and for games to really reach the next level of success, somebody needs to come up with new ways to attract players and keep them interested. Smed makes a valid point: SWG has been criticized for certain gameplay decisions, but most would agree that they have made significant strides in expanding the available forms of player interaction. While we arent trying to create a duplicate of SWG, we'd be foolish to ignore the things they did right. That said, the EQ2 team believes we have an obligation to design compelling content for the players. While player-driven content is a great addition that can increase appeal and immersion, it won't be a substitute for content that we create. You pay us to entertain you, so that's what we're going to do.

Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:09 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106565&highlight=#106565

Moorgard wrote:

People are basically social animals, and tend to congregate around others who share their principles. This is even true in the case of those supposedly rebelling against society in some way--like back in my high school days, the "alternative" kids who wore black and listened to the Cure all hung out with other kids who wore black and listened to the Cure. They weren't trying to be social outcasts; they were simply trying to make their own society that felt different or unique to them. Online communities work the same way. When a new community starts, it tends to attract a wide audience, unless deliberately designed with a specific one in mind. As time goes on, a general tone evolves--positive, negative, fanboi, h8er, angry, whiny, or whatever. Those who enjoy that tone tend to contribute, as they feel they belong in that community. Most who don't agree with the tone tend to leave and seek a more like-minded audience--with a few noticable exceptions. There is a small percentage of the population that thrives on conflict, or at the very least likes to portray itself as different or unique in some way. As such, these people go out of their way to pick fights to at least appear contrary. This is often their way of trying to differenciate themselves from the crowd, and they often like to portray themselves in some grandiose or romantic way as the lone voice of reason or discontent. People like this love finding a community of contrary opinions, because this allows them to feel special. I saw this phenomenon with Mobhunter. When I first started the site I had all kinds of people reading it and posting, often trying to steer me in one direction or another. When certain individuals finally saw that I was not going to be what they wanted me to be, they went back to doing their own thing. Over time we gradually built up a community of people who didn't always agree with me, but who appreciated the style and manner in which I approached the issues I wrote about. The core of the community, then, became not so much what I said, but the tone in which I said it. Of course, there were always individuals who got off on posting contrary things. While some people do indeed simply like to instigate conflict, I believe deep down they're looking for validation from others who share their beliefs. They're still those kids in high school looking for a place to belong. The various EverQuest II sites are still in the formative stage. While some have established trends already, the floodgates haven't opened yet, and won't until beta is well underway. When the flood comes, we'll have the first and biggest test of how strong the existing communities are. Will they give in to the tide and be changed, or will they be the ones who influence the new people coming in? We live in interesting times.

Mon Oct 06, 2003 04:24 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=106877&highlight=#106877

Moorgard wrote:

anyuzer wrote: The thing that I find interesting, is in regards to if there is a community style that actually appeals to the majority of people, and if so, how do you manage your community in that direction? I'm not sure you can, without being fairly heavy-handed about it. Communities tend to take on a life of their own, unless the moderators take deliberate actions to steer things a certain way. Again, I'll use Mobhunter as an example. If I had chosen to pick a fight whenever someone contradicted me, that would have attracted a confrontational type of readership. Instead, I tried to communicate with the reasonable people and ignored those who were just looking for conflict. Most of the time that worked, and the flamers largely gave up and went away. Again, tone has a huge impact on who wants to play a part in the community. Quote: Yet from what I've seen, the most common thing about large scale communities is how all semblance of intelligence and maturity eventually just drains away. Attempting to appeal to everyone tends to make success far more difficult. This goes for businesses, movies, TV shows, and yes, video games. Filling a niche is a good place to start. If you want to look at an example of a successful community , I'd say the Safehouse is as good as any. While starting out with and maintaining a rogue focus, they have become one of the most visited EQ sites around. It's worth noting that the Safehouse also keeps a pretty tight grip on things with an active staff of moderators. Granted, a lot of EQ2 boards are at the other end of the spectrum at the moment. Because the existing community is so small, your goal is to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. As the community grows and the number of niche sites increases dramatically, the one-stop-shop kind of sites will need to evolve to offer something unique that keeps users coming back. Quote: Is it possible to have a game with 400 thousand people playing, and yet still promote an intelligent community? Or is it simply not possibly? One of the issues with an Internet-based community is the inherent lack of inhibition on the part of people who participate. Anonymity allows people to post the first thing that pops into their heads with little or no regard to potential consequences. At the worst, they would be forced to leave a community but would likely be able to come back under a different identity. Given this fact of online life, it is very challenging to sustain a broad audience that also behaves in an intelligent, responsible manner--again, unless clearly established rules are constantly enforced in a fair and even manner.

Tue Oct 07, 2003 06:51 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=107996&highlight=#107996

Moorgard wrote:

raptorman wrote: All this would be great, but why are they making EQ2, from pieces and parts of ALL the failed RPG's that have came out lately. Just because a game wasn't as successful as EQ doesn't mean they didn't have good ideas. Conversely, just because EQ was the most successful game doesn't mean every feature was the best it could be. Quote: The thing is, the hardcore gamers, raiders... they seem to get the most influence in creating these games, because they know the game so well. That doesnt mean 90 percent of the rest of the people want the same things. If that were true, we'd have an endless number of 72-person raids in our game. We don't. We're trying something different. Quote: No need to take camping, soloing, etc etc all away. We aren't. We're doing some things differently, to be sure. After all, EQ2 is a different game, and if EQ is perfect in your eyes then by all means stick with it. EverQuest isn't going anywhere. Quote: I dont care what anyone says, most persons that EVER played EQ for long, had a Druid type class for farming money or items, or ingredients, and LOVED it. Quad kiting , kiting, etc. That's a pretty hard statement to prove. I know an awful lot of long-time EQ players--myself included--who never did. Quote: If that is all gone, alot of people wont even have fun at ALL in EQ2. We're designing a specific kind of game, one that differs in significant ways from EverQuest. We think it will be fun. If it is fun, and it stays fun for a long time, it will be successful, and the details of exactly why it is fun won't be that important. As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, people tend to fear change. If that fear keeps you from playing a game that could be a lot of fun, then I think that's kind of a shame, but it's certainly your choice to make.

Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:42 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108246&highlight=#108246

Moorgard wrote:

Memory is very selective. Honestly, if they rolled back EQ to have the exact content and code it had on the day it was released, I think a lot of the people who now look back with nostalgia would receive quite a shock. EQ has seen a lot of really great changes over the last 4.5 years, a lot of which are taken for granted by current players.

Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:51 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=108548&highlight=#108548

Moorgard wrote:

While intro movies can be very cool, they are also time consuming and expensive, especially considering they expend most of their value on the first viewing. There's also the issue that if they are made with something other than the game engine itself, they might create false gameplay expectations on the part of the player. We may or may not have an intro movie, but we will almost certainly not have multiple ones.

