Bending over backwards, I would say I would play the game if PvP could ONLY take place if:
-Both players/groups wanted to fight eachother
-There was a VERY good reason for player A to attack player B
-Criminals were permanently send to a prison zone where noone else had any reason to ever go. There they could fight each other and the local wild life, but never return.
Single games have existed for years with PvP and PvE servers and worked fine. The first EQ had them. Certainly, SOE could still manage this.
Why do you want to force PvP on everyone, when you could have entire servers full of like-minded people who want FFA?
Like I said, I know it's hard for you to understand how there can be a FFA world without rampant ganking., because you've never played in one. I understand. I've been playing in one for the last 7 months.
You don't need the game telling you you can't and you can still have order. Player driven systems. Freedom with consequences.
That's not only hard to understand, but rather impossible to believe. Some days I play with a hangover, my head hurts, and all I want to do is pick flowers and maybe lay the fundation to a new building on my piece of land.
Are you telling me that I can do that, if XxTrolzlolzlolz_17xX is close by with an axe and a torch? Player driven systems are going to stop me from logging off and waiting for a few more years for a GOOD sandbox MMO to come along?
I've waited for more years than I care to think of, and I can wait some more. I want to have the OPTION of not being griefed. Full stop.
Yes, I'm telling you that.
Trolzlolol doesn't last long in Wushu, he spends more time in jail than playing the game, and that sucks. This is donr by a simple bounty system with player police (constables).
Trolz trolls someone (just once) and someone puts a bounty on Trolz, it's annouced to the server. The constables come for him. 9 out of 10 times trolz goes to jail.
If trolz is really good, and really lucky he kills enough of the constables that come after him, and he's safe for the day, and he can continue to play the game, but tomorrow the bounty will be there.
Risk reward. If the reward is not there, and the risk is not being able to play, even trolz will take the idea of murder ver seriously.
I'm not pulling this stuff out my arse. I'm not that smart.
Sounds intriguing but I doubt it will work and you yourself even said earlier when you got caught then you logged off and went to bed. IMO that type of system may. and I use the term very deliberately, "may" work if the penalty is much harsher or the timer resets or pauses when you lag off. The penalty may (again deliberately) work if it goes by game time and not real time. I only played a few days in AoW but what is the price of the bounty, and can that be "gamed" or used to falsely accuse something of a crime to grief?
I might, try a game like that In the far future but only after the mentality of the PvP gamer mindset has evolved to the point where they aren't complete asshats and douchebags. Which in my 14 years experience of MMO gaming that is the general mindset of that demographic.
Still though at the end of the day, I would prefer a consensual PvP mechanic that works. Instead of trying to guesstimate if something untested and unproven like that would work. This is especially true since my favorite MMO of all time (Asheron's Call) had different ruleset servers. IMO the best of both worlds, and by far the easiest mechanic to promote choice and diversity needed to build a successful game.
this is not my idea, it is working as we speak.
You misread that statement. I logged off (had to stop playing) went to bed, then woke up with my time in jail still running! lol You have to stay logged in for you time to tick.So essentially for killing that one guy several times over 10 minutes, over lead mines, took me out the game for 10 hours. I raged the next day on the forums about it.
Single games have existed for years with PvP and PvE servers and worked fine. The first EQ had them. Certainly, SOE could still manage this.
Why do you want to force PvP on everyone, when you could have entire servers full of like-minded people who want FFA?
Like I said, I know it's hard for you to understand how there can be a FFA world without rampant ganking., because you've never played in one. I understand. I've been playing in one for the last 7 months.
You don't need the game telling you you can't and you can still have order. Player driven systems. Freedom with consequences.
That's not only hard to understand, but rather impossible to believe. Some days I play with a hangover, my head hurts, and all I want to do is pick flowers and maybe lay the fundation to a new building on my piece of land.
Are you telling me that I can do that, if XxTrolzlolzlolz_17xX is close by with an axe and a torch? Player driven systems are going to stop me from logging off and waiting for a few more years for a GOOD sandbox MMO to come along?
I've waited for more years than I care to think of, and I can wait some more. I want to have the OPTION of not being griefed. Full stop.
Yes, I'm telling you that.
Trolzlolol doesn't last long in Wushu, he spends more time in jail than playing the game, and that sucks. This is donr by a simple bounty system with player police (constables).
Trolz trolls someone (just once) and someone puts a bounty on Trolz, it's annouced to the server. The constables come for him. 9 out of 10 times trolz goes to jail.
If trolz is really good, and really lucky he kills enough of the constables that come after him, and he's safe for the day, and he can continue to play the game, but tomorrow the bounty will be there.
