I guess I don't understand why the pvprs have to be the ones to just give up all their wants and desires for a game just because the largest group who already has the largest pool of GREAT games to play from has to have EVERY single game that hits the horizon to be an exact copy of the ones previous to it.
Where is the developer supported PvE sandbox?
I can name several PvP ones...
Exactly. There are Zero PvE focused Sandbox games to choose from where if I was into PvP I could choose Eve, Darkfall, Mortal Online and soon ArcheAge, Repopulation, Star Citizen and CU.
Sandbox without danger is pointless and boring. It's basically minecraft with pvp turned off. Yawn.
opinions don't make fact, no matter how you try and make it so by plugging your ears and screaming no no no pvp is baaaaad mkaaaay! The truth is, in every game where open pvp was the intent from the start these mechanics have not been a problem but for the smallest of percentage of players, its only the games who try to implement open world pvp in a theme park setting that wasn't originally designed for it do these balance issues exist.
So I said before:
You have 99.5% of the market to choose from, quit trying to mangina up the one game coming out in the next couple of years with some actual vision to change the oversimplified facebook online for sheeple genre of mmo gaming. You want to be a perfect little carebear protected from evil?
play: WoW, Gw2, Rift, Secret World, WAR, FF XIV, Neverwinter, STO, EQ, EQ2, Perfect World, Wildstar, etc etc etc etc etc and let ONE fn game this century have a CHANCE at actually changing your mind before you throw it in the mud with your little tantrums and falsehoods over pvp or those who enjoy the gameplay style.
1. This is one of the reasons people dont want non consensual PvP: because of condescending shit like this. You are simultaneously being condescending and acting like a bratty 2 year old.
2. Your last paragraph is the exact opposite of what PvE sandbox fans are going through. PvE players have been waiting for a sandbox ever since the NGE destroyed SWG's population. PvP sandboxers at least have EvE, Darkfall, and ArcheAge soon.
and the most ironic part is, its ok when its a passive aggressive non pvp'r doing it, but if you are overtly aggressive all the sudden its not politically correct to be so "mean!" Give me a break with your strawman argument, please.
Just because the tone of my voice makes your heartstrings get pulled a certain way doesn't make the truth any less true.
The irony is actually that you are accusing the PvE sandbox crowd of doing the EXACT thing you are doing: Instead of being happy with the fact that the current sandbox options are PvP, you have to gang together to try to make a PvE franchise embrace PvP too.
Furthermore, everyone seems to support having a FFA PvP server anyway, even though the other games dont have a PvE server.
except Smedly said this game isn't going to be a franchise game, its a reboot. so yea. next argument please? You want a reboot with better graphics, choose from the myriad of other games on the market today that fit that same genre of playstyle!
Actually he never said its not going to be 'franchise game'. He said it was the next game in the franchise and they wanted it to be different from the previous two games as well as a majority of what we have on the market today.
The game is still part of the EQ franchise, they are banking on the name recognition to draw people in, they said the game would be familiar while being different at the same time. They said players would be able to choose how they live in the world and won't be told how to live by the developer/content.
and you can still choose in eve how to live with out being told by the developers and guess what *GASP* its an open pvp non consensual sandbox OMGRRRRD!!! Why didn't the world end?!
And I'll reiterate again what all of us are saying, as long as the PvP is consensual then I'm fine with it. What I'm not fine is being forced to PvP when that's not what I want to do. It's like me telling you that you have to complete a 40 man raid to be able to PvP. You don't want that and I don't want to have to be forced to PvP to get to my PvE.
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!!!
I guess I don't understand why the pvprs have to be the ones to just give up all their wants and desires for a game just because the largest group who already has the largest pool of GREAT games to play from has to have EVERY single game that hits the horizon to be an exact copy of the ones previous to it.
Where is the developer supported PvE sandbox?
I can name several PvP ones...
Exactly. There are Zero PvE focused Sandbox games to choose from where if I was into PvP I could choose Eve, Darkfall, Mortal Online and soon ArcheAge, Repopulation, Star Citizen and CU.
Sandbox without danger is pointless and boring. It's basically minecraft with pvp turned off. Yawn.
Opinions are not facts and your post is ALL opinion. I find open world, non instanced, exploration centric PvE gameplay with house building and Role Play elements amazingly fun and entertaining. But I could care less if PvP is instituted in the game for people like yourselves to have fun. What I don't want is your fun at the expense of mine.
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!!!
opinions don't make fact, no matter how you try and make it so by plugging your ears and screaming no no no pvp is baaaaad mkaaaay! The truth is, in every game where open pvp was the intent from the start these mechanics have not been a problem but for the smallest of percentage of players, its only the games who try to implement open world pvp in a theme park setting that wasn't originally designed for it do these balance issues exist.