Fri Oct 17, 2003 04:46 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=117844&highlight=#117844

Moorgard wrote:

Lord_Elyses wrote: But at the same time, PLEASE, let us avoid another Abashi situation where we are spoon-fed kitty-doo in an effort to avoid players finding out certain things before SoE is ready to tell all. Sorry, but there's simply no way we're releasing every detail about the game until it's for sale on the shelves. Why? Competition for one thing. Nobody wants their competitors to know everything they're bringing to the table. Trust me, this industry is small enough as it is. Marketability for another. The reality of the gaming press is that they want exclusives if they're going to give your product a lot of attention. If all the info is already out there on the Net, then the big guns have very little incentive to throw a lot of resources at covering your game. So the choices are that I reveal what I can and clarify misinformation that comes up, or I can say nothing and let you all speculate and rant until the game comes out. I have a hard time believing that the majority of the community would really prefer the latter, but if it turns out to be the case then I could certainly comply with that. As for EQ and EQ2 sharing ideas, I never said that they didn't. I said that one game is not the testbed for the other, and we aren't writing code for one another. The EQ2 team obviously plays EQ, so if they come up with an idea that makes sense in our game, we have no qualms about running with it and making our own implementation. At the same time, those guys can see things we're doing in EQ2 and adapt it for their use. For example, we had the idea of a wisp of light guiding players to certain locations and NPCs; the EQ guys saw this, liked it, and made their own version. Different implementation and code, but the ideas are very similar. Folks, there isn't some evil conspiracy in the works here. We're just a bunch of people who are trying to make a fun game. I'm here to interact with you and provide information when I can, but ultimately I want to do what's best for the health of the game. If that involves holding back information until the time is right, then I will do so. In all honesty, if that relationship is offensive to you or is something you don't want to accept, then boards like this are not the place for you until the game is out. Complaints about what I don't say aren't going to affect what I disclose or when; my responsibility to the game that we're all working hard to make overrides that.

Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:48 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=122321&highlight=#122321

Moorgard wrote:

Nefarious22 wrote: with that said do you think the fact that EverQuest 2 is being made by its own original team thats not the original Everquest team will hurt it? This subject tends to come up a lot. Bill Trost talked about it just the other day and mentioned how he found it amusing. Why? Because SOE has more of the original people who worked on EQ in its employ than any other single company. And a good number of those folks work on the EverQuest II project. Not all the names are as recognizable as some who are no longer here, but that doesn't minimize their contribution to the game one bit. In fact, people outside the company have little idea about anyone's specific contribution to the various games and expansions, aside from what their titles imply. My point is not to downplay anyone else's impact on the history of EQ, but to illustrate that EverQuest II has an excellent pedigree that dates back to the start of the original game. We also have many long-time veterans of the EQ team and people who have worked on other MMOGs, plus several newcomers who add freshness and depth to the team. (*cough*) Ultimately it's the finished game that will prove the capabilities of our team, and in that regard we are quite confident that we'll deliver.

Tue Oct 28, 2003 03:02 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=126524&highlight=#126524

Moorgard wrote:

(Is it really so surprising that I'm posting in a topic about urination?) What you're asking for here is a mechanical solution to an issue that can be better addressed through personal interaction. The possible exploits already mentioned in this thread are not trivial, and I'm sure more would be forthcoming. That's a lot of potential problems to circumvent something as simple as stating that you need a bathroom break. While ideally it would be nice to allow legitimate breaks, real-time MMOGs don't have the luxury of a pause key. Expecting those angry mobs walking toward you to respect your need to pee isn't really internally consistent with our game design. Allowing people to move while AFK in such a fashion is potentially game-breaking. Either that, or we need to add /sandwich, /dogwalk, /pizzaguyatdoor, /wifegothomeandismadatme, and a bunch of other commands for the same purpose.

Fri Nov 07, 2003 08:58 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=132275&highlight=#132275

Moorgard wrote:

I don't know if MMOGs will ever reach the level of movies or TV shows, and I don't know that we (the current generation of players) would want them to. Consider the differences in these industries. How many movies get released in theaters each year? How many become hits and turn a profit? The ratio is not particularly good. Worse, the best movies aren't necessarily the ones that make the most money--many great films don't have the marketing dollars behind them and thus never reach the potential audience they could or should. TV is no better. Every fall reams of new shows debut only to be cancelled within a few weeks. How much did NBC hype Coupling? They spent a significant amount of cash on a program that lasted a couple weeks. And again, quality is no guarantee of success. Many fine programs--particularly those that are episodic in nature--flounder and disappear due to small audiences. Do you want to have every major game studio releasing ten new MMOGs each year, hoping that one is a hit and cancelling titles that aren't after a month or less? Ditto the record industry. Giant corporations throw out album after album each week, watching to see which one gains an audience. Then they pour money into marketing that title, letting other quality releases wither on the vine. How many books sell 500,000+ copies? Are they the best ones? As for subscription fees, in my mind the issue isn't getting people to pay money on a monthly basis. We pay for all kinds of services every month and it feels perfectly natural to do so. Why? Because they're things we want or need. Look at cable or satellite service, for example. Many in the US pay $20-$100 each month and consider it absolutely worthwhile. The goal then, if you want to make a mass-market MMOG, is not to convince people to pay, but rather to convince them that what they're paying for is worth it. With a television they can turn it on, pick a channel, and be passively entertained. Create an MMOG that allows for such an experience and you might have a hit. The catch? Nobody is going to pay $15 a month to sit back and watch some teenage boy from across the country kill bats and spiders for three hours a night. Player-driven content may be fun for those actually playing, but it ain't gonna put fans in the seats. So what's the solution? How do you get 17 million people to tune in for an hour a night and be entertained enough to pay $15 a month for it? Seems to me you'd need some specialized content developers for that. I'm talking writers, actors, and even a kind of cameraman. Make the game into a show, if you will, and throw a constant stream of new and interesting things at the viewer. And maybe, if the game doesn't prove popular, you have to be willing to completely throw your current design out the window and create a whole new experience. Ultimately, it makes me wonder whether the MMOG industry will have to be satisfied with around 500,000 subscribers for an extremely successful title. Look, I'm just a gamer like you, not one of the guys advancing all these high-minded theories on the gaming industry like it's a PhD program. But it seems to me that we should consider the possibility that MMOGs might always be a niche market. Speaking as a fan of the genre, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

Tue Nov 25, 2003 12:10 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=143455&highlight=#143455

Moorgard wrote:

This is an important issue that I'll address in broad terms after I reply to some specific points. PLMaestro wrote: The development is already done, and the extra code for this server would take about ten lines. Careful. The vast majority of the time, system changes that a user thinks will be trivial and easy can actually be extremely complex. Putting in all the kinds of variable experience caps you suggest would be far from trivial. Quote: It's a sad testiment to the twisted mentality spawned by existing MMORPG's, where one constantly must "work" for constant "rewards." It would be so refreshing to go chat in a tavern or just wander and explore, knowing that you weren't handicapping yourself in the "race" to succeed. A server like this would offer that freedom. Working for rewards is somewhat engrained in our culture. Just because this is a game doesn't mean participants shouldn't expend effort to achieve the results they want. Baseball is a game that can be played very casually, but to achieve the highest levels of accomplishment requires extreme amounts of effort. That said, I do agree that rewards can and should include things other than levels and loot. The biggest possible reward, after all, is fun. I've addressed the topic of appealing to the casual gamer before. I'm still not sure MMOGs will ever have the mass-market appeal of other entertainment media, mostly because these games aren't passive and do require effort to succeed in them. But there are some kinds of MMOG designs that might help facilitate a wider degree of acceptance. First though, realize that any method used to de-emphasize the importance of character advancement and loot will alienate the core segment of the game's audience. This has pretty much been proven in the marketplace already. Games that let you burn through their existing content too quickly will end up being unsatisfying for anyone who does so. The solution, then, is not to make advancement trivial, but rather to make all levels of play equally fun and rewarding. If it's just as fun to be level 10 or level 20 as it is to be level 50, then it shouldn't matter if the content is different. Another problem is the whole "log in, wait for a group, run to an available camp" syndrome. This is where I think PlanetSide has a great implementation: you can log in, hit a button, and instantly get transported into the heart of the action. However, I think grouping could become a more automated process in just about all online games. The player should be able to sign on, use an LFG tool and check a "put me in a group" box. Then, when a group is looking for a member, they can check a box that says "bring me anyone who fits my search criteria." Group needs a certain role, the tool finds a suitable player, BOOM, it brings the player to the group. There are issues, of course, with players using such a system to bypass or exploit certain content. But in the right type of game, in the right type of situation, it could be very effective. Perhaps the issue is not adapting current games for casual play, but rather to design games around casual play from the ground up. I think our game is trying some of these ideas (specifically making fun content at all levels and allowing for shorter blocks of playtime to be meaningfull), but it is still very much centered around the idea of progression. Our goal is certainly to appeal to a wide variety of playstyles, but I think imposing artificial constraints to reach such a goal is counterproductive in the long run.

