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.
Problem is, if its just them they will get bored and move on to some other game in production. Then they will want to make that game into the PvP haven they want.
And the cycle will begin again.
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 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.
Only one problem, within months when the games player base has left due to the community (or lack thereof) most of those players will have moved to another MMO or come back here to this site to clamor for the next MMO released to feature FFA PvP. It's a never ending vicious cycle because of their inability to compromise on the whole consensual notion. They fail to see the beauty of having consensual PvP within the same game and how diversity is a good thing.
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!!!
Something I think a lot of people are overlooking is the hype it got from MMORPG and TenTonHammer, who specifically has been very harsh towards SOE/Everquest Next. You really think Smed said "$1000 if you say this was your best in show at E3" come on. They are legitimately excited by Everquest Next, and it doesnt sound like "its just another Everquest" or "just another MMO"
I am inclined to agree that after the two awards it got that something is about to change in the MMO market. It's getting high praise from people outside EQN and they can't contain their excitement. The Curse Guy also said he loved what he saw.
Hell...make it DAoC and I'm there. Make it open world PvP and you lost me.
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.
Problem with DAoC is I wanted to kill my own realms players more then I wanted to kill the other realms players...this also occurred to me in Everquest faction vs faction and race war servers.
Also consider that someone on your team could betray the entire team by selling secrets or worse ending up in total betrayal where your team suffers as has happened in MMORPGs.
Only way to work against this dynamic is for Open world PvP as collateral damage should exist and everyone in the area of impact should suffer accordingly.
Immersion is what we should be looking for and no one can argue with gameplay that represents real physics as the outcome of your choices and decisions should be experienced firsthand and reality can bite you in the arse if your not careful and considerate in your actions and decisions. It shouldn't just end up being simply taking your chances as what you do should ultimately affect the entire team you choose to work. grow, and fight alongside.
Much of this thread is people holding on to the past, instead of learning from it. I have no problem with losing or failing; yet I always use such opportunities to learn and rightly so...
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.
Problem is, if its just them they will get bored and move on to some other game in production. Then they will want to make that game into the PvP haven they want.
And the cycle will begin again.
Originally posted by azzamasin
Originally posted by Jadedangel1
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.
Only one problem, within months when the games player base has left due to the community (or lack thereof) most of those players will have moved to another MMO or come back here to this site to clamor for the next MMO released to feature FFA PvP. It's a never ending vicious cycle because of their inability to compromise on the whole consensual notion. They fail to see the beauty of having consensual PvP within the same game and how diversity is a good thing.
Both of you are right. They will get bored, find that its not as satisfying as they expected it to be, post dozens of "This game sux/ EQN Fails" threads, and then go onto other game threads and complain about how hardcore PvPers are never catered to. Yes, definitely a vicious cycle.
Originally posted by Bidwood where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.
So first off, EVE is FAR from non-consensual open world PvP - and that is a LOT of the reason for the success of the game. Most EVE players do not PvP and that's based on CCPs own figures last time I looked. There are very rigid rules to PvP in most of EVE and anyone who isn't a total dimwit has little problem with unwanted player conflict...most of the open world free for all fantasy games since UO have been failures or at best niche games for a lot of very good reasons.
I believe most players want risk (real risk not a lame 5% exp penalty or some other BS trivial death cost) but they want rewards to go with it...they want consequences and choices, not gank-fests.
The ideas that you can affect the world as a character is great; coupled with the idea of player-driven conflict, competition and story it can be a recipe for a very vibrant game...but only if there are rules, consequences and places to just chill. (even if in some places the rules are ' no rules' ; just not everywhere)
By the way, to the people who keep saying "EQN HAS to be like EQ1 or EQ2.. because it's Everquest! Prove it to me!" It has been said and regurgitated by developers 1000x that this is not EQ1 or EQ2 remade, this is not Everquest 3 following the same format.
Pretty much, if you go in expecting EQ1, you will be disappointed. I saw on the official EQ1 website forums people are saying SOE are turning their back on them. So pathetic, a lot of the people who started in 1999 aren't willing to have anything changed. Everquest 1 is severely outdated in playstyle and execution, you can't remake Everquest 1 and call it Everquest 3 and it be successful today.