So I said before:
You have 99.5% of the market to choose from, quit trying to mangina up the one game coming out in the next couple of years with some actual vision to change the oversimplified facebook online for sheeple genre of mmo gaming. You want to be a perfect little carebear protected from evil?
play: WoW, Gw2, Rift, Secret World, WAR, FF XIV, Neverwinter, STO, EQ, EQ2, Perfect World, Wildstar, etc etc etc etc etc and let ONE fn game this century have a CHANCE at actually changing your mind before you throw it in the mud with your little tantrums and falsehoods over pvp or those who enjoy the gameplay style.
1. This is one of the reasons people dont want non consensual PvP: because of condescending shit like this. You are simultaneously being condescending and acting like a bratty 2 year old.
2. Your last paragraph is the exact opposite of what PvE sandbox fans are going through. PvE players have been waiting for a sandbox ever since the NGE destroyed SWG's population. PvP sandboxers at least have EvE, Darkfall, and ArcheAge soon.
and the most ironic part is, its ok when its a passive aggressive non pvp'r doing it, but if you are overtly aggressive all the sudden its not politically correct to be so "mean!" Give me a break with your strawman argument, please.
Just because the tone of my voice makes your heartstrings get pulled a certain way doesn't make the truth any less true.
The irony is actually that you are accusing the PvE sandbox crowd of doing the EXACT thing you are doing: Instead of being happy with the fact that the current sandbox options are PvP, you have to gang together to try to make a PvE franchise embrace PvP too.
Furthermore, everyone seems to support having a FFA PvP server anyway, even though the other games dont have a PvE server.
except Smedly said this game isn't going to be a franchise game, its a reboot. so yea. next argument please? You want a reboot with better graphics, choose from the myriad of other games on the market today that fit that same genre of playstyle!
Actually he never said its not going to be 'franchise game'. He said it was the next game in the franchise and they wanted it to be different from the previous two games as well as a majority of what we have on the market today.
The game is still part of the EQ franchise, they are banking on the name recognition to draw people in, they said the game would be familiar while being different at the same time. They said players would be able to choose how they live in the world and won't be told how to live by the developer/content.
and you can still choose in eve how to live with out being told by the developers and guess what *GASP* its an open pvp non consensual sandbox OMGRRRRD!!! Why didn't the world end?!
So you post Smed said it isnt a franchise game, I post to correct you that it is a franchise game, and you somehow pull Eve into the discussion? Did I miss something?
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?!"
I guess I don't understand why the pvprs have to be the ones to just give up all their wants and desires for a game just because the largest group who already has the largest pool of GREAT games to play from has to have EVERY single game that hits the horizon to be an exact copy of the ones previous to it.
Where is the developer supported PvE sandbox?
I can name several PvP ones...
Of course not because the ones they try to put out you carebears drop after 2 months like a bad habit *(Cough SWG, Asherons Call, etc anyone?)* or get so radically changed in beta because it doesn't follow the hold your hand themepark that they change it.
Hence my argument from post #1. Let change actually have a chance before you denounce how bad it is!
SWG: not around anymore. And it failed when it tried to go themepark, but was doing pretty well as a very broken sandbox.
AC: open world, non themepark. It is NOT a sandbox
I actually worked at Sony when SWG was doing the conversion, and let me tell you it was NOT doing "well" before the attempt to go themepark, the attempt was a direct result of the game NOT doing well but nice try. I never played AC, others called it a sandbox.
The games Ive played for longer than 3 months or I worked on:
swg, eve, eq 1, eq2, wow, rift beta, war beta (Both ruined by changes to the pvp before launch due to whining), DAoC. As you can see from my somewhat short list of games I am not what you would call your diehard openworld pvp fan either but what I am dying for is a change. I do like pvp, I don't like getting open world ganked but I will trade that happening for a CHANCE that the results of a more vibrant, alive world.
What I won't do is blame pvp'rs for a lack of dedication to the playstyle from devs. I won't cry to have a game changed before I even know the BASE mechanics behind it just because it MIGHT have open world pvp. What we need is innovation, as long as you never let the devs try to innovate we will alway be playing WoW attempt 2.0
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
I guess I don't understand why the pvprs have to be the ones to just give up all their wants and desires for a game just because the largest group who already has the largest pool of GREAT games to play from has to have EVERY single game that hits the horizon to be an exact copy of the ones previous to it.
Where is the developer supported PvE sandbox?
I can name several PvP ones...
Exactly. There are Zero PvE focused Sandbox games to choose from where if I was into PvP I could choose Eve, Darkfall, Mortal Online and soon ArcheAge, Repopulation, Star Citizen and CU.
Sandbox without danger is pointless and boring. It's basically minecraft with pvp turned off. Yawn.
Minecraft with a graphical quality of a Triple-A MMO and meaningful combat would be an amazing game IMO.
That would be an opinion for me.
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!!!
I'm not big on pvp. Really only liked it in daoc. I wouldn't mind a more focused ffa pvp if there were actually some consequences, instead of indiscriminate griefing you always see.
