Roots of Copernicus

[Dash]

Many of you here have played EQ1 and EQ2 which allows you to relate to what you think Curt is doing with Copernicus. Unfortunately I do not have those roots, mine are from DAoC. As a post I read elsewhere stated " I really wish that Curt had cut his teeth in DAoC instead of EQ" I too am not sure what EQ had/has to offer that makes it superior to modern MMO's. Some questions for those that have been there and done that.

Why is there an EQ1 and an EQ2?
What is so different about them?
Why isn't there a DAoC 2?
and the ultimate question I need help with is,
Why do I much prefer the oldschool stuff over new school <Rift, SWTOR, Warhammer, WoW post-vanilla, et al.>?

Maybe I am just dreaming for a timemachine that just never will get built because we live in a disgusting instant gratification gaming and RL world instead of a place where you can work and achieve.

[Bossner]

From someone who's a reasonable amount of time with both, I'd say that there are two completely visions present in those games and neither is necessarily better as it's merely a matter of "Do you prefer PvE or PvP more?"

EQ2 was simply supposed to be a new-generation EQ, possibly a counter to Blizzard stealing some top-end raiding folks from EQ. Obviously it failed miserably although I don't think it was necessarily the fault of the game designers. Warcraft and Blizzard simply had a bigger following, and subscription and population is very much a snowball effect. Get people rapidly joining your game and it exponentially escalates. When caught between choosing EQ2 or WoW, most folks probably had heard their friends and family talking about WoW so they went with that.

WoW was also mainstream enough that folks who aren't MMO players could enjoy it - thus why you don't like any of the games you listed. They're all MMOs for gamers and not games for MMOers.

The difference between DAoC and the original EQ is both small and large at the same time. I personally think Sony/Verant/989 were better developers, but there are a few things from DAoC that I think stood out. First off, endgame PvP was completely player-driven with no intervention from the developers. The developers spent time building this great zerg sieges and any serious PvPer ignored them for the most part, instead engaging in the 8v8 roaming battles.

That says a lot about how resilient and creative a community can be.

On the flipside, everything at the endgame of EQ was developer-driven for the most part. Raids, etc.

I can't recall any major design difference (DAoC classes had many more abilities to press for most classes), as well as minor differences such as the way you were interrupted when hit while casting a spell. /stick and other things were big for the PvP in DAoC, but PvP in EQ was mostly nonexistent except on the PvP servers which, at least the one I was on (Rallos Zek), frowned on PvP and outlawed it mostly.

[agra]

Between EQ1 and EQ2 is a quantum leap forward in graphics requirements.

While you may not notice today, back on November 8, 2004 when EQ2 launched, many people were required to buy either a new computer or a new video card, or both, just to play at all. One of the more silly things was that $0E said: "There is no computer today that can play our game on max settings". Great. Good business plan there. While it was meant to add longevity to the game, ultimately it did nothing but reduce potential subscribers.

WoW on November 24, 2004 had extremely modest graphics requirements. Any machine that could run EQ1 could run WoW at launch.

Even today it remains, imho, the single greatest advantage WoW has over many of it's competitors: the lowest barrier to entry, graphically. Many people can run WoW on an Intel HD3000 chipset, and find it "fine". That means a $430 Dell laptop can run WoW, and it has an integrated mic and speakers, too, for vent/ts/mumble.

The combat/button UI for EQ1 and EQ2 is considerably different, even today. It was a step forward between the games in many ways, but other mechanic changes were a step backwards, from my perspective.

[Bossner]

Between EQ1 and EQ2 is a quantum leap forward in graphics requirements.

While you may not notice today, back on November 8, 2004 when EQ2 launched, many people were required to buy either a new computer or a new video card, or both, just to play at all. One of the more silly things was that $0E said: "There is no computer today that can play our game on max settings". Great. Good business plan there. While it was meant to add longevity to the game, ultimately it did nothing but reduce potential subscribers.

WoW on November 24, 2004 had extremely modest graphics requirements. Any machine that could run EQ1 could run WoW at launch.

Even today it remains, imho, the single greatest advantage WoW has over many of it's competitors: the lowest barrier to entry, graphically. Many people can run WoW on an Intel HD3000 chipset, and find it "fine". That means a $430 Dell laptop can run WoW, and it has an integrated mic and speakers, too, for vent/ts/mumble.

The combat/button UI for EQ1 and EQ2 is considerably different, even today. It was a step forward between the games in many ways, but other mechanic changes were a step backwards, from my perspective.

Well said. I think that the graphical "limitations" of WoW were definitely to their advantage.

[Leorwen]

I've been back playing DAoC for the last 2 weeks, and I've been honestly a bit shocked at how well its held up. The graphics are dated, but the player population is still surprisingly large. As far as mechanics go, I'm working on a full length article about this so I won't say anything at length right now, but I think that even 11 years after its original release DAoC still does a few things better than any MMO since.

As far as why there is no DAoC2, I wish I had an answer. Four years ago I would have fought tooth and nail to argue that it should be made, but the rights to that lie with Mythic, which now mean they lie with BioWare, which means they lie with EA... Maybe it's best to just let DAoC fade and leave a legacy of being the best pvp MMO ever made without tarnishing its memory with a shitty modern "sequel".

[Bossner]

I've been back playing DAoC for the last 2 weeks, and I've been honestly a bit shocked at how well its held up. The graphics are dated, but the player population is still surprisingly large. As far as mechanics go, I'm working on a full length article about this so I won't say anything at length right now, but I think that even 11 years after its original release DAoC still does a few things better than any MMO since.

As far as why there is no DAoC2, I wish I had an answer. Four years ago I would have fought tooth and nail to argue that it should be made, but the rights to that lie with Mythic, which now mean they lie with BioWare, which means they lie with EA... Maybe it's best to just let DAoC fade and leave a legacy of being the best pvp MMO ever made without tarnishing its memory with a shitty modern "sequel".

To be fair, wasn't WAR supposed to be the second coming of DAoC and RvR?

[Leorwen]

I suppose it was "supposed to be", but that was a big laugh, you lose SO much moving from 3 factions to 2, there was no way it could possibly be that faithful to DAoC's legacy.

[Bossner]

I suppose it was "supposed to be", but that was a big laugh, you lose SO much moving from 3 factions to 2, there was no way it could possibly be that faithful to DAoC's legacy.

Oh no doubt. They decisions they made with that game still have me shaking my head.

[Kurik Lein]

Warhammer had a lot of potential even though it had two factions, I actually think it would have been fine if they polished it for a couple more months. While the PvP wasn't as good as DAoC's it was fun for a time and the community was there for it to be successful.

[Bossner]

Warhammer had a lot of potential even though it had two factions, I actually think it would have been fine if they polished it for a couple more months. While the PvP wasn't as good as DAoC's it was fun for a time and the community was there for it to be successful.

Certainly, but there were also a ton of things that they did that left me confused. The world wasn't completely seamless, which is now standard in a post-WoW world. Granted, it was one of the few AAA titles to release after 2004, but they should have known better.

It's no surprise that it only took them 2 years to develop the game, though. It definitely showed.