Risk reward. If the reward is not there, and the risk is not being able to play, even trolz will take the idea of murder ver seriously.
I'm not pulling this stuff out my arse. I'm not that smart.
But I don't really care what happens to XxTrolzlolzlolz_17xX. I couldn't care less. You undermine yourself when you write "Trolz troll sometimes...". One time is enough for me. And if I've learned anything from internet, it is there is NO END to the supply of new trolls.
That's why I want the option, option, mind you, to be left in peace. I shouldn't always have to deal with Trolzlolzlolz.
You misquoted me, but that's beside the point.
Well, there is very little risk for internet trolls. I'm talking about mmorpgs. If you were implying mmorpgs as well, I'm telling you it doesn't have to be that way. If the risk is higher than the reward "trollism" ceases to exist.
As far as your "One time is enough for me," there's not much that can be said about that. I don't think most people are as sensitive to this issue as you are. We will have to just agree to disagree.
I'm sorry for the misquote, I honestly didn't intend to.
Will PvPers be happy about such a restricted PvP? Won't they ask for a "hardcore PvP server" where you can "actually PvP" without the harsh consequences? What you descibe sounds more like a PvE enviornment to me, with the option of consesual PvP.
And one time really is enough, as long as there is likely to be an endless number of newbie-trolls taking the guy in prison's place.
If someone can force me to PvP, can I in turn force them to PvE? Maybe if they gank me while I'm killing orcs, I can retaliate by forcing them to do a fetch quest or kill 10 boars? I mean, I like PvE, why shouldn't they? Why should they have the freedom to avoid PvE?
Sarcastic? Sure. But isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?
I don't believe that either extreme should be necessary for both player types to have fun. If anything, a sandbox, where people should have a setting and tools that allow them to interact with the world in multiple ways, should be developed to cater to all types of players. Just because this hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's impossible to accomplish.
Single games have existed for years with PvP and PvE servers and worked fine. The first EQ had them. Certainly, SOE could still manage this.
Why do you want to force PvP on everyone, when you could have entire servers full of like-minded people who want FFA?
Those are themeparks. There are no, and will be no sandboxes made that way.
Like I said, I know it's hard for you to understand how there can be a FFA world without rampant ganking., because you've never played in one. I understand. I've been playing in one for the last 7 months.
You don't need the game telling you you can't and you can still have order. Player driven systems. Freedom with consequences.
You talk of freedom, but want players to have no choice but to be exposed to PvP? It seems like the ultimate sanbox, with true freedom of choice, would offer everything to everyone.
"exposed" to pvp... It's not a disaese, or porn. It's part of any virtual world. Just like consequences are. If the consequence was not there, I would agree with you. The virtual world would be broken, and there would need to be safe zones.
Soft rules common in sandboxes allow cultures to form. The devs should have no part in the creation of this. Only the tools should be given. No rails.
To put a fine point on it, I do not consider PvP a disease, malady or affliction. It's something I just do not enjoy. I like certain elements and no amount of arguing is ever going to get me to enjoy PvP, let alone forced PvP. Whether there be consequences or not. That isn't the issue. The issue is appealability, I'm not advocating the removal of all PvP but I am advocating the use of consensual PvP In the context of a sandbox game.
the toolset is the one to give players choice, through a myriad of functions or systems. To force something on someone is to do the exact opposite of what you propose, that is giving rails and linearity without choice. Its my way or the highway mentality is what we abhor.
Here's the problem, though. Let's say those of us who want meaningful PVP - PVP that impacts the game world - envision a game where access to resources for crafting or building is something worth fighting other players over. But then you flag yourself non_PVP and go harvest a given resource at your leisure.
If you can just do that, then why would that resource be worth fighting over? It wouldn't be. We would have no reason to fight over it. By extension, we would have no reason to fight in general, thus there would be no meaningful PVP.
It's not simply a matter of saying 'you guys can have PVP, I'll do my thing.' In fact, insisting on that IS a "my way or the highway mentality" as it severely restricts the scope of what PVP can be in the game.
I'm not saying one or the other is the right way to go in a given game, but it's an absolutely critical design choice, so you can't insist that your viewpoint is neutral to the other side, and that the other viewpoint is the one that's limiting. You can't pretend that giving you all the choices you want isn't also limiting another aspect of the game.
a sandbox where you can build and decorate your houses/castles without fear of pvp.
Smed says everything can be destroyed.
Do you want me to ask for your consent to destroy you house/castle?
