full freedom will be nice. I would imagine the major cities will be tremendously difficult to "burn down" / Invade, but you could still do it with the right force. I will be interesting to see how its done. The smaller outer towns/villas will be a bit more chaotic though unless a guild takes it upon themselves to protect their areas/territory. Shadowbane players may be getting excited...
Originally posted by Mendel In the realm of bad ideas, this seems to be quite high on the list. Qeynos will burn as the flambe-fest begins. Anyone creating a character on Day 2 will log into to find nothing but charred ruins. Populated by rats with way too many hitpoints.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
See this game is already the perfect sandbox because all of you have completed created your own game based on a few lines of what it might be. I can't wait to play now lol.
Lots of speculation on what "full freedom" means. For myself, I don't think it will have FFA PVP, or that it will be a re-skinned, pre-CU SWG.
I would like to see a in-depth crafting system that doesn't require mats from some form of raiding, no damn SWG style urban sprawl but some form of player controlled lots, and some benefits to actually grouping/guilding with others.
Smed couldn't say it, but I have a belief that the NGE was forced on them by Lucas, he had control over the direction. You don't often see such a huge rework of a game, like they did, unless they had to. I have no inside information or anything, but SoE couldn't point the finger at LA and risk losing any future licenses that they wanted to obtain imo.
No, the NGE was an initiative that originated inside SOE, specifically a small group of producers and designers who were themselves more interested in FPS games than MMORPGs. They put together a mock-up which they showed to Smed, telling him the game would suddenly become much faster and freer and that, at last, he would be able to compete with WoW whose sub numbers had really begun to take off. Smed has always liked investing in new things which offer a chance of quick future revenue rather than investing in fixing and fine-tuning things which her regards as a cost liability. Unfortunately, while Smed is very good at studio management, finance and revenue structuring, he knows fuck all about the games in his stable [ he's not a gamer. So he approved the NGE internally and then took it to LA promising it would allow SWG to compete with WoW. He trusted the devs to make the NGE work and they failed.
Nice speculation both of you, how about some links or any proof? Oh yea you didn't put any because they don't exist. All rumors.
right, its really all speculation. Xthos at least expressed it as speculation, noncley took information we know (that the idea for the system of the NGE came from SoE, which is a big difference than the order to pursue a NGE-type idea or to implement it) and twisted it to make ridiculous accusations and lies.
Common sense sides with Xthos (and SoEs blame being for the CU and for not standing up to LA about releasing the NGE when they did). But we may never know.
Its actually pretty stupid to even bring it up at this point, it has zero chance of ever happening again. People are so quick to forgive Mark Jacobs for WAR by saying it was another company's fault(and Jacobs was also guilty of changing his game to emulate the big dog with ToA) but wont let the NGE ever go. Its time to move on.
Lots of speculation on what "full freedom" means. For myself, I don't think it will have FFA PVP, or that it will be a re-skinned, pre-CU SWG.
FFA PvP is extremely unlikely. If they were going to make a FFA PvP sandbox I dont think they would use the Everquest name, because FFA PvP would put off 90%+ of people that played both games completely. Would be a complete waste of using the EQ name.
Lots of speculation on what "full freedom" means. For myself, I don't think it will have FFA PVP, or that it will be a re-skinned, pre-CU SWG.
FFA PvP is extremely unlikely. If they were going to make a FFA PvP sandbox I dont think they would use the Everquest name, because FFA PvP would put off 90%+ of people that played both games completely. Would be a complete waste of using the EQ name.
I have a feeling it will be based on pvp because all games are moving towards a more pvp-centric model, and the destruction and world-shaping abilities that they said we will have will almost be useless without pvp. Its all speculation, so it could be FFA pvp, it could be pvp with limitations, it could be pvp only in certain areas. My money is on FFA pvp with safezones, though I'd personally like ffa pvp without.
That said, I hope one way or the other, they have an alternative server so everyone can be happy.
an EQ game which mimics it's old rival, UO. a day i have been living to see.
and for people saying sony has a bad track record lately... planetside 2 is a game done right. if sony can maintain that level of quality and build on it i think they will have a winner with EQ:N.
aaaand for the people who are terrified of "full freedom" and say it will never work, there have been plenty of games in the past that prove your statement wrong, UO being one of the shining examples (yes, even after trammel). if sony can mix PVE with PVP and politics i think this could be the next game to grab close to what WoW had at its peak.
Lots of speculation on what "full freedom" means. For myself, I don't think it will have FFA PVP, or that it will be a re-skinned, pre-CU SWG.