Make the cities safe zones. Make people who PK outlaws who can't enter the cities normally. Only underground routes and such. Kind of like Freeport in EQ. Roaming guards throughout the world. Bounties placed. Being a PKer should not be an easy life to live. They're murderers, treat them like such.
This also offers some great RP imo. A person can go around killing whomever they want, and they wouldn't just be the typical prick you encounter in every pvp game, they would be a notorious criminal, a bloodthirsty savage who has shunned all forms of law but their own.
I think only the most dedicated would take that route because it would be too much of a hassle to never really be able to enter anywhere safely, always looking over your shoulder.
Or hell, make it if people want to be a PKer, they flag themselves for permadeath. Going to have a lot less people wanting to grief if they know they will lose their characters. I can see some wanting to do it. I wouldn't even mind seeing those players get a bonus in power because they are living on the edge.
PvP could would for EQN, but no way with any of the systems in place in current MMOs. Needs A LOT MORE depth. Otherwise you have just another niche game struggling to make ends meet, and SOE is looking to do a lot more than that.
I guess I don't understand why the pvprs have to be the ones to just give up all their wants and desires for a game just because the largest group who already has the largest pool of GREAT games to play from has to have EVERY single game that hits the horizon to be an exact copy of the ones previous to it.
Where is the developer supported PvE sandbox?
I can name several PvP ones...
Of course not because the ones they try to put out you carebears drop after 2 months like a bad habit *(Cough SWG, Asherons Call, etc anyone?)* or get so radically changed in beta because it doesn't follow the hold your hand themepark that they change it.
Hence my argument from post #1. Let change actually have a chance before you denounce how bad it is!
SWG: not around anymore. And it failed when it tried to go themepark, but was doing pretty well as a very broken sandbox.
AC: open world, non themepark. It is NOT a sandbox
I actually worked at Sony when SWG was doing the conversion, and let me tell you it was NOT doing "well" before the attempt to go themepark, the attempt was a direct result of the game NOT doing well but nice try. I never played AC, others called it a sandbox.
The games Ive played for longer than 3 months or I worked on:
swg, eve, eq 1, eq2, wow, rift beta, war beta (Both ruined by changes to the pvp before launch due to whining), DAoC. As you can see from my somewhat short list of games I am not what you would call your diehard openworld pvp fan either but what I am dying for is a change. I do like pvp, I don't like getting open world ganked but I will trade that happening for a CHANCE that the results of a more vibrant, alive world.
What I won't do is blame pvp'rs for a lack of dedication to the playstyle from devs. I won't cry to have a game changed before I even know the BASE mechanics behind it just because it MIGHT have open world pvp. What we need is innovation, as long as you never let the devs try to innovate we will alway be playing WoW attempt 2.0
And why is open world FFA PvP the only way to innovate?
See that? There are dozens, hundreds of ways you could innovate a game that has nothing to do with PvP, so if it's innovation you want, why is this ONE THING so important?
You know who supported the game for 14 years? PVE players.
For whatever reason, PVP players are not very loyal to their games, if PVP players would have stuck with their game and server SoE would have supported the playstyle, but you didn't stick with the game, you bailed on it.
So when PVP players say they have no game...well you bail on half the game you play.
Same thing happened on the Vanguard PVP servers. You bailed on the game. PVP servers lost population way faster than PVE.
The Vanguard PVP server was a FFA PVP server. You bailed on it, until SoE didn't care anymore and closed all PVP Vanguard servers and left the PVE ones online.
I guess I don't understand why the pvprs have to be the ones to just give up all their wants and desires for a game just because the largest group who already has the largest pool of GREAT games to play from has to have EVERY single game that hits the horizon to be an exact copy of the ones previous to it.
Where is the developer supported PvE sandbox?
I can name several PvP ones...
Of course not because the ones they try to put out you carebears drop after 2 months like a bad habit *(Cough SWG, Asherons Call, etc anyone?)* or get so radically changed in beta because it doesn't follow the hold your hand themepark that they change it.
Hence my argument from post #1. Let change actually have a chance before you denounce how bad it is!
SWG: not around anymore. And it failed when it tried to go themepark, but was doing pretty well as a very broken sandbox.
AC: open world, non themepark. It is NOT a sandbox
AC was a sandbox. Just because it didn't have forced PvP does not a sandbox game make.
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!!!
You know who supported the game for 14 years? PVE players.
For whatever reason, PVP players are not very loyal to their games, if PVP players would have stuck with their game and server SoE would have supported the playstyle, but you didn't stick with the game, you bailed on it.
So when PVP players say they have no game...well you bail on half the game you play.
They also bailed on DAoC FFA servers too. But who's counting.
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!!!
I actually worked at Sony when SWG was doing the conversion, and let me tell you it was NOT doing "well" before the attempt to go themepark, the attempt was a direct result of the game NOT doing well but nice try. I never played AC, others called it a sandbox.