Tue Nov 25, 2003 01:01 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=143803&highlight=#143803

Moorgard wrote:

PLMaestro wrote: The purpose of this is to keep advancement at about the same level as regular servers, so that high-level areas and high-level expansions would be available to casual players. I don't think players should be looking to be rewarded for things they haven't done. If you work 40 hours a week at a company and the guy next to you works 20, yet he gets paid the exact same amount you do and does the exact same type of work, is that fair? There are few people who would think it was. Applied to a game, pretty much anyone who played on a server like that would be mocked by the community at large. Giving extra rewards to one type of player is not the solution to this problem. Quote: The problem is that this pace is dictated by those who play 80 hours a week. The exp gains per kill and the exp required per level are set, so that the hard-core player does not advance too slowly or quickly. Where does this leave the casual player playing 15 hours a week? Actually, we based our progression calculations on what research has determined to be the average EQ playing time per week, which is 20 hours. Quote: There's always going to be some advantage to people who play more, I'm just looking for a way to mitigate that for the casual player. As are we. I've talked about some of the steps we're taking to do that. Quote: I am still laughing at people who believe folks will just log off or quit each month when they can no longer advance. Based on my 4+ years of playing EverQuest, I have to agree with them. You might not play that way, but many others would. There is a misconception about the term "casual gamer" that makes me dislike the phrase intensely. It's typically applied to people who have a limited number of hours to play each week, which I think is an unfortunate way to look at it. I've known people who may only be able to play EQ in short bursts, but when they do, they're playing hardcore. The fact that they only play a limited number of hours is no indication of a lack of motivation or desire to advance. These people enjoy every minute that they play and are as dedicated to character progression as any hardcore raider. In contrast, I've seen people who literally play massive amounts of hours per week yet don't much care at all about advancement. These are the people you hear about who play 40 hours a week for 4+ years but don't get a single character past level 50. They savor the little things about the game and love to immerse themselves in the world. I'm much more comfortable calling this type of person a "casual gamer" than I am the first person I described. Quote: I appreciate your points, but it's odd that you basically concede foregoing an entire market segment. I'm not. I agree with what you're trying to do, but I think the solution you propose is the wrong way to go about it. While I agree that there are a lot of players who want to get away from the level grind, I don't think most of them want special treatment in order to achieve that. I think Ultima X is making some interesting decisions to encourage casual gaming and get rid of downtime. If they can provide enough compelling content to satisfy all types of gamers, they could be starting a trend. As I said before, I think the solution is to make content at all levels challenging and fun so that no type of gamer feels they are missing out just because they can't play as often as the next guy.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 01/20/04 07:58 pm ::

Tue Nov 25, 2003 02:18 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=143882&highlight=#143882

Moorgard wrote:

Reisen wrote: What you're saying when you speak of progression (whether you realize it or not) is, "We're going to have the same basic underlying game dynamic as the original EQ. That is, he who can devote the most time out of his life to our game can be the most uber". We live in a short-attention-span culture. To really appeal to a mass market, games need to provide the kind of instant gratification that people who watch Must-See TV get out of an episode of Friends. Console games can pull this off much easier than PC games, though Microsoft would love to minimize that usability gap as much as possible. One of the issues with games like EQ is that they aren't really conducive to short-attention-span play. Fantasy-based MMOGs are based on the D&D model, which is definitely about progression, story, and time investment. The advantage to D&D is that you don't have to be uber to do something adventurous and fun, and you can do it all on your own schedule. I'm definitely in favor of promoting fun for people who can only play for limited bursts of time, but as a storyteller I don't want to be confined to that Must-See format of a laugh (or a dragon slaying) every 15 seconds. My goal is to have a 5+ year story arc that players can be a part of and be thrilled by. Generally speaking, grand, epic tales take time to tell. As a kind of comparison, Star Trek is episodic content whereas Babylon 5 is an epic tale. Don't get me wrong--I love both shows deeply. I don't want to give up either type of storytelling, and I want games that have both. Great stories have been told by both shows, but the format is generally different (self-contained vs. ongoing). The dollars generated by the former as compared to the latter are telling, and game companies are certainly aware of that, even if they aren't positive about how to capitalize on it in the MMOG market. Quote: However, you are not changing the core dynamic that, I believe, caused such a problem in the original EQ. Those of us without 50 hours a week to spend staring at a computer screen were unable to experience the high-end content. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the notion that certain content should take a substantial investment to achieve. This gives players a feeling of accomplishment and importance, which is a good thing. One of our goals is to allow the steps taken to reach those goals to be more episodic in nature and thereby give players positive reinforcement for each part of the journey. I don't think the person playing 10 hours a week should be blocked from content; they should have every opportunity to experience it that the person playing 80 hours a week does. It's just a matter of when the 10 hour person gets to it. But to say "you only did 10 hours of work but here is 80 hours worth of rewards" only cheapens the accomplishments of the person who plays more, which I don't think is a good thing. Quote: Virtually every element of our society rewards a combination of talent, drive, and hard work. Perhaps it is that Everquest does not follow this model that it has been so successful. I'd argue that EverQuest does reward those things, though I concede it also rewards time investment as a substitute, at least to a degree. But keep in mind that games like this can be a form of empowerment. It gives the scrawny teen who can never make the football team a chance to be a hero; it allows someone with a $7/hour job the chance to achieve vast wealth; it allows someone who is injured or disfigured the chance to be beautiful and desired. Completely taking away those opportunities and rewards--illusionary though they may be--is not necessarily a good thing either. The goal in this, as with all things, is a balance that makes a fun and compelling game. I continue to assert that this is best achieved through great content rather than artificial constraints, though I agree that friendlier mechanics are a key as well.

Tue Nov 25, 2003 03:20 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=143924&highlight=#143924

Moorgard wrote:

PLMaestro wrote: What if, instead of having to grind through a month of playing to gain, say, five levels, you could gain those levels in the first week, and then spend the rest of the month just raiding for loot, and tinkering with new tactics, and chatting in taverns, exploring scenery, etc? Just to be clear, you're advocating the restraint of levels only, not other forms of player advancement? If so, I don't think you're really addressing the issue. Levels are only one part of the equation; this is evident in EQ today. You have a large population that is level 65, yet there is a huge gap in status and wealth. Those who have more time to play tend to get into raiding guilds; members of those guilds achieve items and wealth that casual players do not. Limiting the pace of leveling does nothing to address this disparity. The 10-hour a week person may be the same level as the 80-hour a week person, but the raiding guilds will want the latter player anyway because they can contribute more to the growth of the guild. Thus the 10-hour a week person is still cut off from certain content, or will at least be able to access far less of it than the 80-hour player. So you still end up looking at someone else and saying "The only reason you have better stuff than me is because you play more." You still feel inferior to them for what you might consider an unfair advantage that has nothing to do with their skill as a player. Unless you limit the amount of time that people can physically play the game, you can't avoid that disparity. And because one of the appeals of MMOGs is virtually unlimited play for a comparatively low monetary investment, I don't think you'd see many companies willing to adopt such a model. I repeat: I don't think artificial constraints designed to force equality will not function in this genre. You need a constant stream of rewards that are compelling and fun for everyone regardless of the time investment. Imposing arbitrary limits in the name of fairness is not the solution.