The idea is that if the players are having fun with each other and going about the world in these events/etc, then they can sustain this fun. The current model of MMORPG where you grind to max level, do the raid, bleed your eyes, wait till it resets on Tuesday, and then quit the game until the next expansion comes out isnt sustainable. Blizzard gets away with it because they are Blizzard, but even they lost 1.3 MILLION players just this past quarter alone.
I for one am very excited by the praise this game is getting outside of SOE (TenTonHammer/MMORPG.com) and it sounds like there is change coming. Which I love.
By the way, to the people who keep saying "EQN HAS to be like EQ1 or EQ2.. because it's Everquest! Prove it to me!" It has been said and regurgitated by developers 1000x that this is not EQ1 or EQ2 remade, this is not Everquest 3 following the same format.
Pretty much, if you go in expecting EQ1, you will be disappointed. I saw on the official EQ website forums people are saying SOE are turning their back on them. So pathetic, a lot of the people who started in 1999 aren't willing to have anything changed. Everquest 1 is severely outdated in playstyle and execution, you can't remake Everquest 1 and call it Everquest 3 and it be successful today.
The idea is that if the players are having fun with each other and going about the world in these events/etc, then they can sustain this fun. The current model of MMORPG where you grind to max level, do the raid, bleed your eyes, wait till it resets on Tuesday, and then quit the game until the next expansion comes out isnt sustainable. Blizzard gets away with it because they are Blizzard, but even they lost 1.3 MILLION players just this past quarter alone.
I for one am very excited by the praise this game is getting outside of SOE (TenTonHammer/MMORPG.com) and it sounds like there is change coming. Which I love.
Agreed with this premise too and I also agree that the hype it got from this site and TTH is noteworthy as well. Which leads me to believe the game will not be like anything else whether it be like EQ nor will it feature FFA PvP. What will it contain? well only those guys and gals know but I fail to see legitimate media sites giving credence to anything featuring FFA PvP.
Also to note I normally wouldn't be here if the game was anything like the original as I found EQ to be one of worst gaming experiences I've played since it featured many elements that were so different from my beloved Asheron's Call. Things like forced grouping, spawn camping, 80 man raids and static boring questing...err fed-ex missions.
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!!!
Originally posted by Bidwood where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.
So first off, EVE is FAR from non-consensual open world PvP - and that is a LOT of the reason for the success of the game. Most EVE players do not PvP and that's based on CCPs own figures last time I looked. There are very rigid rules to PvP in most of EVE and anyone who isn't a total dimwit has little problem with unwanted player conflict...most of the open world free for all fantasy games since UO have been failures or at best niche games for a lot of very good reasons.
I believe most players want risk (real risk not a lame 5% exp penalty or some other BS trivial death cost) but they want rewards to go with it...they want consequences and choices, not gank-fests.
The ideas that you can affect the world as a character is great; coupled with the idea of player-driven conflict, competition and story it can be a recipe for a very vibrant game...but only if there are rules, consequences and places to just chill. (even if in some places the rules are ' no rules' ; just not everywhere)
EXACTLY!
EvE is indeed the perfect system. It does not FORCE you to do or not do anything. You are ABLE to kill someone in a "safe zone" (aka high-sec) but doing so is moronic (why it's known as suicide-ganking). it's not some artificial system like in Darkfall UW where you just can't hurt any other player for some magical reason. it relies on common sense and the fact that dying has MAJOR consequences.
I am an avid PKer and FFA PvPer but I find games like DF and Mortal boring after a while because being a murderous criminal is not challenging. You don't have to put any thought into it or worry about any major repercussions.
Rules and laws are different than mechanics that simply make it IMPOSSIBLE. I should be able to attack anyone at any time for any reason, players or NPCs but doing so comes with consequences if I'm not smart about it. Hell, dark alleys in big cities at night maybe I could get away with jumping someone MAYBE but only if you're lucky that a guard is making his rounds at that point in time.
As for a place to chill, sure, taverns or town squares with guards posted around would be a good spot. Your own house, if you've been able to craft a strong enough lock for your door. Also, hiring guards for your settlement would be a plus for sure, or perhaps some personal bodyguards if you plan on doing any trading.
Even though we are on two sides of the fence, I'm fairly sure there's a system where we could both co-exist. I of course would have to spend most of my time camped out on the fringes of society with a few other outlaws. Hunting for food, occasionally scouting out nearby roads for the odd wanderer to pick off and loot. You would likely spend your time in the major cities, or in your own settlement, guarded by your governments troops and living out your life in relative peace.