The games Ive played for longer than 3 months or I worked on:
swg, eve, eq 1, eq2, wow, rift beta, war beta (Both ruined by changes to the pvp before launch due to whining), DAoC. As you can see from my somewhat short list of games I am not what you would call your diehard openworld pvp fan either but what I am dying for is a change. I do like pvp, I don't like getting open world ganked but I will trade that happening for a CHANCE that the results of a more vibrant, alive world.
What I won't do is blame pvp'rs for a lack of dedication to the playstyle from devs. I won't cry to have a game changed before I even know the BASE mechanics behind it just because it MIGHT have open world pvp. What we need is innovation, as long as you never let the devs try to innovate we will alway be playing WoW attempt 2.0
In most of those games where PvP was changed at the last minute was actually due to the whining of the PvPers, not the PvEers. If you go into the forums of any game and read the PvP section its PvPers whining about PvP and demanding Nerfs, Changes, Etc. Problem with PvP is PvPers claim to know what they want, but when asked you get about a million different answers and then fights break out and the thread goes to crap. Ask a PvE'er what they want for PvP and a majority will say "As long as I can Opt out and you don't mess with the PvE side, I don't care what you do"
So in all, PvP has sucked in many games because of the PvPers themselves. PvPers are their own worst enemy.
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?!"
I actually worked at Sony when SWG was doing the conversion, and let me tell you it was NOT doing "well" before the attempt to go themepark, the attempt was a direct result of the game NOT doing well but nice try. I never played AC, others called it a sandbox.
The games Ive played for longer than 3 months or I worked on:
swg, eve, eq 1, eq2, wow, rift beta, war beta (Both ruined by changes to the pvp before launch due to whining), DAoC. As you can see from my somewhat short list of games I am not what you would call your diehard openworld pvp fan either but what I am dying for is a change. I do like pvp, I don't like getting open world ganked but I will trade that happening for a CHANCE that the results of a more vibrant, alive world.
What I won't do is blame pvp'rs for a lack of dedication to the playstyle from devs. I won't cry to have a game changed before I even know the BASE mechanics behind it just because it MIGHT have open world pvp. What we need is innovation, as long as you never let the devs try to innovate we will alway be playing WoW attempt 2.0
It had over 250k, and it was a very broken game. Vanguard was closer to a finished game when it launched than SWG was. You can count on one hand the MMORPGs that sustained over 250k western subs for a year + and SWG was one of them (EQ, WoW, EvE, SWG and I guess SWTOR)
What does PvP have to do with innovation anyway? You really have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
I noticed Darkfall isnt on your list of games (nor do you seem to currently be playing AoW) so maybe instead of blaming the developers for not changing why not go and play one of the games that *is* different?
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
PVPers have shown their dislike of tacked on PVP.
and PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers have shown their dislike for full on Open PVP. heres the dirty secret the pure PVPers are the vocal minority and the PVE'rs and Consensual PVPer PAY good money for your content and your servers. PVP servers are always the least populated and always have the lowest number of servers.
you PVPer should be thanking and kissing the feet of PVE'rs/Consensual PVPers ... not trying to run them off. without their money "your" PVP paradise fails and the game dies.
Elitist much?
The problem is that PVP in most mmo's, the pvp "server" is always a TACKED on pvp option. They didn't design the game around pvp and it shows, and that's why pvp servers are usually lower pop, because the game wasn't designed for it and the pvp doesn't really pan out in any meaningful way.
Since old UO there has not been a SINGLE ffa open world sandbox mmorpg from any major AAA publisher. Only a few small indie attempts that have no where near the money for the game to compete on any kind of level playing field against the likes of WoW or other huge 50+million budget mmo's.
However there has been Eve, which was a niche mmo that has CoNSTANTLY grown and is one of the highest subscription based mmo's still on the market. It has shown that there IS a market for PVP mmo's that are DESIGNED with this in mind.
On top of this, for those of us few who actually got to experience full ffa pvp first hand in either UO or Eve, we understand how different it can be.
Most "PVErs" that are so adamantly against PVP are judging open pvp based on their experiences from mmo's designed with PVE in mind and tacked on PVP (like WoW). Where gear is so important that it "makes" your character and where there's no realy point to pvp, no consequences for killing someone, no rewards , just mindless tacked on pvp with no meaning, and then the people ASSUME that all open pvp in an mmo has to be that way, but it doesn't.
Enlighten us with your excuses for all of the PvP centric MMOs that built it into the game from the ground up? You guys always have some excuse except the most obvious, PvP in a MMO setting is not nearly as popular as you would like it to be.
AC was a sandbox. Just because it didn't have forced PvP does not a sandbox game make.
Could players alter the landscape of Asheron's call or make meaningful changes to the game world?