FFA PvP is extremely unlikely. If they were going to make a FFA PvP sandbox I dont think they would use the Everquest name, because FFA PvP would put off 90%+ of people that played both games completely. Would be a complete waste of using the EQ name.
I have a feeling it will be based on pvp because all games are moving towards a more pvp-centric model, and the destruction and world-shaping abilities that they said we will have will almost be useless without pvp. Its all speculation, so it could be FFA pvp, it could be pvp with limitations, it could be pvp only in certain areas. My money is on FFA pvp with safezones, though I'd personally like ffa pvp without.
That said, I hope one way or the other, they have an alternative server so everyone can be happy.
pvp with a karma / flag system is likely what they will do. become a murderer and you are outcast from all society except maybe neriak or some pirate town (overthere).
player housing / cities will be a big thing too and i imagine that you will be able to set guard levels and aggressions within your city to whatever you like. say you are an all-iksar guild and you dont want any of those damn softskins running around spoiling your view; set your guards to aggro everything except iksar players and there you go, your town is now a safer place.
my guess is they are taking the open world-ness of UO/SWG, mixing it with the city building of shadowbane and then throwing in a beefed up version of the foundry (something that has been in EQ2 for a while now anyway, to a lesser extent) with some destructible / alterable terrain. i think pvp will be a part of the world but i think it will come with consequences, harsh ones if the pvp is non-consentual.
folks, i am a longtime fan of SOE. i have enjoyed EQ2, Vanguard, even played around with their kiddy games, and have beta'd Dragon's Prophet (i have a tiny review on my blog).
but i think some of us old timers need to remember that Smed actually lied on several occasions. just google smed and lies and you will get full length documented quotes on what he said one moment and then the next.
im not saying Smed is the same person. i think personally he has grown some as evidenced by some of the customer servicey things they have done in the past few years, esp after the hacking debacle.
but lets not forget the past. we can hope for a better future, but if you are getting all worked up about EQN then you are setting yourself up for a fall.
dont do that to yourself. enjoy the dreams of what might be, but dont ever forget that terrible grounding in reality so many of us have had with SOE time and again.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
With so many idiots,greifers,trolls, and psychotic gamers these days they will totally destroy this game world and drive the major population away if they get to much ingame destructive power.
Full control would only work if the output of the creators far exceeds the destroyers. Prisons and buildings of that ilk would also be under the same limitations of the rest of the world and could be destroyed. If a group of people could destroy a city ... how much of a challenge would a prison be? Creation takes longer than destruction so the balancing of these two things will most like come at the expense of player control.
Another con to a system like this is it will even further divide the haves and the have not’s. Who or what determines the power needed to destroy Cities or forests ... will the raider be more powerful than the PvPer, will a coalition of smaller guild be as powerful as a super guild. Will casual players even stand a chance of attaining the needed power to defend themselves from someone who plays 5 hours a day? What are the percentages of the different player types ... will the top 1% of the server dominate the world. I mean how fun would the game be if the first thing you see upon character creation is a one gold daily fee to play or be hunted down and repeatedly killed. There are terms for a world where the players have full control, barren and dead are two of them.
And then you have the whole f2p aspect of the game (if it goes that route) .... Lets say the actions of a guild or group of players causes the loss of a whale or whales, what do you think SOE's response will be?
Originally posted by Torgrim With so many idiots,greifers,trolls, and psychotic gamers these days they will totally destroy this game world and drive the major population away if they get to much ingame destructive power.
Its true, they are in abundance these days. However, one thing I've learned about them is they are self destructive, don't work well with others, and are easily eliminated in game by players who are able to coordinate their efforts.
I've battle some of the biggest psycho troll forces on the internet over the years in pvp games (often the same groups in different games), and each time they got smoked with little effort on our part.
Don't despair, just find halfway decent guild and they will crumble before you.
Comments
This doesn't happen in the RPVP servers of WoW.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
There Is Always Hope!
Lots of speculation on what "full freedom" means. For myself, I don't think it will have FFA PVP, or that it will be a re-skinned, pre-CU SWG.
I would like to see a in-depth crafting system that doesn't require mats from some form of raiding, no damn SWG style urban sprawl but some form of player controlled lots, and some benefits to actually grouping/guilding with others.
right, its really all speculation. Xthos at least expressed it as speculation, noncley took information we know (that the idea for the system of the NGE came from SoE, which is a big difference than the order to pursue a NGE-type idea or to implement it) and twisted it to make ridiculous accusations and lies.