Wurm Online is a bit like this on some servers but all in all it is a deeply flawed game. Pity. Hopefully EQN can find the happy medium.
Originally posted by Bidwood where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.
So first off, EVE is FAR from non-consensual open world PvP - and that is a LOT of the reason for the success of the game. Most EVE players do not PvP and that's based on CCPs own figures last time I looked. There are very rigid rules to PvP in most of EVE and anyone who isn't a total dimwit has little problem with unwanted player conflict...most of the open world free for all fantasy games since UO have been failures or at best niche games for a lot of very good reasons.
I believe most players want risk (real risk not a lame 5% exp penalty or some other BS trivial death cost) but they want rewards to go with it...they want consequences and choices, not gank-fests.
The ideas that you can affect the world as a character is great; coupled with the idea of player-driven conflict, competition and story it can be a recipe for a very vibrant game...but only if there are rules, consequences and places to just chill. (even if in some places the rules are ' no rules' ; just not everywhere)
EXACTLY!
EvE is indeed the perfect system. It does not FORCE you to do or not do anything. You are ABLE to kill someone in a "safe zone" (aka high-sec) but doing so is moronic (why it's known as suicide-ganking). it's not some artificial system like in Darkfall UW where you just can't hurt any other player for some magical reason. it relies on common sense and the fact that dying has MAJOR consequences.
I am an avid PKer and FFA PvPer but I find games like DF and Mortal boring after a while because being a murderous criminal is not challenging. You don't have to put any thought into it or worry about any major repercussions.
Rules and laws are different than mechanics that simply make it IMPOSSIBLE. I should be able to attack anyone at any time for any reason, players or NPCs but doing so comes with consequences if I'm not smart about it. Hell, dark alleys in big cities at night maybe I could get away with jumping someone MAYBE but only if you're lucky that a guard is making his rounds at that point in time.
As for a place to chill, sure, taverns or town squares with guards posted around would be a good spot. Your own house, if you've been able to craft a strong enough lock for your door. Also, hiring guards for your settlement would be a plus for sure, or perhaps some personal bodyguards if you plan on doing any trading.
Even though we are on two sides of the fence, I'm fairly sure there's a system where we could both co-exist. I of course would have to spend most of my time camped out on the fringes of society with a few other outlaws. Hunting for food, occasionally scouting out nearby roads for the odd wanderer to pick off and loot. You would likely spend your time in the major cities, or in your own settlement, guarded by your governments troops and living out your life in relative peace.
Wurm Online is a bit like this on some servers but all in all it is a deeply flawed game. Pity. Hopefully EQN can find the happy medium.
What you describe is an interesting concept. But what consequences would be good enough? That is always the magical question..give an inch and they take a yard.
Also you suggest you would be on the "fringes" but it's the people living within the rules that would need to go out of their way to protect themselves from you? That seems counterintuitive. If outlaws messed with commerce, at least throughout history, it was #1 not very profitable on the whole for the vast majority #2 They didn't have long careers and #3 often died young. So if the plan is to make a realistic sandbox came in the confines of your suggestion, then you are the ones who would have to go out of your way. Hit and run raids, moving from city to city to avoid capture and in a gaming sense having a very difficult time accomplishing a whole lot as you would be outcasts from every major trading center (save the black market of course)
This is filled with role play potential for the right player , but considering the technical things that would have to go into something like this...I don't see how it would be possible to realistically make. Plus if not made properly this has whole sale disaster written all over it for people who would take advantage of a system like this made poorly.
I'd be happy with FFA PvP if there was some way to guarantee every player on my server was a roleplayer. But in fact I am more likely to kill ganked just because I am roleplaying.
I'm sorry, it breaks my immersion when a random Holy Paladin just ganks me out of no where because he felt like it and then tea bags me.
If a really good RPer was trying to play a Highwayman or something and tried to rob me. I would fight him regardless of whether the game mechanics actually forced me to or not. But keeping away the in game trolls is plenty enough reason to not have FFA PvP.
I'd be happy with FFA PvP if there was some way to guarantee every player on my server was a roleplayer. But in fact I am more likely to kill ganked just because I am roleplaying.
I'm sorry, it breaks my immersion when a random Holy Paladin just ganks me out of no where because he felt like it and then tea bags me.
If a really good RPer was trying to play a Highwayman or something and tried to rob me. I would fight him regardless of whether the game mechanics actually forced me to or not. But keeping away the in game trolls is plenty enough reason to not have FFA PvP.