Tue Nov 25, 2003 05:34 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144106&highlight=#144106

Moorgard wrote:

Reisen wrote: I was out exploring, meeting people, and facing far more dangerous encounters, while others were grinding in Crushbone. I was rewarded, admittedly probably much more so than them, but mine was only transient, theirs was permanent, and eventually lead to experiences I never got to see. You have to be very careful how you reward different aspects of play, because people do tend to take the path of least resistance. However, I would be in favor of epic quests that reward the kind of adventure you describe without necessarily fighting anything. For example: You are given a quest from an NPC outside Qeynos that is essentially a laundry list of places to go in a particular order. At each point in the quest you get a flag that proves you actually completed it. This journey takes hours and shows you all kinds of things, and you might only complete it over the course of a week of playing. But at the end, you are rewarded with just as much experience as if you'd been killing monsters for a comparable number of hours. It may interest you to know that we already have quests like this in the game, albeit on a smaller scale at this point. But I love the idea of expanding upon it. Reisen wrote: The fact that Moorgard has posted some pretty deep thoughs on this show he has probably pondered on the idea before (or discussed it in a marketing meeting)... It is an idea that I think a lot about, as do the members of the design team. Please don't think that my opposition to certain ideas expressed in this thread is an indication that I don't think the principle is sound. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with marketing meetings. Contrary to what many seem to believe, our games aren't designed by the marketing department, nor do we have people in suits coming up to us and demanding that certain features be included. Our titles are designed by people who love the genre and want to make cool games that people love to play. Arkin wrote: Keep in mind though that epic tale tv series like 24hrs (and arguably alias and the Sopranos)have become very popular over the last few years. IMHO folks are interested in Epic tales For as much press as the Sopranos gets, their viewership is a paltry fraction of Friends. And while 24 has its merits, the storyline is far more watered down than I'd like it to be. Oh look, this week Kim gets chased by a mountain lion... But epic storylines certainly can work and make money. I mean, some soap operas have churned out 30-60 minutes of content for 30 years or more. But then, look at the amount of repetition and the drawn-out nature of storylines--quantity is certainly not equalling quality there.

Wed Nov 26, 2003 06:41 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=144993&highlight=#144993

Moorgard wrote:

PLMaestro wrote: Continue in this pattern, and the time-limited player never sees all the content. As long as the content doesn't disappear or the game isn't cancelled, the content is available for you to explore whenever you are able to get there. I see nothing wrong with different people taking different amounts of time to reach it. There are still people killing Nagafen and Vox for the first time in EQ. There are still people raiding Plane of Fear. The content may have changed in ways, but it's still there. I just re-read the original post in this thread, because nine pages worth of comments can cause the point to get lost. In that post, you're advocating a voluntary system of enforced experience caps. What I'm no longer sure of is why. Do you feel having higher-level people around hurts the casual player's experience in some way? Levels dictate where you can hunt, but they don't dictate when in your real life you can do that. If it takes one person six months to hunt at the same place it took you two years to get to, so what? You're still hunting the same place, experiencing the same content. The addition of new content gives you more options for the future, it doesn't limit you. I fully understand the mechanic you're advocating, and I've made multiple posts about what I think are better ways to address the underlying problem. If there is some other issue you're looking to address through your solution, I'm not sure what it is; but please point it out, because I think it has gotten buried somewhere.

Mon Dec 01, 2003 04:05 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=147730&highlight=#147730

Moorgard wrote:

PLMaestro wrote: The server does not kick you off -- it just allows you to spend more time doing fun things without the pressure to "keep the pace." I submit that your solution does not address the core issue behind the problem. It offsets it for a time, but eventually you'd be right back in it. Your goal is to get rid of the pressure to level. Why? Because you feel that being a lower level means you've fallen behind other people, and that ruins your fun. Okay, fair enough. You could limit experience in the way you've described. Heck, you could even make it so the game automatically gives you levels every so often. Make level advancement meaningless and it solves the problem, right? Wrong. Because the underlying problem isn't levels--it's feeling inferior to someone else. And as long as you can compare yourself to another person and find yourself lacking in some way, that feeling of inferiority isn't going away. Eventually, even on the server you propose, everyone will be max level. What then? You're still different from the guy who is at the same level as you but has far better stuff because he played more than you did and went on more raids. As a result, his gear makes him more effective in groups and thus more desirable to raiding guilds, which leads him to get even better stuff. So unless you cap loot acquisition--and any alternate forms of advancement that can be devised--you'll run into the exact same feelings you had about level differences. It holds true on the playground, during times of war, and in MMOGs: Anytime one person can point to someone else and see them as different than they are, conflict will result. The way to address this problem is not to try to eliminate differences, but to celebrate them. Make the difference--the gap in levels--meaningless by making *all levels* fun. Don't get rid of the levels, but rather take away the stigma that a lower level is bad. Because it certainly doesn't have to be.

12/3/03 9:52am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=60500364&start=60529150

Moorgard wrote:

Sequels in the MMOG business are a funny thing. Regular games get sequels because the originals have been out a long time and people have finished them; you can't say EverQuest is completed, especially when more expansions and a graphics facelift are planned. So is EQII really a sequel? Many on the team would have loved for a unique name for our game, but being set in the world of Norrath makes it kind of hard to be called anything else. And if we had gone with something like "EverQuest: The Age of Destiny," it would have sounded like an expansion rather than a new game. So, EverQuest II it is. That's really where the notion of a parallel game came from, because we wanted to be clear that EQII is not a replacement for EQ, but rather a new experience. Granted, from what most of you know now our game doesn't seem that much different from its predecessor, but when you actually have it in your hands you're in for some major surprises.

12/9/03 10:37am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=60832330&start=60839941

Moorgard wrote:

We are all keen on having as smooth a release as possible. Problems inevitably pop up, but it's worth noting that EQ expansion launches have generally gotten a lot better over time. Since we are able to call upon the resources of a lot of those launch veterans, I think we stand a good chance of things going well. /knocks on a huge block of wood That said, I'm sure you'll have your torches and pitchforks ready just in case.

1/21 6:42pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63033459&start=63034339

Moorgard wrote:

I doubt any company actively wants exploiters to ruin its games. Certainly the company I work for doesn't. I think SOE's record for dealing with exploits as quickly and decisively as it can is a clear indicator of what our stand will be on EQ2. We have no qualms about booting players who compromise the integrity of the game. The loss of a couple accounts from an exploiter or hacker is a small price to pay compared to the number of players we'd lose if the game is repeatedly compromised. No matter how hard developers try to prevent them, cheats and hacks will inevitably surface. It's how they're dealt with that is important, and our team is very serious about this issue.