Having a skill system for character building does not a sandbox game make either. Players have to be able to change the world in some way. i know the devs did in AC, not so sure about the players though.
Smed metioned EVE Online and went on to mention a few more and if I am catchin his drift correctly this is where its going folks and yall can think and feel how ya like its going to be a niche game:
Its going to be player driven so 6 months after release a notable part of Norrath could look alot different then from the beginning and even go from there.
This means competition between players and either with or against MOBs/NPCs according to faction
Dynamic environmental changes and atmosphere including weather and seasons
Players build able to build and construct buildings and possibly cities
Siege warfare has to be a part of the game as how would players be able to take down constructed buildings and walls? You can't have siege warfare without PvP
PvP simply has to go along with this type of dynamic as it does in EVE Online and look at that games success over the years...
Player driven economy will surely go hand in hand with all of this kind of game design as Smed even mentioned there would be a difference in this aspect between EQN and EQ1, EQ2, and other games of similar design
If a forest can be burnt down and another grow somewhere else who knows what could be possible in EQN
I see SOE bringing all the lore of Everquest with the faction dynamic that was so good in Everquest and all of Norrath with all its beasties and layout. Yet the gameplay of EQN could be totally different in many ways.
The future of MMORPGs is PvP yet within a dynamic where there is risk vs reward and if you carelessly and wantlessly go around killing without regard its going to catch up with you. This is the future and your going to have to come to terms with it until computers can think and AI is on par with predictible human behavior your going to have to deal with the evolution of the genre.
So suck it up suckers as it gonna SUX 2 B U! This goes to all the carebears wishin and hopin for the good ol days where they could hold hands with their friends killing too predictible MOBs so they can get lewtz and look pretty whilst they enjoy the daily game of grab assedness in a pixelated reality.
AC was a sandbox. Just because it didn't have forced PvP does not a sandbox game make.
Could players alter the landscape of Asheron's call or make meaningful changes to the game world?
Having a skill system for character building does not a sandbox game make either. Players have to be able to change the world in some way. i know the devs did in AC, not so sure about the players though.
Yup ever heard of the shadow invasions and the defense of Bhaelrezon?
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!!!
For those arguing that the market is too small and that PvPers are nonexistent I suggest you take a moment and think about something. What game is the most popular PC game at the moment? And no, it's not World of WarCraft. It's an entirely PvP driven experience. Then I'd also like for you all to take into consideration the immense success of titles like DayZ which brought the whole conflict driven sandbox experience to the masses. Guess what? People loved it.
So can we please put the silly notion of gamers not liking PvP behind us? The proof is in the pudding and the vast majority of gamers absolutely love player conflict. The trick is doing it right. Most of the failed sandbox MMOs cited here were awful games at just about every level. They didn't fail because they focused on PvP, they failed because they were shoddily designed.
Yet the format for the majority of pvp only gaming is not in the form of MMOs and there is a very good reason for that. Pvp is stressful and most people only want it in small doses, hence the plethora of single player and non-time consuming multiplayer pvp games. MMOs are another beast because they require a lot more effort, a lot more time investment and usually cannot be played in small chunks of time. Add pvp as the mainstay of an MMO and you have a recipe that turns off most gamers. The inability to turn off pvp when you're not in the mood. Having to deal with enough jerks who waste your time and steal your hard earned loot and or XP (something you do not ever suffer in regular multiplayer games). Pvpers can and have blocked other players from progressing by locking off content areas and or quest objectives.
The point is that pvp has a severe and sometimes very negative effect on an MMO that can't be found in other genres.
What about PlanetSide 2 which also happens to be SOE's biggest cash cow?
Let's face it, the money argument doesn't hold up here. The last successful PvE based MMO SOE created was EverQuest and that was at the very dawn of the genre. Things have changed and people aren't going to be satisfied whacking away at automatons. World of WarCraft did all that could be done in regards to themeparks. If EverQuest Next wants to succeed it cannot afford pandering to the dying PvE audience. Even Blizzard's titan is slowly withering away. It needs to embrace PvX and work on making it one organism.
I'm sorry, but have we actually heard how well they are doing financially? It's not even six months old, let alone a year. You have no idea how successful it will be unless you have some kind of crystal ball. EQ and EQ2 are still their cash cows. Even if PS2 does well in the first year, how much longevity does such a shallow MMO have?
AC was a sandbox. Just because it didn't have forced PvP does not a sandbox game make.
Could players alter the landscape of Asheron's call or make meaningful changes to the game world?
Having a skill system for character building does not a sandbox game make either. Players have to be able to change the world in some way. i know the devs did in AC, not so sure about the players though.
Actually you don't need change in a game world to be a sandbox. As long as the game features non linear gameplay, and the ability to things without developmental hurdles. A sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game.
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!!!
EQ had non consensual PVP actually. And the PVP servers died, there is only 1 left, while there are 16 PVE servers.
