It can be bent, re-invented, twisted or manipulated into any shape imaginable.
Particularly if there's Expansion dollars to be made! New continent just appeared! *Ding!*
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
There was a server where you could go anywhere and engage people of the other teams and teams were something like ................short races (gnome, Dwarf) and High Elf/ Wood Elf on one team. Evil Races on another. And then Human / Half Elf / Barbarian.
This made three teams and some guilds mixed teams while others chose players of the same team.
It was highly addictive game play. The only rules were that you couldn't attack a person that was grey to you unless they attack you first. This way it made things more fair.
Soo many good memories of huge battles and good times on those servers.
I would make it exp gain for killing or an assist. Also one item loot from inventory. This way people would always watch what they have in inventory just in case they get attacked....muahahaha...
I would like PvP like old style vanilla EQ where you chose to follow discord. When you chose Discord:
1. You could attack anyone at any time. Thusly anyone, including non-Discord players could attack you too.
2. You could not group with non-Discord players.
3. You received no benefits from being a player killer, but you did get all the bad karma and "bad" faction hits for killing players who were non-Discord.
The system was perfect as it:
1. Allowed open world PvP for people who were serious about PvP and the true nature of what player-killing should be. IMO, as a PvPer, if you are doing it for rewards or gains, you're a tool.
2. It created a close community, much how role-players are, as all PKers were under a united banner of Discord.
3. Being Discord was bad-ass, and challenging, albiet thoroughly rewarding if you made it to 50 without quitting.
4. You always had something to kill and something willing to kill you.
In a sense, Arena/Battlegrounds comepletely ruined the purity and definition of PvP, as well as it's purpose... to kill other players not for reward, but for the challange of engaging a human opponent.
Open world pvp, no instances. Everything is contested. FFA, no level limitations with some form of item loot on players within a certain range. My perfect idea of a pvp ruleset. I played Rallos Zek on live, and have never enjoyed an MMO or PvP more than I did there. All sandboxes failed when it comes to contested content and pve in general.
Wouldn't want all servers to be this ruleset, but its what I'd personally like. I think were going to see open world pvp regardless, even if its with level ranges and safe zones in cities.
You are right on target with this. I played on Tallon Zek witch was the PvP teams which added another layer of mayhem to things. Would be nice to have full PvP and PvP teams like they did way back then. Was so engaging, challenging and fun.
I remember so many times where a guild from another team or a mixed guild would come in and ambush us while in a dungeon on a boss encounter and wipe us or visa versa so they could take the dungeon for themselves....lol. Also there were wedding ambushes and other crazy mayhem.
Our guild was called Darkwatch and our Roll Play was all about keeping the evil races of darkness under control. We would raid Nektulos Forrest and other evil race areas to PvP until the whole zone was filled with all level ranges fighting and it spilled over into neighboring zones. What a blast and fun time that was...
Open PVP but regulated by law. Like in AoWSo who wants to PK, risks to be hunted down and put in prison for time.I mean PKers love challenge, dont they
"This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."
"This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."
Again, I will hold off judgement until August.
every system will be designed around not allowing grieferquest sounds like there will be PvP but with consequnces to me. My opinion.
I wanted to pick 9 because, well you know, if ya wanna flash E-peen and gank people then their are other games to do that in. PvP 'balancing" kills PvE games. I hate it. But I picked 2 because that seemed the best compromise between the two sides because MMO devs are hell bent on having PvP in their games, even if it's not needed (TOR).
So I was very surprised to see 9 winning by a large margin. It's the correct answer obviously but again PvP seems to have to be shoved down MMOers throats.
Too bad SOE won't listen...
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
My primary choice is #5, the DAoC model. Having separate PvE zones and PvP zones is the best of both worlds as long as the same ultimate goals can be achieved through either course of action. In other words If I can find the best loot or character XP earned is equal in either type of zone I would be happy.
#9 would be primary response but I'm not naïve enough to believe that restricting options is bad for a game. Even if I would prefer option #9 I still want others to have their fun as well. Besides options equals a more robust player base and in the end that is better for the game as a whole.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Intelligent PvP with real consequences. If you kill another innocent player, you should be treated as a murderer by all.
It has to be meaningful, otherwise you have Dark fall, which has already be done to death.
Killing for the sake of killing is boring, it trivializes death and murder, and there are metric crapton of games like that already. Darkfalls PvP is not hardcore, its safe and familiar, death and killing have little meaning, as they happen a lot and players have extra armor sets, extra mounts..., its a safe predictable system in the end.
I hope EQN breaks the mold, and not have the same old tired PvP, that means nothing in the end.
Lol, Age Of Wushu/Wulin has already broken the mold, you just don't know it because you haven't played it.