Don't forget that it costs nothing to create a new account because this game will be F2P. So ban someone for being a jerk and they laugh and make five more or ten or twenty. /shrug
I'd be happy with FFA PvP if there was some way to guarantee every player on my server was a roleplayer. But in fact I am more likely to kill ganked just because I am roleplaying.
I'm sorry, it breaks my immersion when a random Holy Paladin just ganks me out of no where because he felt like it and then tea bags me.
If a really good RPer was trying to play a Highwayman or something and tried to rob me. I would fight him regardless of whether the game mechanics actually forced me to or not. But keeping away the in game trolls is plenty enough reason to not have FFA PvP.
As a roleplayer I understand your viewpoint and I strongly believe that there needs to be proper systems in place. I'd like to see PvP be tied to your reputation with various factions and races. You kill one of your own kind in cold blood? Expect your reputation with your race to take a huge hit and to be ostracized by your local community. Keep up your murderous behavior and eventually you won't even be let into your own cities anymore. Every choice should come with a consequence. That's what makes it fun.
Killing a good aligned player as an evil troll however would earn you reputation with the evil factions. It would be actively encouraged. The more you killed, the more your peers would come to respect you. The same would go for a good player vanquishing an evil player. For those with no real inclination when it comes to conflict I reckon the neutral races would be a better fit here as players wouldn't really have an incentive to slay you.
I want the world and its systems be designed in a way which organically promotes roleplaying and PvP is a huge part of that and EverQuest really has the perfect setup for this to work. But it needs to be done right. As I said previously you can't just flip on the PvP switch and expect everything to work. But disabling PvP isn't going to keep the trolls away either. In fact, in many instances it enables them by not allowing the player to take matters into his own hands. I've been griefed far more in PvE centric games than I have been in PvP centric games.
Originally posted by Bidwood where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.
So first off, EVE is FAR from non-consensual open world PvP - and that is a LOT of the reason for the success of the game. Most EVE players do not PvP and that's based on CCPs own figures last time I looked. There are very rigid rules to PvP in most of EVE and anyone who isn't a total dimwit has little problem with unwanted player conflict...most of the open world free for all fantasy games since UO have been failures or at best niche games for a lot of very good reasons.
I believe most players want risk (real risk not a lame 5% exp penalty or some other BS trivial death cost) but they want rewards to go with it...they want consequences and choices, not gank-fests.
The ideas that you can affect the world as a character is great; coupled with the idea of player-driven conflict, competition and story it can be a recipe for a very vibrant game...but only if there are rules, consequences and places to just chill. (even if in some places the rules are ' no rules' ; just not everywhere)
EXACTLY!
EvE is indeed the perfect system. It does not FORCE you to do or not do anything. You are ABLE to kill someone in a "safe zone" (aka high-sec) but doing so is moronic (why it's known as suicide-ganking). it's not some artificial system like in Darkfall UW where you just can't hurt any other player for some magical reason. it relies on common sense and the fact that dying has MAJOR consequences.
I am an avid PKer and FFA PvPer but I find games like DF and Mortal boring after a while because being a murderous criminal is not challenging. You don't have to put any thought into it or worry about any major repercussions.
Rules and laws are different than mechanics that simply make it IMPOSSIBLE. I should be able to attack anyone at any time for any reason, players or NPCs but doing so comes with consequences if I'm not smart about it. Hell, dark alleys in big cities at night maybe I could get away with jumping someone MAYBE but only if you're lucky that a guard is making his rounds at that point in time.
As for a place to chill, sure, taverns or town squares with guards posted around would be a good spot. Your own house, if you've been able to craft a strong enough lock for your door. Also, hiring guards for your settlement would be a plus for sure, or perhaps some personal bodyguards if you plan on doing any trading.
Even though we are on two sides of the fence, I'm fairly sure there's a system where we could both co-exist. I of course would have to spend most of my time camped out on the fringes of society with a few other outlaws. Hunting for food, occasionally scouting out nearby roads for the odd wanderer to pick off and loot. You would likely spend your time in the major cities, or in your own settlement, guarded by your governments troops and living out your life in relative peace.
Wurm Online is a bit like this on some servers but all in all it is a deeply flawed game. Pity. Hopefully EQN can find the happy medium.