Some people like non-consensual PVP, but you're delusional if you think it's anything more than a small niche market.
Here son, show us on the doll where the bad pvpers touched you (I am seriously sick of your narrowminded, judgemental replies to any thread with this topic, either make a valid comment on its, PVP's, place in a future, not passed, EQ game with actual facts behind your arguments and I might not just start taking apart the jokes you call arguments).
You know, half of the reason PVE players refuse to do any PVP at all has to do with the attitude problem PVP players have. There's this need to be confrontational with you players, something you don't find on PVE servers.
And the doll didn't touch me anywhere you crazy creep.
Yeah...that was a ridiculous, but totally expected response from a "ganker". Call everyone a "carebear" (which destroys your point completely), and try to make all non hardcore PvPers look like wusses. All while sitting in their mom's basement behind a monitor and keyboard of DOOM!
Get over yourselves PvPers....the majority still doesn't support you.
I hope they make meaningful PvP in EQnext. Stuff I can do when I want. Hell...make it DAoC and I'm there. Make it open world PvP and you lost me.
I keep seeing Planetside 2 being brought up. Seems there's a teensy little problem with citing it as a success for PVP--
It's built, from the ground up, to be a game where groups of people fight other groups of people for territory. Period. There are no quests. There are no NPCs. There aren't any alternate forms of advancing. The game isn't a MMORPG. It's a MMOShooter. It's Battlefield x 10. It's be-all, end-all reason to be played is to kill the other guy and take his base.
No one goes into Planetside 2 expecting to be able to roleplay or mine resources to craft or run dungeons. Even mentioning it as a reason why PVP is viable in a game like Everquest is silly.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I guess I don't understand why the pvprs have to be the ones to just give up all their wants and desires for a game just because the largest group who already has the largest pool of GREAT games to play from has to have EVERY single game that hits the horizon to be an exact copy of the ones previous to it.
Where is the developer supported PvE sandbox?
I can name several PvP ones...
Of course not because the ones they try to put out you carebears drop after 2 months like a bad habit *(Cough SWG, Asherons Call, etc anyone?)* or get so radically changed in beta because it doesn't follow the hold your hand themepark that they change it.
Hence my argument from post #1. Let change actually have a chance before you denounce how bad it is!
SWG: not around anymore. And it failed when it tried to go themepark, but was doing pretty well as a very broken sandbox.
AC: open world, non themepark. It is NOT a sandbox
SWG also had an integrated pvp system that was as much a part of the game as any other system.
Smed metioned EVE Online and went on to mention a few more and if I am catchin his drift correctly this is where its going folks and yall can think and feel how ya like its going to be a niche game:
Its going to be player driven so 6 months after release a notable part of Norrath could look alot different then from the beginning and even go from there.
This means competition between players and either with or against MOBs/NPCs according to faction
Dynamic environmental changes and atmosphere including weather and seasons
Players build able to build and construct buildings and possibly cities
Siege warfare has to be a part of the game as how would players be able to take down constructed buildings and walls? You can't have siege warfare without PvP
PvP simply has to go along with this type of dynamic as it does in EVE Online and look at that games success over the years...
Player driven economy will surely go hand in hand with all of this kind of game design as Smed even mentioned there would be a difference in this aspect between EQN and EQ1, EQ2, and other games of similar design
If a forest can be burnt down and another grow somewhere else who knows what could be possible in EQN
I see SOE bringing all the lore of Everquest with the faction dynamic that was so good in Everquest and all of Norrath with all its beasties and layout. Yet the gameplay of EQN could be totally different in many ways.
The future of MMORPGs is PvP yet within a dynamic where there is risk vs reward and if you carelessly and wantlessly go around killing without regard its going to catch up with you. This is the future and your going to have to come to terms with it until computers can think and AI is on par with predictible human behavior your going to have to deal with the evolution of the genre.
So suck it up suckers as it gonna SUX 2 B U! This goes to all the carebears wishin and hopin for the good ol days where they could hold hands with their friends killing too predictible MOBs so they can get lewtz and look pretty whilst they enjoy the daily game of grab assedness in a pixelated reality.
Keep on wishing. I suppose you still have a 50 / 50 chance one way or the other, but then again, you may have zero chance. Pvp has not traditionally been a big part of the EQ franchise, so I'd say our hypotheses are better than yours at this point. We could be wrong, but who has historical evidence in which to make a more educated guess?
It amazes me that this thread has grown to 30 pages long of people arguing over a game that has yet to release the specifics of its gameplay based on a few vague comments from the dev. At this point everything is speculation, yet people on here are raging.
With that said, IF this game turns out to have full loot PvP the only way I and many other players will play it is if they have some safeguards in place for those who would like to opt out of it. If not, then I doubt the player base for it will be high, but at least the hardcore PvPers will finally have a game all to themselves and can stop whining in the other game threads.
Comments
Sandbox without danger is pointless and boring. It's basically minecraft with pvp turned off. Yawn.