Getting put in jail for a few hours is not really a convincing argument. In order for it to really work the Killer should be required (if captured) to spend a minimum of 7 real life days in jail un able to do anything but the most menial of chores or removing the option of playing that character altogether for the course of the penalty. Logging out and going to bed is not enough of a harsh penalty to random indiscriminate killing.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
So who wants to PK, risks to be hunted down and put in prison for time.
I mean PKers love challenge, dont they
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS
As a PKer I would freaking LOVE a game that made it actually challenging. Being a ganker without any sort of danger is about as fun as being ganked. Not very.
I would also love perma-death for criminals and murderers who reach a certain level of notoriety. Like you kill 100 people or steal 100,000 gold worth of stuff and the next time you're captured IF you are captured you are publicly executed and that deletes your character. I would definitely try to get to that rank of criminal and keep from being caught (while still living in the game world) and if I was caught my last words would be EPIC. I'd rip them straight from Titus Andronicus:
"Even now I curse the day- and yet, I think, Few come within the compass of my curse- Wherein I did not some notorious ill; As kill a man, or else devise his death; Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it; Accuse some innocent, and forswear myself; Set deadly enmity between two friends; Make poor men's cattle break their necks; Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night, And bid the owners quench them with their tears. Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves, And set them upright at their dear friends' door Even when their sorrows almost was forgot, And on their skins, as on the bark of trees, Have with my knife carved in Roman letters 'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.' Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things As willingly as one would kill a fly; And nothing grieves me heartily indeed But that I cannot do ten thousand more."
Basically saying as he is about to die "If I have only one regret it is that I did not commit more horrible murders and crimes." Badass as hell.
I chose 6 btw. Duh! Glad it's the highest votes of all the PvP options so far. #9 is for failures. There seem to be a LOT of failures around here.
An idea would be having PvP servers of varying rulesets (FFA, Good vs Evil, Factional, Guild based). Then the rest being normal PvE servers, with the exception of being able to give a shiny book to a priest of discord thereby forever flagging you to PvP to be PvP'd by other so flagged players regardless of location or without any sort of faction/guard interference.
Personally I feel like non-consensual PvP, with a criminal/law system is the best way. Towns should be safe areas. Outside of town the majority of the area is PvP enabled but not lawless FFA. Small portions of the world outside of towns would be full on PvP with no repercussions.
The lawless full on PvP areas are typically where the epic quests take you. Higher risk/higher reward. Many of the group dungeon entrances could be located in the lawless areas.
In the majority of the world, there would be a criminal/law system that would police PvP behavior. In these areas you could flag yourself for FFA PvP if that is the life that you prefer. Like minded individuals could still FFA PvP without repercussion. However if not flagged for FFA PvP you would be somewhat "protected" by the criminal system.
The criminal system would tally a PK to a player that started the PvP fight in the law protected areas. The criminal system would also flag that person for FFA PvP as soon as they engage a player who was not flagged for FFA PvP. This enables other players to come to the aid of the player who was not seeking PvP without negative pepercussions.
The amount of PKs a player has tallied in a given period of time would determine how long they would remain flagged for FFA PvP after the engagement. This enables the "victim" to get revenge or to get help from friends. This sort of system really promotes community, politics, friendships, etc.
An added bonus would be to have a gear score system that would cause a PK'er/criminal to lose their best piece of gear if killed. This adds incentive for them to not lose if they choose to engage in non-consensual combat. It heightens the level of excitement for them as well as providing incentive for others to police the criminals.
I would really love to see a modern game use this system. I would definitely make it my main, if not only, MMO.
P.S. If this sounds familiar to anyone, what I described is exactly the system that is in Soul of the Ultimate Nation. That game is too dated in graphics and player movement for me to consider playing anymore. However 4-5 years ago I thoroughly enjoyed the PvP aspect of that game.
P.S.S. I also really liked how instead of, or in addition to, a level requirement for equipping gear... There was a stat requirement.
Personally I feel like non-consensual PvP, with a criminal/law system is the best way. Towns should be safe areas. Outside of town the majority of the area is PvP enabled but not lawless FFA. Small portions of the world outside of towns would be full on PvP with no repercussions.
The lawless full on PvP areas are typically where the epic quests take you. Higher risk/higher reward. Many of the group dungeon entrances could be located in the lawless areas.
In the majority of the world, there would be a criminal/law system that would police PvP behavior. In these areas you could flag yourself for FFA PvP if that is the life that you prefer. Like minded individuals could still FFA PvP without repercussion. However if not flagged for FFA PvP you would be somewhat "protected" by the criminal system.
The criminal system would tally a PK to a player that started the PvP fight in the law protected areas. The criminal system would also flag that person for FFA PvP as soon as they engage a player who was not flagged for FFA PvP. This enables other players to come to the aid of the player who was not seeking PvP without negative pepercussions.