1/22 2:01pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63033459&start=63075940

Moorgard wrote:

Jennyfyr is asking for legal language to cover any possible situation that may arise in the future. Sorry, but that isn't likely to be forthcoming. To be clear, in this thread I was addressing hacks, exploits, and cheats--activities that break the license agreement or use third-party technology to interfere with the way our game code is designed to work. I wasn't talking about tactics like powerleveling at all. Again, the purpose of locked encounters is to make combat strategic and tactical. The elimination of old methods of powerleveling and kill stealing is a happy side effect. That doesn't mean we saw those tactics in EQ as illegal, but rather as behaviors we just didn't want to see in our game. How we address emergent player tactics will depend entirely on how those tactics operate within the intent of our design. And of course "intent" is a tricky thing to quantify. Let me give an example. It is not our intent for players to be able to kill mobs with absolutely no risk (and by risk, I mean the chance that the mob can kill you). Players who use hacks or unintended bugs to accomplish this are cheating, and almost all of the time they know full well that they are doing so. The grey area comes from players using things other than clear bugs--some terrain element, for example. If a player manages to climb to some point where a mob can't reach him and yet he's able to damage the mob, is that cheating or smart playing? This is where the intent of the game designer comes into play. Since we designed combat to involve risk, tactics that completely remove it from the equation are by definition going against the intent of the design. And again, I think that many players who engage in such an activity know that they're doing something shady. Now, using a hack or a cheat to accomplish something is different from making use of an unintended side effect of the game's design, but here *player* intent becomes important. If you're doing something you know to be wrong, are you really surprised when you get punished for it? What this boils down to is that our policies on the matter of exploits will evolve based on the situation. I'm not going to set something in stone now and say it's going to be a policy for all time--after all, our legal statutes in the real world change constantly, so it's not unreasonable to assume that they would evolve in the game world as well. All I can say is that we will try to be clear about our intent as designers and will do our best to determine the intent of the gamer as well. But if we are to err, it is more likely to be on the side of protecting the overall integrity of the game world.

1/29 11:32am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63425210&start=63436385

Moorgard wrote:

We have deliberately kept a lower profile than you'd expect for a project of this magnitude. While our marketing department is chomping at the bit to promote EverQuest II, they want to be careful not to jump the gun. Letting people know your game is in the works is one thing, but there's only so long you can sustain a high-profile marketing campaign before you start to lose momentum. If we talk about every snazzy new feature of the game before it comes out, then your expectations become so high that it's almost impossible to meet them. But if you come in not knowing a lot of the specific innovations we've put in place, we get to absolutely blow your mind with this game. We fully expect to see jaws drop when you get your hands on EQ2. And I am absolutely certain they will, because mine drops open on a regular basis. Trust me, when our marketing campaign kicks in, this game is going to be *everywhere*. The PR team has a coverage plan that will ensure we get exposure all over the place. And yes, part of that is a redesigned official website. What you've seen so far only scratches the surface.

Sun Jan 25, 2004 01:38 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=190729&highlight=#190729

Moorgard wrote:

Drogosironfistcg wrote: The Holy Grail of computer gaming/simulation is to find a way to make an engine that allows its art, objects to be updated while the hidden technology behind the engine responds quickly to upgrades because it persists thru time, instead of always being wiped out and started from scratch. Maybe somebody will make a generic physics engine that allows for an interactive world, and developers can just plug in objects and have the world automatically react to them. Then you can see your feet make ripples in puddles and listen to the leaves crinkle as you walk over them. That kind of thing would be novel, of course, but I question whether such an effort would ultimately be worthwhile. After all, seeing dewdrops form on grass in a computer game may be neat the first couple times, but after that it's not going to add to your gaming experience. Ultimately computer games (at least most of them) aren't supposed to be world simulations; they're supposed to be escapist fun. The fun in an adventure game is the adventure, not puddles or dewdrops or leaves. A certain level of realism can draw you deeper into a gaming world; that's obviously the direction we're going with our art design. But while we are creating a world that looks and feels real in many ways, we aren't setting out to duplicate real life. There are just too many mundane tasks I wouldn't want to see turn up in something that's supposed to be fun. And besides that, a massively multiplayer world sim isn't complete unless it introduces the concept that at least partially keeps the real world from descending into total chaos: a fear of consequences for our actions. Until that exists, game engines must impose artificial limits to compensate for bad behavior.

Mon Jan 26, 2004 06:15 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=192256&highlight=#192256

Moorgard wrote:

The design team has nothing to do with the availability of game cards for EverQuest II. While they will certainly be available at some point, whether you can buy them on the day of launch is something completely out of our control. I will certainly let the powers that be know how important this issue is to many players.

2/1 10:17pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=63587775&start=63615351

Moorgard wrote:

I believe you are the first person to catch the barbarian reversal. We are still in development, so many things are subject to change. Before I post information I check to make sure it is as accurate as possible, but I can't guarantee it won't change in the future. It is the nature of making games that changes happen. Sometimes it's because a better idea came along (as in this case), other times it's because unforseen technical issues require a different strategy. People anticipating a game want information about it, so the team does its best to supply it. Keep in mind, though, that we reserve the right to make changes. This doesn't mean we're trying to deceive you or make promises we can't keep; it's simply a reality of the design process.

Wed Feb 11, 2004 02:29 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=209735&highlight=#209735

Moorgard wrote:

It is understandable for people to believe that every decision we make in game design comes down to a carefully researched marketing report. The reality is that almost all the decisions we make in terms of gameplay come about because the designers think it would make an entertaining game. Folks like Bill Trost happen to believe that getting together with a group of friends and going on heroic adventures is fun, so that's the kind of game we're making. There really isn't anything more sinister behind our decision to make a group-oriented game than that. Don't get me wrong; this company does do a lot of market research. But our marketing people don't design the games. Their job is to successfully market the games that our teams create. Our designers and coders do their own research every day by playing boatloads of games and looking for fun new ideas, and I mean everything from hand-helds to consoles to PC games. Our creative method is to get people on the team who appreciate good games and can bring that sense of fun into EverQuest II. I realize that none of this will dissuade anyone who wants to believe that EQ2 is being designed by evil corporate masterminds out to take your soul. But whether you choose to believe me or not, the reality is that our game is being designed and built by people who want it to be fun. That is the primary motivation for the people I work with day in and day out, and I believe this focus will be apparent as soon as you start playing.

Tue Feb 24, 2004 09:27 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=220371&highlight=#220371

Moorgard wrote:

Permadeath ain't gonna happen. Rio Rio wrote: Realism in a fantasy game? You lost this arguement. Rio is correct. Never, ever use realism as a defense or justification when debating an issue relating to MMOGs, because doing so forfeits the argument. Games are not meant to be realistic, especially fantasy MMOGs. They should, however, strive to present a consistent world. (I must give credit where credit is due. It was Absor who pointed this distinction out to me, and it is a lesson I have never forgotten.)

:: Updated by Hannar @ 03/08/04 11:09 am ::

Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:47 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=228655&highlight=#228655

Moorgard wrote:

Darkayne wrote: But, as I've said before, the only Moorgard quote you can take to the bank forever is the one where he says anything he says today is subject to change at any time. Well said. Everything I've told you was true when I wrote it. Our design changes as we run the game through playtests; most of the time there are minor tweaks, other times there are major revamps. It's all a part of trying to make the best game we possibly can. Not all the features talked about over the last 2+ years will make it into the game at release or in the manner we first described them. You know that already, with some of the changes I've discussed in other threads. Most of the time it's not just a case of cutting something, but rather shifting our resources around to emphasize and expand upon some other feature we can make richer and more fun. And yes, more changes are coming. Most of these take the form of refinements to systems I've already discussed; others are significant changes; others are additions to the game you didn't expect (don't worry, I mean really cool additions). By and large, the concepts I've discussed over these past seven months remain accurate; it's only some of the detail that will change. The day I interviewed for this job, John Blakely told me "We have no sacred cows here." He has proven many times that he and the rest of this team are committed to making changes in the name of producing a fun game. So, by golly, that's what we're gonna do.