And I'll reiterate again what all of us are saying, as long as the PvP is consensual then I'm fine with it. What I'm not fine is being forced to PvP when that's not what I want to do. It's like me telling you that you have to complete a 40 man raid to be able to PvP. You don't want that and I don't want to have to be forced to PvP to get to my PvE.
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!!!
Opinions are not facts and your post is ALL opinion. I find open world, non instanced, exploration centric PvE gameplay with house building and Role Play elements amazingly fun and entertaining. But I could care less if PvP is instituted in the game for people like yourselves to have fun. What I don't want is your fun at the expense of mine.
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 you post Smed said it isnt a franchise game, I post to correct you that it is a franchise game, and you somehow pull Eve into the discussion? Did I miss something?
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?!"
I actually worked at Sony when SWG was doing the conversion, and let me tell you it was NOT doing "well" before the attempt to go themepark, the attempt was a direct result of the game NOT doing well but nice try. I never played AC, others called it a sandbox.
The games Ive played for longer than 3 months or I worked on:
swg, eve, eq 1, eq2, wow, rift beta, war beta (Both ruined by changes to the pvp before launch due to whining), DAoC. As you can see from my somewhat short list of games I am not what you would call your diehard openworld pvp fan either but what I am dying for is a change. I do like pvp, I don't like getting open world ganked but I will trade that happening for a CHANCE that the results of a more vibrant, alive world.
What I won't do is blame pvp'rs for a lack of dedication to the playstyle from devs. I won't cry to have a game changed before I even know the BASE mechanics behind it just because it MIGHT have open world pvp. What we need is innovation, as long as you never let the devs try to innovate we will alway be playing WoW attempt 2.0
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
Minecraft with a graphical quality of a Triple-A MMO and meaningful combat would be an amazing game IMO.
That would be an opinion for me.
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!!!
I'm not big on pvp. Really only liked it in daoc. I wouldn't mind a more focused ffa pvp if there were actually some consequences, instead of indiscriminate griefing you always see.
Make the cities safe zones. Make people who PK outlaws who can't enter the cities normally. Only underground routes and such. Kind of like Freeport in EQ. Roaming guards throughout the world. Bounties placed. Being a PKer should not be an easy life to live. They're murderers, treat them like such.
This also offers some great RP imo. A person can go around killing whomever they want, and they wouldn't just be the typical prick you encounter in every pvp game, they would be a notorious criminal, a bloodthirsty savage who has shunned all forms of law but their own.
I think only the most dedicated would take that route because it would be too much of a hassle to never really be able to enter anywhere safely, always looking over your shoulder.
Or hell, make it if people want to be a PKer, they flag themselves for permadeath. Going to have a lot less people wanting to grief if they know they will lose their characters. I can see some wanting to do it. I wouldn't even mind seeing those players get a bonus in power because they are living on the edge.
PvP could would for EQN, but no way with any of the systems in place in current MMOs. Needs A LOT MORE depth. Otherwise you have just another niche game struggling to make ends meet, and SOE is looking to do a lot more than that.
And why is open world FFA PvP the only way to innovate?
See that? There are dozens, hundreds of ways you could innovate a game that has nothing to do with PvP, so if it's innovation you want, why is this ONE THING so important?
PVP players had FFA, open world, PVP in EQ.
But you know who bailed on EQ? PVP players.
You know who supported the game for 14 years? PVE players.
For whatever reason, PVP players are not very loyal to their games, if PVP players would have stuck with their game and server SoE would have supported the playstyle, but you didn't stick with the game, you bailed on it.
So when PVP players say they have no game...well you bail on half the game you play.
Same thing happened on the Vanguard PVP servers. You bailed on the game. PVP servers lost population way faster than PVE.
The Vanguard PVP server was a FFA PVP server. You bailed on it, until SoE didn't care anymore and closed all PVP Vanguard servers and left the PVE ones online.
AC was a sandbox. Just because it didn't have forced PvP does not a sandbox game make.
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!!!
They also bailed on DAoC FFA servers too. But who's counting.
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!!!
In most of those games where PvP was changed at the last minute was actually due to the whining of the PvPers, not the PvEers. If you go into the forums of any game and read the PvP section its PvPers whining about PvP and demanding Nerfs, Changes, Etc. Problem with PvP is PvPers claim to know what they want, but when asked you get about a million different answers and then fights break out and the thread goes to crap. Ask a PvE'er what they want for PvP and a majority will say "As long as I can Opt out and you don't mess with the PvE side, I don't care what you do"
So in all, PvP has sucked in many games because of the PvPers themselves. PvPers are their own worst enemy.
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?!"