The amount of PKs a player has tallied in a given period of time would determine how long they would remain flagged for FFA PvP after the engagement. This enables the "victim" to get revenge or to get help from friends. This sort of system really promotes community, politics, friendships, etc.
An added bonus would be to have a gear score system that would cause a PK'er/criminal to lose their best piece of gear if killed. This adds incentive for them to not lose if they choose to engage in non-consensual combat. It heightens the level of excitement for them as well as providing incentive for others to police the criminals.
I would really love to see a modern game use this system. I would definitely make it my main, if not only, MMO.
P.S. If this sounds familiar to anyone, what I described is exactly the system that is in Soul of the Ultimate Nation. That game is too dated in graphics and player movement for me to consider playing anymore. However 4-5 years ago I thoroughly enjoyed the PvP aspect of that game.
P.S.S. I also really liked how instead of, or in addition to, a level requirement for equipping gear... There was a stat requirement.
But why the need for such a complicated system when a simple 'yes' or 'no' flag would work just as well? PvPers can still PvP and PvE'ers don't have to deal with the annoyance when they dont want to participate. The only issue I see is that PvPers wont be able to just kill for sake of killing.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
FFA PvP in a F2P game will be the ruin for EQNext.
Using an exploit to grief players? Get banned? Create new account. Rinse and repeat.
But Smed and the gang know this I'm sure. I'm not worried. Whatever they have planned, it's something we've probably not really seen before. That's what they've been telling us and there's two Best in Show E3 awards that back it up.
Soooooooo.....a whole lot of fussing in this forums for nothing.
Comments
Particularly if there's Expansion dollars to be made! New continent just appeared! *Ding!*
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Everquest PVP Team server was the best ever.
There was a server where you could go anywhere and engage people of the other teams and teams were something like ................short races (gnome, Dwarf) and High Elf/ Wood Elf on one team. Evil Races on another. And then Human / Half Elf / Barbarian.
This made three teams and some guilds mixed teams while others chose players of the same team.
It was highly addictive game play. The only rules were that you couldn't attack a person that was grey to you unless they attack you first. This way it made things more fair.
Soo many good memories of huge battles and good times on those servers.
I would make it exp gain for killing or an assist. Also one item loot from inventory. This way people would always watch what they have in inventory just in case they get attacked....muahahaha...
I would like PvP like old style vanilla EQ where you chose to follow discord. When you chose Discord:
1. You could attack anyone at any time. Thusly anyone, including non-Discord players could attack you too.
2. You could not group with non-Discord players.
3. You received no benefits from being a player killer, but you did get all the bad karma and "bad" faction hits for killing players who were non-Discord.
The system was perfect as it:
1. Allowed open world PvP for people who were serious about PvP and the true nature of what player-killing should be. IMO, as a PvPer, if you are doing it for rewards or gains, you're a tool.
2. It created a close community, much how role-players are, as all PKers were under a united banner of Discord.
3. Being Discord was bad-ass, and challenging, albiet thoroughly rewarding if you made it to 50 without quitting.
4. You always had something to kill and something willing to kill you.
In a sense, Arena/Battlegrounds comepletely ruined the purity and definition of PvP, as well as it's purpose... to kill other players not for reward, but for the challange of engaging a human opponent.
You are right on target with this. I played on Tallon Zek witch was the PvP teams which added another layer of mayhem to things. Would be nice to have full PvP and PvP teams like they did way back then. Was so engaging, challenging and fun.
I remember so many times where a guild from another team or a mixed guild would come in and ambush us while in a dungeon on a boss encounter and wipe us or visa versa so they could take the dungeon for themselves....lol. Also there were wedding ambushes and other crazy mayhem.
Our guild was called Darkwatch and our Roll Play was all about keeping the evil races of darkness under control. We would raid Nektulos Forrest and other evil race areas to PvP until the whole zone was filled with all level ranges fighting and it spilled over into neighboring zones. What a blast and fun time that was...
Would be awesome to have guild owned castles and keeps. Something you need to work together as a guild to defend.
This.i picked ffa/open pvp with limited to no safe zones because it makes the most sense in a sandbox game.
i do not think there should be full looting though, coin and maybe one or two items from their inventory is good enough IMO.
i wouldn't mind having player made factions or guild alliances, as long as the community decides to implement it.
also, i don't think wow's and EQ's style of pve and pvp servers will work because i am guessing this will be one huge world that everyone plays on.
if it really is the largest sandbox game ever made, it would have to be only one server i would think, otherwise the community will be too spread out.
Quote below shows there is a good chance there will be no forced PvP. So there would be no need for a system like that.
every system will be designed around not allowing grieferquest sounds like there will be PvP but with consequnces to me. My opinion.
Currently bored with MMO's.