What you describe is an interesting concept. But what consequences would be good enough? That is always the magical question..give an inch and they take a yard.
Also you suggest you would be on the "fringes" but it's the people living within the rules that would need to go out of their way to protect themselves from you? That seems counterintuitive. If outlaws messed with commerce, at least throughout history, it was #1 not very profitable on the whole for the vast majority #2 They didn't have long careers and #3 often died young. So if the plan is to make a realistic sandbox came in the confines of your suggestion, then you are the ones who would have to go out of your way. Hit and run raids, moving from city to city to avoid capture and in a gaming sense having a very difficult time accomplishing a whole lot as you would be outcasts from every major trading center (save the black market of course)
This is filled with role play potential for the right player , but considering the technical things that would have to go into something like this...I don't see how it would be possible to realistically make. Plus if not made properly this has whole sale disaster written all over it for people who would take advantage of a system like this made poorly.
You get it. I didn't mean to imply that the law-abiding citizens would be the ones going out of their way. Maybe only so far as taking precautions when venturing too far from the confines of their nation's center. The criminals would and should be taking MUCH more risks and having to be constantly trying to avoid capture. Maybe not always on the run, as in a fantasy world they wouldn't necessarily have the same systems as we have these days. Certainly, it should be much harder for criminals, but those that do manage, the small minority, could be come amazingly notorious and become a serious part of the player-driven lore.
And I agree, it would be very hard to make and balance properly but I think it could be possible if a developer was dedicated enough to providing, quite frankly, a very dynamic and interesting game-world.
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. probably if it doesnt turn out to be more "ship to ship combat like promise"
This means competition between players and either with or against MOBs/NPCs according to faction
thats not true and even if it is it doesnt mean we wil have to build our house in a pvpable zone or that if we arent pvp flagged people can attack it
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
OH BUT YOU CAN players siegeing npc citys npcs siegeing player cities and anyway it doesnt mean we will be forced into it i wouldnt mind if it was consenual
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... thats just your biased opinion
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.
Yes the future is forced pvp when its failed every other time suuure again your OPINION
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.
If you want non consenual pvp so badly commit a crime.; and go to prision its ffa pvp! BEST graphics ever! real consequences,learn how to construct weapons out of ANYTHING, brew your own liqure out of your very own cell , why you might even get a "friend" who will keep you warm at night, enjoy the diverse pvp modes like dont drop the soap and shank the bitch who ratted and the weekly massive prison riot system where you try and take out the guards while haveing to watch out for other prisoners
NOTE my comments where in blue if it wasnt obvious
A game can have open pvp without making it desirable, easy, or with little risk to gank people.
If they opt to go for some open world pvp I'm sure they can find a way to do it to add freedom to the game without making it desirable for darkfall like squads of people to troll people off the servers.
I'm open to the idea if it's done in a way that makes the game more interesting.
Hell I played on many MUDs prior to Ultima Online's release that had full open world pvp at all times, and you could take everyone's stuff if you wanted. I didn't go around just killing people for no reason and neither did 99.9% of the other players. When one did, they were pounced on. The game didn't make it desirable for you to engage in that behavior.
consensual PVP is the way to to go, you give people incentives to flip the PVP flag on not force those them, thats just going to drive people away like its done with every FFA PVP MMORPG ever made. Maybe along with Smeds "faction" tweet this gives us more insight on their PVP system.
Faction are super important, give people incentive to join specific factions and be "overt" like SWG did way back in the day. give them special missions against the opposing factions with special perks for completing these quests even "bases" or keeps that have to be defended from opposing factions every X amount of hours (if i remember correctly you had to defend a base you placed every 36 hours or something)
LIKE SWG DID.
the funny thing is SWG WAS built from the ground up with PVP in mind, it had a great PVP system that was a complete opt in system.
I'd be happy with FFA PvP if there was some way to guarantee every player on my server was a roleplayer. But in fact I am more likely to kill ganked just because I am roleplaying.
I'm sorry, it breaks my immersion when a random Holy Paladin just ganks me out of no where because he felt like it and then tea bags me.
If a really good RPer was trying to play a Highwayman or something and tried to rob me. I would fight him regardless of whether the game mechanics actually forced me to or not. But keeping away the in game trolls is plenty enough reason to not have FFA PvP.