Common sense sides with Xthos (and SoEs blame being for the CU and for not standing up to LA about releasing the NGE when they did). But we may never know.
Its actually pretty stupid to even bring it up at this point, it has zero chance of ever happening again. People are so quick to forgive Mark Jacobs for WAR by saying it was another company's fault(and Jacobs was also guilty of changing his game to emulate the big dog with ToA) but wont let the NGE ever go. Its time to move on.
FFA PvP is extremely unlikely. If they were going to make a FFA PvP sandbox I dont think they would use the Everquest name, because FFA PvP would put off 90%+ of people that played both games completely. Would be a complete waste of using the EQ name.
I have a feeling it will be based on pvp because all games are moving towards a more pvp-centric model, and the destruction and world-shaping abilities that they said we will have will almost be useless without pvp. Its all speculation, so it could be FFA pvp, it could be pvp with limitations, it could be pvp only in certain areas. My money is on FFA pvp with safezones, though I'd personally like ffa pvp without.
That said, I hope one way or the other, they have an alternative server so everyone can be happy.
an EQ game which mimics it's old rival, UO. a day i have been living to see.
and for people saying sony has a bad track record lately... planetside 2 is a game done right. if sony can maintain that level of quality and build on it i think they will have a winner with EQ:N.
aaaand for the people who are terrified of "full freedom" and say it will never work, there have been plenty of games in the past that prove your statement wrong, UO being one of the shining examples (yes, even after trammel). if sony can mix PVE with PVP and politics i think this could be the next game to grab close to what WoW had at its peak.
pvp with a karma / flag system is likely what they will do. become a murderer and you are outcast from all society except maybe neriak or some pirate town (overthere).
player housing / cities will be a big thing too and i imagine that you will be able to set guard levels and aggressions within your city to whatever you like. say you are an all-iksar guild and you dont want any of those damn softskins running around spoiling your view; set your guards to aggro everything except iksar players and there you go, your town is now a safer place.
my guess is they are taking the open world-ness of UO/SWG, mixing it with the city building of shadowbane and then throwing in a beefed up version of the foundry (something that has been in EQ2 for a while now anyway, to a lesser extent) with some destructible / alterable terrain. i think pvp will be a part of the world but i think it will come with consequences, harsh ones if the pvp is non-consentual.
folks, i am a longtime fan of SOE. i have enjoyed EQ2, Vanguard, even played around with their kiddy games, and have beta'd Dragon's Prophet (i have a tiny review on my blog).
but i think some of us old timers need to remember that Smed actually lied on several occasions. just google smed and lies and you will get full length documented quotes on what he said one moment and then the next.
im not saying Smed is the same person. i think personally he has grown some as evidenced by some of the customer servicey things they have done in the past few years, esp after the hacking debacle.
but lets not forget the past. we can hope for a better future, but if you are getting all worked up about EQN then you are setting yourself up for a fall.
dont do that to yourself. enjoy the dreams of what might be, but dont ever forget that terrible grounding in reality so many of us have had with SOE time and again.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
Full control would only work if the output of the creators far exceeds the destroyers. Prisons and buildings of that ilk would also be under the same limitations of the rest of the world and could be destroyed. If a group of people could destroy a city ... how much of a challenge would a prison be? Creation takes longer than destruction so the balancing of these two things will most like come at the expense of player control.
Another con to a system like this is it will even further divide the haves and the have not’s. Who or what determines the power needed to destroy Cities or forests ... will the raider be more powerful than the PvPer, will a coalition of smaller guild be as powerful as a super guild. Will casual players even stand a chance of attaining the needed power to defend themselves from someone who plays 5 hours a day? What are the percentages of the different player types ... will the top 1% of the server dominate the world. I mean how fun would the game be if the first thing you see upon character creation is a one gold daily fee to play or be hunted down and repeatedly killed. There are terms for a world where the players have full control, barren and dead are two of them.
And then you have the whole f2p aspect of the game (if it goes that route) .... Lets say the actions of a guild or group of players causes the loss of a whale or whales, what do you think SOE's response will be?
Its true, they are in abundance these days. However, one thing I've learned about them is they are self destructive, don't work well with others, and are easily eliminated in game by players who are able to coordinate their efforts.
I've battle some of the biggest psycho troll forces on the internet over the years in pvp games (often the same groups in different games), and each time they got smoked with little effort on our part.
Don't despair, just find halfway decent guild and they will crumble before you.