[Next Message in Time] |
[Previous Message in Time] |
[Next Message in Topic] |
[Previous Message in Topic]
Message ID: 3791
Date: Fri Jul 16 18:29:13 BST 1999
Author: David.Lynam@xxxxxx.xx.xxx
Subject: Re: Item Values
>I don't think EQ has enough infrastructure to survive on aThis is, in fact, the very reason I sort of kind of in a round about way
>purely social aspect. There are no player-owned structures,
>there are no player-owned merchants, there are no item sinks,
>and there are very few money sinks (trade skills, steel armor)
>most of which (trade skills) were an afterthought coded in
>just before the game went Final. In short, there really isn't
>much you can *do* in EQ which doesn't revolve around killing
>monsters to gain items and experience. You can't really make
>your mark on the world.
>The PvP and Racewar servers definitely have more
>possibilities, but on the normal servers, socializing is not
>much different from an IRC chat room.
>In that respect, UO is ahead of EQ. I think EQ only strived
>to make massively multiplayer online hack and slash FRPG. UO
>strived to make an online virtual world. In the discussions
>Brad McQuaid and Raph Koster have had, it's pretty obvious EQ
>didn't have as high a goal as UO. Brad still refuses to admit
>that long-term money and item sinks are necessary in a
>persistent online game, to keep player ability inflation (and
>thus monster difficulty deflation) in check.