Don't forget that it costs nothing to create a new account because this game will be F2P. So ban someone for being a jerk and they laugh and make five more or ten or twenty. /shrug
People keep using that argument, but there's nothing to support it being a reality beyond a possible rare occurrence. I mean, if that was regularly happening, we'd have hundreds of free to play games and their forums to link to with examples of this. One would think that either gamers would have stopped playing free to play games by now or the devs would have come up with a solution for this problem.
So, is it possible this problem you suggest is possible, but in reality not all that probable?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Naowut Everything is more fun when its not consensual.
Aaaaaaand now it's a party.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'd be happy with FFA PvP if there was some way to guarantee every player on my server was a roleplayer. But in fact I am more likely to kill ganked just because I am roleplaying.
I'm sorry, it breaks my immersion when a random Holy Paladin just ganks me out of no where because he felt like it and then tea bags me.
If a really good RPer was trying to play a Highwayman or something and tried to rob me. I would fight him regardless of whether the game mechanics actually forced me to or not. But keeping away the in game trolls is plenty enough reason to not have FFA PvP.
Don't forget that it costs nothing to create a new account because this game will be F2P. So ban someone for being a jerk and they laugh and make five more or ten or twenty. /shrug
People keep using that argument, but there's nothing to support it being a reality beyond a possible rare occurrence. I mean, if that was regularly happening, we'd have hundreds of free to play games and their forums to link to with examples of this. One would think that either gamers would have stopped playing free to play games by now or the devs would have come up with a solution for this problem.
So, is it possible this problem you suggest is possible, but in reality not all that probable?
errr what are you talking about this is in fact a issue in several F2P MMOs, and has been stated on forums before.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
Comments
Problem is, if its just them they will get bored and move on to some other game in production. Then they will want to make that game into the PvP haven they want.
And the cycle will begin again.
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?!"
Only one problem, within months when the games player base has left due to the community (or lack thereof) most of those players will have moved to another MMO or come back here to this site to clamor for the next MMO released to feature FFA PvP. It's a never ending vicious cycle because of their inability to compromise on the whole consensual notion. They fail to see the beauty of having consensual PvP within the same game and how diversity is a good thing.
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!!!
Something I think a lot of people are overlooking is the hype it got from MMORPG and TenTonHammer, who specifically has been very harsh towards SOE/Everquest Next. You really think Smed said "$1000 if you say this was your best in show at E3" come on. They are legitimately excited by Everquest Next, and it doesnt sound like "its just another Everquest" or "just another MMO"
I am inclined to agree that after the two awards it got that something is about to change in the MMO market. It's getting high praise from people outside EQN and they can't contain their excitement. The Curse Guy also said he loved what he saw.
Problem with DAoC is I wanted to kill my own realms players more then I wanted to kill the other realms players...this also occurred to me in Everquest faction vs faction and race war servers.
Also consider that someone on your team could betray the entire team by selling secrets or worse ending up in total betrayal where your team suffers as has happened in MMORPGs.
Only way to work against this dynamic is for Open world PvP as collateral damage should exist and everyone in the area of impact should suffer accordingly.
Immersion is what we should be looking for and no one can argue with gameplay that represents real physics as the outcome of your choices and decisions should be experienced firsthand and reality can bite you in the arse if your not careful and considerate in your actions and decisions. It shouldn't just end up being simply taking your chances as what you do should ultimately affect the entire team you choose to work. grow, and fight alongside.
Much of this thread is people holding on to the past, instead of learning from it. I have no problem with losing or failing; yet I always use such opportunities to learn and rightly so...
Haven't heard of Elder Scrolls Online or Camelot Unchained I take it?
Both of you are right. They will get bored, find that its not as satisfying as they expected it to be, post dozens of "This game sux/ EQN Fails" threads, and then go onto other game threads and complain about how hardcore PvPers are never catered to. Yes, definitely a vicious cycle.
So first off, EVE is FAR from non-consensual open world PvP - and that is a LOT of the reason for the success of the game. Most EVE players do not PvP and that's based on CCPs own figures last time I looked. There are very rigid rules to PvP in most of EVE and anyone who isn't a total dimwit has little problem with unwanted player conflict...most of the open world free for all fantasy games since UO have been failures or at best niche games for a lot of very good reasons.
I believe most players want risk (real risk not a lame 5% exp penalty or some other BS trivial death cost) but they want rewards to go with it...they want consequences and choices, not gank-fests.