Yep personal houses should be free from PvP. Not everyone gains enjoyment from having their house destroyed after putting in many hours getting it the way they want it.
Do you celebrate when your house is burnt down in a fire? Or if you get burgled?
Territory control for castles / keeps is a different matter.
And what if you build your house in a lot I really want? Should I just have to deal with that and settle for the second best? I don't think that sounds very fun.
No you shouldn't settle for 2nd best. You should ask the guy if he would be willing to sell his plot because I assure everything has a price. But something tells me your goal here is not the actual plot of land, its the ability to grief or force your will on someone else.
And what if he has no interest in selling? Then I have no choice but to swallow the bitter pill. You seem to believe that without PvP everybody will somehow be magically happy when that clearly isn't the case.
In fact, a huge problem you run into when it comes to housing in MMOs is that after some time all the decent lots are taken. Most MMOs solve this by just making housing instanced but that wouldn't really be appropriate for a sandbox now would it? Making houses destructible along with the rest of the world would solve this issue entirely. If you want to keep that exclusive lot you should be prepared to fight for it and not just assume that you're somehow entitled to forever own it. They've made it abundantly clear that EverQuest Next will be a constantly changing and shifting world. It would make no sense for housing to be static.
Single games have existed for years with PvP and PvE servers and worked fine. The first EQ had them. Certainly, SOE could still manage this.
Why do you want to force PvP on everyone, when you could have entire servers full of like-minded people who want FFA?
Like I said, I know it's hard for you to understand how there can be a FFA world without rampant ganking., because you've never played in one. I understand. I've been playing in one for the last 7 months.
You don't need the game telling you you can't and you can still have order. Player driven systems. Freedom with consequences.
That's not only hard to understand, but rather impossible to believe. Some days I play with a hangover, my head hurts, and all I want to do is pick flowers and maybe lay the fundation to a new building on my piece of land.
Are you telling me that I can do that, if XxTrolzlolzlolz_17xX is close by with an axe and a torch? Player driven systems are going to stop me from logging off and waiting for a few more years for a GOOD sandbox MMO to come along?
I've waited for more years than I care to think of, and I can wait some more. I want to have the OPTION of not being griefed. Full stop.
Yes, I'm telling you that.
Trolzlolol doesn't last long in Wushu, he spends more time in jail than playing the game, and that sucks. This is donr by a simple bounty system with player police (constables).
Trolz trolls someone (just once) and someone puts a bounty on Trolz, it's annouced to the server. The constables come for him. 9 out of 10 times trolz goes to jail.
If trolz is really good, and really lucky he kills enough of the constables that come after him, and he's safe for the day, and he can continue to play the game, but tomorrow the bounty will be there.
Risk reward. If the reward is not there, and the risk is not being able to play, even trolz will take the idea of murder ver seriously.
I'm not pulling this stuff out my arse. I'm not that smart.
But I don't really care what happens to XxTrolzlolzlolz_17xX. I couldn't care less. You undermine yourself when you write "Trolz troll sometimes...". One time is enough for me. And if I've learned anything from internet, it is there is NO END to the supply of new trolls.
That's why I want the option, option, mind you, to be left in peace. I shouldn't always have to deal with Trolzlolzlolz.
You misquoted me, but that's beside the point.
Well, there is very little risk for internet trolls. I'm talking about mmorpgs. If you were implying mmorpgs as well, I'm telling you it doesn't have to be that way. If the risk is higher than the reward "trollism" ceases to exist.
As far as your "One time is enough for me," there's not much that can be said about that. I don't think most people are as sensitive to this issue as you are. We will have to just agree to disagree.
I'm sorry for the misquote, I honestly didn't intend to.
Will PvPers be happy about such a restricted PvP? Won't they ask for a "hardcore PvP server" where you can "actually PvP" without the harsh consequences? What you descibe sounds more like a PvE enviornment to me, with the option of consesual PvP.
And one time really is enough, as long as there is likely to be an endless number of newbie-trolls taking the guy in prison's place.
We all were unhappy about it. Said thing like "this is too much." As we continued to play thinking that changes would be made, we (I?) began to understand what risk and consequences meant and why it had to be this way.
Just because I can punch someone in the mouth anytime I want to doesn't mean I should. Sometimes people need to be punched in the mouth though, and you know the funny thing? That person usually knows they deserved to be punched in the mouth and doesn't post a bounty.
Risk, reward. Consequences to actions. Emergent game play.
Single games have existed for years with PvP and PvE servers and worked fine. The first EQ had them. Certainly, SOE could still manage this.