I wanted to pick 9 because, well you know, if ya wanna flash E-peen and gank people then their are other games to do that in. PvP 'balancing" kills PvE games. I hate it. But I picked 2 because that seemed the best compromise between the two sides because MMO devs are hell bent on having PvP in their games, even if it's not needed (TOR).
So I was very surprised to see 9 winning by a large margin. It's the correct answer obviously but again PvP seems to have to be shoved down MMOers throats.
Too bad SOE won't listen...
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.
My primary choice is #5, the DAoC model. Having separate PvE zones and PvP zones is the best of both worlds as long as the same ultimate goals can be achieved through either course of action. In other words If I can find the best loot or character XP earned is equal in either type of zone I would be happy.
#9 would be primary response but I'm not naïve enough to believe that restricting options is bad for a game. Even if I would prefer option #9 I still want others to have their fun as well. Besides options equals a more robust player base and in the end that is better for the game as a whole.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Getting put in jail for a few hours is not really a convincing argument. In order for it to really work the Killer should be required (if captured) to spend a minimum of 7 real life days in jail un able to do anything but the most menial of chores or removing the option of playing that character altogether for the course of the penalty. Logging out and going to bed is not enough of a harsh penalty to random indiscriminate killing.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS
As a PKer I would freaking LOVE a game that made it actually challenging. Being a ganker without any sort of danger is about as fun as being ganked. Not very.
I would also love perma-death for criminals and murderers who reach a certain level of notoriety. Like you kill 100 people or steal 100,000 gold worth of stuff and the next time you're captured IF you are captured you are publicly executed and that deletes your character. I would definitely try to get to that rank of criminal and keep from being caught (while still living in the game world) and if I was caught my last words would be EPIC. I'd rip them straight from Titus Andronicus:
"Even now I curse the day- and yet, I think,
Few come within the compass of my curse-
Wherein I did not some notorious ill;
As kill a man, or else devise his death;
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it;
Accuse some innocent, and forswear myself;
Set deadly enmity between two friends;
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' door
Even when their sorrows almost was forgot,
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly;
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more."
Basically saying as he is about to die "If I have only one regret it is that I did not commit more horrible murders and crimes." Badass as hell.
I chose 6 btw. Duh! Glad it's the highest votes of all the PvP options so far. #9 is for failures. There seem to be a LOT of failures around here.
Looks like we have a winner, I'm all for it.
Reposting my opinion from another thread:
Personally I feel like non-consensual PvP, with a criminal/law system is the best way. Towns should be safe areas. Outside of town the majority of the area is PvP enabled but not lawless FFA. Small portions of the world outside of towns would be full on PvP with no repercussions.
The lawless full on PvP areas are typically where the epic quests take you. Higher risk/higher reward. Many of the group dungeon entrances could be located in the lawless areas.
In the majority of the world, there would be a criminal/law system that would police PvP behavior. In these areas you could flag yourself for FFA PvP if that is the life that you prefer. Like minded individuals could still FFA PvP without repercussion. However if not flagged for FFA PvP you would be somewhat "protected" by the criminal system.
The criminal system would tally a PK to a player that started the PvP fight in the law protected areas. The criminal system would also flag that person for FFA PvP as soon as they engage a player who was not flagged for FFA PvP. This enables other players to come to the aid of the player who was not seeking PvP without negative pepercussions.
The amount of PKs a player has tallied in a given period of time would determine how long they would remain flagged for FFA PvP after the engagement. This enables the "victim" to get revenge or to get help from friends. This sort of system really promotes community, politics, friendships, etc.
An added bonus would be to have a gear score system that would cause a PK'er/criminal to lose their best piece of gear if killed. This adds incentive for them to not lose if they choose to engage in non-consensual combat. It heightens the level of excitement for them as well as providing incentive for others to police the criminals.
I would really love to see a modern game use this system. I would definitely make it my main, if not only, MMO.
P.S. If this sounds familiar to anyone, what I described is exactly the system that is in Soul of the Ultimate Nation. That game is too dated in graphics and player movement for me to consider playing anymore. However 4-5 years ago I thoroughly enjoyed the PvP aspect of that game.
P.S.S. I also really liked how instead of, or in addition to, a level requirement for equipping gear... There was a stat requirement.
But why the need for such a complicated system when a simple 'yes' or 'no' flag would work just as well? PvPers can still PvP and PvE'ers don't have to deal with the annoyance when they dont want to participate. The only issue I see is that PvPers wont be able to just kill for sake of killing.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
FFA PvP in a F2P game will be the ruin for EQNext.
Using an exploit to grief players? Get banned? Create new account. Rinse and repeat.
But Smed and the gang know this I'm sure. I'm not worried. Whatever they have planned, it's something we've probably not really seen before. That's what they've been telling us and there's two Best in Show E3 awards that back it up.
Soooooooo.....a whole lot of fussing in this forums for nothing.