The ideas that you can affect the world as a character is great; coupled with the idea of player-driven conflict, competition and story it can be a recipe for a very vibrant game...but only if there are rules, consequences and places to just chill. (even if in some places the rules are ' no rules' ; just not everywhere)
By the way, to the people who keep saying "EQN HAS to be like EQ1 or EQ2.. because it's Everquest! Prove it to me!" It has been said and regurgitated by developers 1000x that this is not EQ1 or EQ2 remade, this is not Everquest 3 following the same format.
Pretty much, if you go in expecting EQ1, you will be disappointed. I saw on the official EQ1 website forums people are saying SOE are turning their back on them. So pathetic, a lot of the people who started in 1999 aren't willing to have anything changed. Everquest 1 is severely outdated in playstyle and execution, you can't remake Everquest 1 and call it Everquest 3 and it be successful today.
The idea is that if the players are having fun with each other and going about the world in these events/etc, then they can sustain this fun. The current model of MMORPG where you grind to max level, do the raid, bleed your eyes, wait till it resets on Tuesday, and then quit the game until the next expansion comes out isnt sustainable. Blizzard gets away with it because they are Blizzard, but even they lost 1.3 MILLION players just this past quarter alone.
I for one am very excited by the praise this game is getting outside of SOE (TenTonHammer/MMORPG.com) and it sounds like there is change coming. Which I love.
Agreed with this premise too and I also agree that the hype it got from this site and TTH is noteworthy as well. Which leads me to believe the game will not be like anything else whether it be like EQ nor will it feature FFA PvP. What will it contain? well only those guys and gals know but I fail to see legitimate media sites giving credence to anything featuring FFA PvP.
Also to note I normally wouldn't be here if the game was anything like the original as I found EQ to be one of worst gaming experiences I've played since it featured many elements that were so different from my beloved Asheron's Call. Things like forced grouping, spawn camping, 80 man raids and static boring questing...err fed-ex missions.
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!!!
EXACTLY!
EvE is indeed the perfect system. It does not FORCE you to do or not do anything. You are ABLE to kill someone in a "safe zone" (aka high-sec) but doing so is moronic (why it's known as suicide-ganking). it's not some artificial system like in Darkfall UW where you just can't hurt any other player for some magical reason. it relies on common sense and the fact that dying has MAJOR consequences.
I am an avid PKer and FFA PvPer but I find games like DF and Mortal boring after a while because being a murderous criminal is not challenging. You don't have to put any thought into it or worry about any major repercussions.
Rules and laws are different than mechanics that simply make it IMPOSSIBLE. I should be able to attack anyone at any time for any reason, players or NPCs but doing so comes with consequences if I'm not smart about it. Hell, dark alleys in big cities at night maybe I could get away with jumping someone MAYBE but only if you're lucky that a guard is making his rounds at that point in time.
As for a place to chill, sure, taverns or town squares with guards posted around would be a good spot. Your own house, if you've been able to craft a strong enough lock for your door. Also, hiring guards for your settlement would be a plus for sure, or perhaps some personal bodyguards if you plan on doing any trading.
Even though we are on two sides of the fence, I'm fairly sure there's a system where we could both co-exist. I of course would have to spend most of my time camped out on the fringes of society with a few other outlaws. Hunting for food, occasionally scouting out nearby roads for the odd wanderer to pick off and loot. You would likely spend your time in the major cities, or in your own settlement, guarded by your governments troops and living out your life in relative peace.
Wurm Online is a bit like this on some servers but all in all it is a deeply flawed game. Pity. Hopefully EQN can find the happy medium.
What you describe is an interesting concept. But what consequences would be good enough? That is always the magical question..give an inch and they take a yard.
Also you suggest you would be on the "fringes" but it's the people living within the rules that would need to go out of their way to protect themselves from you? That seems counterintuitive. If outlaws messed with commerce, at least throughout history, it was #1 not very profitable on the whole for the vast majority #2 They didn't have long careers and #3 often died young. So if the plan is to make a realistic sandbox came in the confines of your suggestion, then you are the ones who would have to go out of your way. Hit and run raids, moving from city to city to avoid capture and in a gaming sense having a very difficult time accomplishing a whole lot as you would be outcasts from every major trading center (save the black market of course)
This is filled with role play potential for the right player , but considering the technical things that would have to go into something like this...I don't see how it would be possible to realistically make. Plus if not made properly this has whole sale disaster written all over it for people who would take advantage of a system like this made poorly.