2/27 3:04pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=65030135&start=65040543

Moorgard wrote:

Actually, we do contact customers who quit EQ. I'm not sure how long ago we started doing it or what percentage of people we poll, but I know that we do it and keep track of the answers. We have taken some of that feedback into account in the design of EQ2. At the same time, we know full well that trying to please everyone is folly. Ultimately our main strategy is to make a game that's a lot of fun to play. While we have designed our systems and interface to be intuitive and accessible, we have created lots of deep content to appeal to the hardcore MMOG fan. We don't think that players who fall under the "casual gamer" label are afraid to embrace content that is challenging and complex. Just because you don't have hours upon hours to sit in front of a computer at a single stretch doesn't mean you don't deserve a game that takes you on an epic journey.

3/1 3:12pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=65155033&start=65169708

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "Do you really think the WHOLE POPULATION of EQ is going to convert to EQ2? LOL you better think heavily again. EQ2 might be lucky enough to get 20% of the subscibers to EQ1, but, even that is calculating it very high. I've done my own polls from server to server on EQ1 and the highest common denominator says "I'm not giving up all the time I've put into EQ1 to start over". So, no, I do not think EQ2 will have a 400,000+ subsciber base right off the bat or even in the near future." Unlike most of our competitors, we're not trying to get EQ players to switch to our game. While some migration is inevitable, we'd be quite happy for EQ's numbers to remain exactly where they are. Plus, the All-Access Pass is specifically designed to allow our customers to play both games as much as they like. Our target market isn't some fictitious tangent of the gaming community. If we can attract the gamers who have tried EQ over the years and left for whatever reason, we can build a healthy playerbase of our own. These are folks who were interested enough in the genre to buy EQ and subscribe to it, so clearly they are looking for this kind of game. As for polls asking EQ players if they intend to switch, I don't consider them credible at this point. Most EQ players don't know much at all about EQ2, and so many half-truths get passed around on the message boards that many players have very little actual information on the game. And yes, the responsibility for that fact lies with us, because we haven't tried to flood EQ forums with information on EQ2. When our media campaign kicks in, EQ players and general gamers alike will be seeing EQ2 all over the place. At that point, they will have a much better idea of what EQ2 is really about and will be able to make a more informed decision about whether or not they'll be trying our game.

3/3 4:35pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=65278544&start=65286575

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "The EQ2 official website contains just about nothing, apart from the class paths." Expect that to be changing.

3/3 10:31pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=65278544&start=65301399

Moorgard wrote:

Quote: "They are being entire too closed lipped about EQ2." We release several new screenshots a week. There is a new Q&A pretty much every week alternating between IGN and Stratics, plus others that come on a less regular basis. We release a dev diary or major interview every 4-6 weeks. All these things will be increasing in quantity and frequency in the months ahead. Plus, there's some guy from the EQ2 team who posts on message boards pretty much every day of the week. What we haven't done yet is provide a comprehensive place to collect the information we've released. That need is being addressed. The reality is that we've provided significant detail on the underlying mechanics of our game, as well as the philosophies behind those designs. But I suspect that what many people mean when they say that we haven't released much info on the game is that we haven't released the kind of info they want to read. What some folks are looking for is answers to questions like "What can a wizard do? What kind of spells will I have? What does a paladin do? What kind of creatures will I encounter?" and so on. Our redesigned website will include that level of detail and will present it in style. The platform team came up with a great architecture for the site, and work is underway. It will be worth the wait.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 02:09 pm ::

03-18-2004 10:00 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=10186#M10186

Moorgard wrote:

Thank you for reminding me of something that needs to go in a FAQ. We have not announced a price point yet.

03-18-2004 10:21 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=10208#M10208

Moorgard wrote:

Call me crazy, but I think what will "make" our game (or any MMOG, for that matter) is if we make it fun to play and ensure that it stays fun for a very long time. So, that's what we're gonna do.

03-20-2004 11:15 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=13403#M13403

Moorgard wrote:

All that we've done to talk about the game thus far would fall under the category of building community and keeping our product name out there. As others in this thread have mentioned, this has been something of a grass roots approach. Based on the strength of the community that already exists, we make no apologies for this strategy. Once our marketing efforts really kick in, you'll know it. In fact, there won't be any room for doubt in your minds that we're promoting this game. Our marketing department already has tons of cool stuff lined up that's going to have the EverQuest II name all over the place. All things happen in due course.

03-20-2004 11:22 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=13407#M13407

Moorgard wrote:

This has been asked and answered many times over. No price has been set yet.

03-23-2004 03:44 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=16923#M16923

Moorgard wrote:

So do we. That's why our intro and tutorial are going to be fun, exciting, and polished. We intend to grab you from the first minute and not let go.

Fri Mar 26, 2004 04:38 pm
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=245526&highlight=#245526

Moorgard wrote:

Howling Mad Murdock wrote: nothing but disappointing info in that one. i take it that QandA didn't go quite how moorgard was planning I've said before that this game can't be everything to everyone. I have also said that some of the things talked about over the last several years just won't make it in game. Even though this Q&A has several responses where I'm essentially saying "no," I don't consider that a bad thing. I'm not afraid to say that we're not including some particular feature or another. Generally when I reject a question for a Q&A it's not because I don't like the question or that I'm afraid of the reaction it will receive, but because it touches on a system we're still adjusting or because there will be additional features added in the future that I'd rather discuss at that point.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 03:28 pm ::

03-29-2004 09:42 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=22882#M22882

Moorgard wrote:

There is no limit to how long you can adventure. There is no magical switch that shuts off after you've been playing for a certain amount of time and says "sorry, nothing more for you to do today." Our content is designed such that at any time, at any level, you have a bunch of things to do. The fact that we designed quests and encounters to consist of steps that can be completed in blocks of a couple hours each does not mean that all content except raid zones can be finished in two hours. You will have to spend many, many more hours than that to achieve some goals; it's just that rather than require eight or more hours to do one thing, we break it down into multiple pieces. None of this makes content easier or harder. We're just changing the route you take to get there. For the person who chooses to pound away for hours on end, you will certainly be able to do so.

03-30-2004 11:23 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=24435#M24435

Moorgard wrote:

That's a great idea, but I don't know if the technology is available yet to do it in a seamless way. My first thought is that the additional drive access and lookup time necessary for dynamic spellchecking would slow down the system quite a bit, especially in high-traffic areas. I expect that in the future such ideas will work well, but it's not something you're likely to see for a while.

4/11 11:52pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=67255578&start=67264561

Moorgard wrote:

Keep one thing in mind: that meant you were playing the game for about four and half years. When you think about it, that's an incredible amount of time for a game to have life. It's a tall order for any game to hold players for five years, especially given the number of hours some people put in during that time. It's certainly a testament to a lot of things that EQ did right, and of course the majority of the credit goes to the community of people who play the game. But yes, we are indeed targeting EQ2 at the two million or so people who tried EQ and didn't stick around for one reason or another. Why? Because as a famous salesman once said: "A guy don't walk on the lot lest he wants to buy." These are people who were interested enough in the genre to purchase the game and subscribe for a period of time. Maybe EQ wasn't the right fit for them, but hopefully some of our innovations will bring them back into the fold. And of course we're after people who have never played an MMOG before. There's a huge potential audience out there, and we hope to introduce an entirely new generation of gamers to the EverQuest experience.

04-12-2004 10:03 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=43438#M43438

Moorgard wrote:

Durmyr wrote: Many of us (probably the majority of us who frequent these boards) are connected to the Internet a large part of our day in one way or another. How might EQII leverage this technology as the game matures? We have some ideas. Details will be announced in due time.

Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:54 am
http://www.eqii.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=258694&highlight=#258694

Moorgard wrote:

Selverus wrote: We CANNOT expect anything from EQ1 to come over into EQ2. Although EQ2's team has looked at the faults in EQ1 as a guide VERY FEW EQ2 DEVS WORKED ON EQ1. Therefore we cannot assume the game will be in any way similar except for a continued storyline and other facts that we already know. I'm not sure where you got that idea. A large percentage of our team members (especially in the design and code departments) worked on EQ at some point--some of them for a very long time. Many artists have, too.

05-04-2004 02:29 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=74631#M74631

Moorgard wrote:

We just want to make a fun game. Call it a vision, a mantra, or a mission statement... whatever you like. We're in it to create an awesome game that looks cool and blows you away.

05-08-2004 03:55 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=83198#M83198

Moorgard wrote:

Please do not insinuate that I am being dishonest when I am not. The traditional usage of "sequel" implies that the original work is finished. You read a book, then you read its sequel. You watch a movie, then you watch its sequel. Literary and film works generally have a clear ending to them. Even most computer games are designed to be played to a certain point at which the game can be considered "over." MMOGs are an exception to this prescedent, as they are by their very nature designed to be ongoing. EverQuest is still a thriving, active game; it hasn't ended, and won't end when EverQuest II is released. There will be more EQ expansions while EQ2 is building a separate audience. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine came out after The Next Generation and ran concurrently with it for a few years. It was set in the same universe. Was it a sequel? How about Buffy and Angel? All in the Family and the Jeffersons? Do you think the creators of any of these shows wanted to steal away the audience of the original? No, they wanted people to watch both, just as we'd love for our customers to enjoy playing both EQ and EQ2. Not all variations of an idea fit a single definition. Unless the point in question is about spelling or grammar, quoting from a dictionary seldom provides the solution to an argument.

05-09-2004 10:24 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=84954#M84954

Moorgard wrote:

Given the way most people react when negative things beyond their control happen to their characters, I don't think it would be an idea that many would find entertaining. It's simply one of those areas where it's best that gameplay overrides realism.

05-09-2004 10:41 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=ForumHelp&message.id=1811#M1811

Moorgard wrote:

No price has been announced.

05-10-2004 06:07 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=99801#M99801

Moorgard wrote:

Charging a lower subscription fee to people on a test server would not improve the quality of testing that takes place there; it would only draw people trying to save money. Usually the people who play on a test server do so because they are dedicated to helping improve the game. While bigger numbers would be helpful in ways, watering down the population would be counterproductive overall.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 08:47 pm ::

05-22-2004 08:21 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=110085#M110085

Moorgard wrote:

I can understand the perspective voiced in this thread and agree with the concept, but there are a couple things I think are worth pointing out. In the CG trailer, I find it hard to see the women being portrayed as objects. On the contrary, it is the women who are two of the central figures in the piece. The dark elf is the real figure of evil, despite Lucan's speech; the trolls are following her command. And when the male ranger is in trouble, it is a female--Antonia--who saves him from the trap. I think the trailer portrays both women as figures of strength. Our marketing lead on the EverQuest II project was largely responsible for putting the trailer together, and she is a woman. That proves nothing in and of itself, but her goal was certainly not to objectify her gender. As for the game, I can think of only one female outfit that I would consider provocative, and that's the light blue caster clothing we showed quite a while back (there's an old suit of paladin armor too I guess, but that's not even currently in game). In almost all cases, robes and armor look the same on females as they do on males. Our gameplay movies show female characters in important roles; in the E3 footage, you see a female scout taking on a nightblood in the Obelisk scene. Ultimately I believe that portraying women characters as strong, important figures is what will draw female players to the genre. In my mock interview of Antonia and the bio we put on the official site, we wanted to show her to be a strong individual and a respected leader, not a simple object of beauty. And if we can help instill that idea in our male players, then so much the better for us all.

05-23-2004 02:32 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=110946#M110946

Moorgard wrote:

Over two million people have bought EverQuest and subscribed at one time or another. As there are now some 430,000 active subscribers, that does indeed mean over a million people have tried it and left it. That is our target audience. As for your second point, we have made it clear many times that EverQuest II is designed with grouping in mind. Furthermore, it is designed such that the adventurer and the artisan will rely upon each other. The best items the artisan can make will require components obtained from adventuring. This has always been the intent, even when artisans were a completely separate archetype. While we are designing the game so that players can solo exclusively if they choose, we are not making so soloers can obtain the same gear as those who group. Grouping is encouraged by the fact that it offers greater rewards, and that's not a concept we plan to change. As for the title of this thread, there certainly doesn't need to be a petition to keep our game challenging. I've said over and over that our intent is to make a very challenging game that takes time and effort to master. But we don't feel that what challenges the player should be the user interface or how long it takes to run around the world; the challenge should come from the content, plain and simple. If this thread degenerates further into a casual vs. powergamer tirade, it will be locked. That's an unwinnable squabble with lots of hurt feelings attached, so there is no point in trying to win such an argument.

05-24-2004 01:57 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=112286#M112286

Moorgard wrote:

First off, this is an impressive post with a lot of thought behind it. Very well done. Measuring morality is a tricky thing, because separating a player's moral choices from that of the game character is very hard to do. Only a skilled roleplayer (or professional actor) can really step outside themselves enough to make objective decisions based on what their character would do as opposed to what they themselves would do. For instance, if you play a high elf and receive a quest to wipe out an entire village of thieves, most players would simply do the quest for the promise of a reward and not think about moral implications. But if the quest was to go and kill a village of young children who might one day become thieves, many players would become uncomfortable. I think the same would hold true even if they had chosen to play an evil character. [Sidebar: One of my favorite games of all time, Ultima IV, centered on virtues and morals. During character creation, questions about what you would do in a given situation (questions that had no right or wrong answer) determined which class you would play. And in the final dungeon of the game, you entered a room where you were attacked by a group of children. You had to decide whether to try to run through the room or wipe them all out. Again, no right or wrong answer. This feature was the subject of a fair amount of controversy.] The reality of gameplay is that many players would simply make whatever moral choices resulted in the greater benefit of their character. If killing the village of children resulted in a great reward, many would simply do that even if they found the idea distasteful. If you created a different but equal reward for saving the children instead, then in ways the moral decision becomes meaningless and most players will pick a path based largely on whim. I say all this not to discourage your thinking, because I believe it has great value. But to me, I think the best approach is to have an invisible morality system that adjusts the game based on the actions you take within it. For instance, if the game kept track of how many times you fled from battle as opposed to completing the encounter, the reaction of citizens in the towns would change. They wouldn't like or dislike you more, but would consider you either brave or cowardly and would interact with you differently. If two members of the same class played their characters differently, they might receive the same quest but would have to complete it in different ways. This would take away from the spoiler aspect and would give quests a more dynamic feel, while at the same time not making an overt change to the reward structure of the game. Basically, you have to allow people to play the game however they like and must be careful about how you represent their place in the game world. It would be an unpleasant experience for most gamers to suddenly realize that the townsfolk think they are a coward just because they tend to play cautiously, and you certainly wouldn't want other players to be able to make fun of someone for that. All in all it's a tricky mechanic, but certainly one worth investigation and debate.