It had over 250k, and it was a very broken game. Vanguard was closer to a finished game when it launched than SWG was. You can count on one hand the MMORPGs that sustained over 250k western subs for a year + and SWG was one of them (EQ, WoW, EvE, SWG and I guess SWTOR)
What does PvP have to do with innovation anyway? You really have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
I noticed Darkfall isnt on your list of games (nor do you seem to currently be playing AoW) so maybe instead of blaming the developers for not changing why not go and play one of the games that *is* different?
Enlighten us with your excuses for all of the PvP centric MMOs that built it into the game from the ground up? You guys always have some excuse except the most obvious, PvP in a MMO setting is not nearly as popular as you would like it to be.
Could players alter the landscape of Asheron's call or make meaningful changes to the game world?
Having a skill system for character building does not a sandbox game make either. Players have to be able to change the world in some way. i know the devs did in AC, not so sure about the players though.
Smed metioned EVE Online and went on to mention a few more and if I am catchin his drift correctly this is where its going folks and yall can think and feel how ya like its going to be a niche game:
Its going to be player driven so 6 months after release a notable part of Norrath could look alot different then from the beginning and even go from there.
This means competition between players and either with or against MOBs/NPCs according to faction
Dynamic environmental changes and atmosphere including weather and seasons
Players build able to build and construct buildings and possibly cities
Siege warfare has to be a part of the game as how would players be able to take down constructed buildings and walls? You can't have siege warfare without PvP
PvP simply has to go along with this type of dynamic as it does in EVE Online and look at that games success over the years...
Player driven economy will surely go hand in hand with all of this kind of game design as Smed even mentioned there would be a difference in this aspect between EQN and EQ1, EQ2, and other games of similar design
If a forest can be burnt down and another grow somewhere else who knows what could be possible in EQN
I see SOE bringing all the lore of Everquest with the faction dynamic that was so good in Everquest and all of Norrath with all its beasties and layout. Yet the gameplay of EQN could be totally different in many ways.
The future of MMORPGs is PvP yet within a dynamic where there is risk vs reward and if you carelessly and wantlessly go around killing without regard its going to catch up with you. This is the future and your going to have to come to terms with it until computers can think and AI is on par with predictible human behavior your going to have to deal with the evolution of the genre.
So suck it up suckers as it gonna SUX 2 B U! This goes to all the carebears wishin and hopin for the good ol days where they could hold hands with their friends killing too predictible MOBs so they can get lewtz and look pretty whilst they enjoy the daily game of grab assedness in a pixelated reality.
Yup ever heard of the shadow invasions and the defense of Bhaelrezon?
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!!!
I'm sorry, but have we actually heard how well they are doing financially? It's not even six months old, let alone a year. You have no idea how successful it will be unless you have some kind of crystal ball. EQ and EQ2 are still their cash cows. Even if PS2 does well in the first year, how much longevity does such a shallow MMO have?
Actually you don't need change in a game world to be a sandbox. As long as the game features non linear gameplay, and the ability to things without developmental hurdles. A sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.
A sandbox game is also known as an open-world or free-roaming game.
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!!!
Yeah...that was a ridiculous, but totally expected response from a "ganker". Call everyone a "carebear" (which destroys your point completely), and try to make all non hardcore PvPers look like wusses. All while sitting in their mom's basement behind a monitor and keyboard of DOOM!
Get over yourselves PvPers....the majority still doesn't support you.
I hope they make meaningful PvP in EQnext. Stuff I can do when I want. Hell...make it DAoC and I'm there. Make it open world PvP and you lost me.
I keep seeing Planetside 2 being brought up. Seems there's a teensy little problem with citing it as a success for PVP--
It's built, from the ground up, to be a game where groups of people fight other groups of people for territory. Period. There are no quests. There are no NPCs. There aren't any alternate forms of advancing. The game isn't a MMORPG. It's a MMOShooter. It's Battlefield x 10. It's be-all, end-all reason to be played is to kill the other guy and take his base.
No one goes into Planetside 2 expecting to be able to roleplay or mine resources to craft or run dungeons. Even mentioning it as a reason why PVP is viable in a game like Everquest is silly.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
SWG also had an integrated pvp system that was as much a part of the game as any other system.
Keep on wishing. I suppose you still have a 50 / 50 chance one way or the other, but then again, you may have zero chance. Pvp has not traditionally been a big part of the EQ franchise, so I'd say our hypotheses are better than yours at this point. We could be wrong, but who has historical evidence in which to make a more educated guess?
this soo much, loved DAOC make it like that and i will subscribe for years, or hell even a TEF PVP system like SWG was pretty good.
It amazes me that this thread has grown to 30 pages long of people arguing over a game that has yet to release the specifics of its gameplay based on a few vague comments from the dev. At this point everything is speculation, yet people on here are raging.
With that said, IF this game turns out to have full loot PvP the only way I and many other players will play it is if they have some safeguards in place for those who would like to opt out of it. If not, then I doubt the player base for it will be high, but at least the hardcore PvPers will finally have a game all to themselves and can stop whining in the other game threads.