I'd be happy with FFA PvP if there was some way to guarantee every player on my server was a roleplayer. But in fact I am more likely to kill ganked just because I am roleplaying.
I'm sorry, it breaks my immersion when a random Holy Paladin just ganks me out of no where because he felt like it and then tea bags me.
If a really good RPer was trying to play a Highwayman or something and tried to rob me. I would fight him regardless of whether the game mechanics actually forced me to or not. But keeping away the in game trolls is plenty enough reason to not have FFA PvP.
Don't forget that it costs nothing to create a new account because this game will be F2P. So ban someone for being a jerk and they laugh and make five more or ten or twenty. /shrug
As a roleplayer I understand your viewpoint and I strongly believe that there needs to be proper systems in place. I'd like to see PvP be tied to your reputation with various factions and races. You kill one of your own kind in cold blood? Expect your reputation with your race to take a huge hit and to be ostracized by your local community. Keep up your murderous behavior and eventually you won't even be let into your own cities anymore. Every choice should come with a consequence. That's what makes it fun.
Killing a good aligned player as an evil troll however would earn you reputation with the evil factions. It would be actively encouraged. The more you killed, the more your peers would come to respect you. The same would go for a good player vanquishing an evil player. For those with no real inclination when it comes to conflict I reckon the neutral races would be a better fit here as players wouldn't really have an incentive to slay you.
I want the world and its systems be designed in a way which organically promotes roleplaying and PvP is a huge part of that and EverQuest really has the perfect setup for this to work. But it needs to be done right. As I said previously you can't just flip on the PvP switch and expect everything to work. But disabling PvP isn't going to keep the trolls away either. In fact, in many instances it enables them by not allowing the player to take matters into his own hands. I've been griefed far more in PvE centric games than I have been in PvP centric games.
You get it. I didn't mean to imply that the law-abiding citizens would be the ones going out of their way. Maybe only so far as taking precautions when venturing too far from the confines of their nation's center. The criminals would and should be taking MUCH more risks and having to be constantly trying to avoid capture. Maybe not always on the run, as in a fantasy world they wouldn't necessarily have the same systems as we have these days. Certainly, it should be much harder for criminals, but those that do manage, the small minority, could be come amazingly notorious and become a serious part of the player-driven lore.
And I agree, it would be very hard to make and balance properly but I think it could be possible if a developer was dedicated enough to providing, quite frankly, a very dynamic and interesting game-world.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/nerdkingdom/tug-1
Check it out. Its a game called TUG that was in kickstarter for a bit and hit its goal. Basically does everything you just asked of it.
NOTE my comments where in blue if it wasnt obvious
A game can have open pvp without making it desirable, easy, or with little risk to gank people.
If they opt to go for some open world pvp I'm sure they can find a way to do it to add freedom to the game without making it desirable for darkfall like squads of people to troll people off the servers.
I'm open to the idea if it's done in a way that makes the game more interesting.
Hell I played on many MUDs prior to Ultima Online's release that had full open world pvp at all times, and you could take everyone's stuff if you wanted. I didn't go around just killing people for no reason and neither did 99.9% of the other players. When one did, they were pounced on. The game didn't make it desirable for you to engage in that behavior.
consensual PVP is the way to to go, you give people incentives to flip the PVP flag on not force those them, thats just going to drive people away like its done with every FFA PVP MMORPG ever made. Maybe along with Smeds "faction" tweet this gives us more insight on their PVP system.
Faction are super important, give people incentive to join specific factions and be "overt" like SWG did way back in the day. give them special missions against the opposing factions with special perks for completing these quests even "bases" or keeps that have to be defended from opposing factions every X amount of hours (if i remember correctly you had to defend a base you placed every 36 hours or something)
LIKE SWG DID.
the funny thing is SWG WAS built from the ground up with PVP in mind, it had a great PVP system that was a complete opt in system.
Yup, not hard to do.
People keep using that argument, but there's nothing to support it being a reality beyond a possible rare occurrence. I mean, if that was regularly happening, we'd have hundreds of free to play games and their forums to link to with examples of this. One would think that either gamers would have stopped playing free to play games by now or the devs would have come up with a solution for this problem.
So, is it possible this problem you suggest is possible, but in reality not all that probable?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Aaaaaaand now it's a party.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
errr what are you talking about this is in fact a issue in several F2P MMOs, and has been stated on forums before.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.