05-29-2004 09:24 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Newbie&message.id=2930#M2930

Moorgard wrote:

If you exploit bugs, expect to be banned. I should think our policy on that would be pretty clear by now.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 07/03/04 10:00 pm ::

05-31-2004 10:02 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=121070#M121070

Moorgard wrote:

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "gameplay," but the Moorgard Index and the FAQ section are both full of details on many aspects of gameplay and how players interact with the world. We've talked at length about how content in the game is being designed and what kind of gaming experience we're trying to create. Or did you mean something else?

6/12 5:50pm
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=70317289&start=70332192

Moorgard wrote:

There are both advantages and disadvantages to calling the game EverQuest II. We constantly fight the perception that we're a sequel or a replacement for the original, which is not the intent. Unlike movies or books, a persistent online game doesn't end. Thus you can't really be a sequel to something that is still in progress. Then we constantly face the people who either say EQ2 is too similar or too different from the original. I loathe fostering comparisons since the two games are intentionally different with separate target audiences. But needless to say, if a customer decides to leave EverQuest, our goal is to give them a compelling place to go. Ultimately, the EverQuest name has a lot of value. If it didn't, you wouldn't constantly see other companies comparing their products to ours. Whether you ultimately liked the original game or not, there is no denying that it has been tremendously successful and that it has a recognition and visibility that other companies envy. While in terms of design you could argue that it may have been best to use an entirely different name, from a marketing standpoint it makes perfect sense. And perhaps the greatest plus to using it is that our entire team is dedicated to making a game worthy of the name EverQuest II.

6/20 10:44am
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=70714554&start=70715200

Moorgard wrote:

That article appears to be from nearly two years ago. Lots of things have changed, since at that point Bill was largely talking about concepts and ideas for things the team had envisioned but not implemented. This game has been in development for years. During that time, many different ideas and concepts have been considered, some of which will end up in the final game and some of which won't. A title as anticipated as EverQuest II ends up being developed in something of a fishbowl--magazines, websites, and fans demand information throughout the development process. The result is that some ideas have been talked about that prove impractical or that end up being replaced by other ideas. With a game of this scope and complexity, that's just the nature of the beast.

06-23-2004 10:54 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=139122#M139122

Moorgard wrote:

Blakely and I spent our entire day today playing the game with a press guy for an article he's writing. Literally, we played from 10am to 7pm with only a lunch break around 2pm. It was a late lunch because it was one of those golden moments you have in gaming where you want just one more try at the bad guy (in this case, that damned orc again!) and can't pull yourself away from the keyboard until you succeed. We had a blast! This was the longest period I've played the game in one sitting, and were it not for a dinner engagement I think we all could have continued for hours more. Blakely was a hardcore EQ player before coming on this project, so he has a clear vision for the direction he wanted to take with EQ2. Believe me, there is no shortage of EQ fiends on our team who understand what makes that game great and are very interested in preserving many of the elements that have entertained us for over five years. That said, Blakely is not perfect. He was a cleric in EQ, you see, so he likes to play a priest in our game. And frankly, as the fighter in the group, let's just say that he was a bit slow in the healing department. Worse yet, he has aggro management problems that he oh-so-conveniently likes to blame the poor tank for. Yeah, he's one of those clerics!

06-26-2004 08:47 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=141344#M141344

Moorgard wrote:

No and No.

06-27-2004 02:31 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=141719#M141719

Moorgard wrote:

As a matter of fact, we are planning to include parental controls in the game. John Blakely, a father himself, is a big proponent of the idea. I can't imagine why anyone (aside from a child who fears limited playtime) would be opposed to the inclusion of such a system. It is, after all, entirely optional.

06-28-2004 12:23 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=142047#M142047

Moorgard wrote:

Correct. Which is why we do use "ticks" for updating certain data.

07-01-2004 10:12 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=general&message.id=144244#M144244

Moorgard wrote:

Our primary goal is to make a game we think is fun and challenging. We literally have centuries worth of game design experience working on this project, with many team members being MMO veterans since the dawn of the genre. This project has forced us to reexamine our ideas and question our assumptions, but at the end of the day we're just trying to make a good game. While it's difficult for some to believe, we are developing neither a duplicate product nor a reactionary one. We're building a whole new game here; we aren't beholden to make a carbon copy of EverQuest and we aren't setting out to create its doppelganger. The premise of game design is a simple one: Make a fun game and people will buy it. Of course, if it were that simple then every game would be a smash hit, but I think we're on the right track. It certainly feels that way to me when I'm playing.

:: Updated by Hannar @ 08/01/04 04:12 pm ::

07-17-2004 11:55 AM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Non-Gameplay&message.id=22077#M22077

Moorgard wrote:

You don't really want new info or screens; you want the game. Even the character create preorder disc will only hold your attention so long before some people again start to despair that we haven't made any huge announcements about release. That's simply the nature of things, and it's been an ongoing pattern that will continue until the game is out. Our entire team's efforts are focused on beta right now. Because when the game comes out, you won't be thinking about screenshots or website updates or Q&A sessions--you'll only care if the game was worth the wait. So that is what we as a team and a company are working to ensure, and at the end of the day I think you'll be glad we did.

07-21-2004 11:16 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Non-Gameplay&message.id=24368#M24368

Moorgard wrote:

Not to sound harsh, but if we waited until everything was done before shipping the preorder disc then there would be no reason to ship a preorder disc. If we find the time to throw in some extra hairstyles or other options, I would think most people would see that as a positive thing.

07-26-2004 10:04 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Non-Gameplay&message.id=27246#M27246

Moorgard wrote:

Welcome to my own personal kobayashi maru. If we say we will listen and react to the community, then some will say "Oh no, don't just do whatever people tell you to! That will ruin the game!" If we say that we're not going to react to public opinion, then others will say "See, SOE never learns! They need to listen to their customers or they'll all leave for other games!" There is simply no satisfactory answer to this question that isn't going to make someone upset or worried or angry. So all I'll say in a very diplomatic and virtually meaningless way is that we'll listen and make changes when it makes sense to do so and stick to our guns when that's the best solution. "Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!"

:: Updated by Hannar @ 08/01/04 07:23 pm ::

07-26-2004 11:45 PM
http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=Non-Gameplay&message.id=27172#M27172

Moorgard wrote:

You may not have intended that last line to be humorous, but I certainly enjoyed it. Seriously, my credibility is the very last thing on anybody's mind in terms of when this game is released--mine included. If the result of us putting out a better game is for me to be burned in effigy, then so be it. You bring the torches, I'll bring the marshmallows. We plan to release a fun, stable game. We plan to release our game in 2004. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive, and by our best estimates there's no reason to think that would change. Could it? Sure. Anything can happen in this business. But please, don't lose sleep over what may or may not be, especially related to the release date of a video game. As for concerns whether beta will be long enough, or complete enough, or test the right things, there is literally nothing I can say that would ease the mind of someone determined to be pessimistic about it. Whether Faarwolf describes her gameplay experience as "fairly stable" or "solid" or "super mega mega duper stable," somebody is going to post about how that's a bad thing. Please keep in mind that we're currently in the first stage of our external beta. We will expand it according to plan, to bring in more players and the kinds of players we want, when we want them. Currently we're focused on basic content and mechanics, which doesn't need to have a hundred thousand people beating on it to know whether it works or not. When we want to test server load under those numbers, we'll do so--according to plan. I think it's great that so many people want to see us release a great game. Your passion is appreciated, believe me, and I realize sometimes that inspires people to make heated, emotional posts. But you'll have to excuse me for being optimistic that things are going to be okay. And I don't mean that in a guy-who-gets-paid-to-say-that kind of way, but rather from the perspective of someone who has seen how fun the game is already and knows how much more is still to come. It's gonna be okay. And I'll keep those marshmallows handy, just in case you guys get hungry.