Why do you want to force PvP on everyone, when you could have entire servers full of like-minded people who want FFA?
Those are themeparks. There are no, and will be no sandboxes made that way.
Like I said, I know it's hard for you to understand how there can be a FFA world without rampant ganking., because you've never played in one. I understand. I've been playing in one for the last 7 months.
You don't need the game telling you you can't and you can still have order. Player driven systems. Freedom with consequences.
You talk of freedom, but want players to have no choice but to be exposed to PvP? It seems like the ultimate sanbox, with true freedom of choice, would offer everything to everyone.
"exposed" to pvp... It's not a disaese, or porn. It's part of any virtual world. Just like consequences are. If the consequence was not there, I would agree with you. The virtual world would be broken, and there would need to be safe zones.
Soft rules common in sandboxes allow cultures to form. The devs should have no part in the creation of this. Only the tools should be given. No rails.
To put a fine point on it, I do not consider PvP a disease, malady or affliction. It's something I just do not enjoy. I like certain elements and no amount of arguing is ever going to get me to enjoy PvP, let alone forced PvP. Whether there be consequences or not. That isn't the issue. The issue is appealability, I'm not advocating the removal of all PvP but I am advocating the use of consensual PvP In the context of a sandbox game.
the toolset is the one to give players choice, through a myriad of functions or systems. To force something on someone is to do the exact opposite of what you propose, that is giving rails and linearity without choice. Its my way or the highway mentality is what we abhor.
Here's the problem, though. Let's say those of us who want meaningful PVP - PVP that impacts the game world - envision a game where access to resources for crafting or building is something worth fighting other players over. But then you flag yourself non_PVP and go harvest a given resource at your leisure.
If you can just do that, then why would that resource be worth fighting over? It wouldn't be. We would have no reason to fight over it. By extension, we would have no reason to fight in general, thus there would be no meaningful PVP.
It's not simply a matter of saying 'you guys can have PVP, I'll do my thing.' In fact, insisting on that IS a "my way or the highway mentality" as it severely restricts the scope of what PVP can be in the game.
I'm not saying one or the other is the right way to go in a given game, but it's an absolutely critical design choice, so you can't insist that your viewpoint is neutral to the other side, and that the other viewpoint is the one that's limiting. You can't pretend that giving you all the choices you want isn't also limiting another aspect of the game.
But why would you be fighting over these resources? To build better weapons/keeps/etc? What if there was a specific area where PvPers could have territory control and control over specific resources that were used specifically for PvP siege weapons, Keep Defenses, etc? What if these resources were totally not needed for anything in the PvE portion of the game, only useful for the PvP experience? And the only way you could enter these regions was to be instantly flagged for PvP and not able to turn the flag off until you leave this region or until an hour has passed in game time?
Would it matter then if people could choose to not partake in PvP?
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?!"
If someone can force me to PvP, can I in turn force them to PvE? Maybe if they gank me while I'm killing orcs, I can retaliate by forcing them to do a fetch quest or kill 10 boars? I mean, I like PvE, why shouldn't they? Why should they have the freedom to avoid PvE?
Sarcastic? Sure. But isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?
I don't believe that either extreme should be necessary for both player types to have fun. If anything, a sandbox, where people should have a setting and tools that allow them to interact with the world in multiple ways, should be developed to cater to all types of players. Just because this hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's impossible to accomplish.
I agree with you, and like the first idea lol.
Just throwing stuff out there now. I'm ok with you being able to build or buy personal protection, but the cost needs to be REALLY high, because there is no risk in doing so, and if the protection is too good the reward is to high.
But why would you be fighting over these resources? To build better weapons/keeps/etc? What if there was a specific area where PvPers could have territory control and control over specific resources that were used specifically for PvP siege weapons, Keep Defenses, etc? What if these resources were totally not needed for anything in the PvE portion of the game, only useful for the PvP experience? And the only way you could enter these regions was to be instantly flagged for PvP and not able to turn the flag off until you leave this region or until an hour has passed in game time?
Would it matter then if people could choose to not partake in PvP?
Or what if PvE and PvP relied on each other? Maybe you don't want to PvP, but someone in your faction probably does. When they're out doing their PvP thing, have them pick up some silver that's out in some mine area that they're heading off to. Maybe you have some mats you gather from farming some mobs or crafting or something for trade.
But why would you be fighting over these resources? To build better weapons/keeps/etc? What if there was a specific area where PvPers could have territory control and control over specific resources that were used specifically for PvP siege weapons, Keep Defenses, etc? What if these resources were totally not needed for anything in the PvE portion of the game, only useful for the PvP experience? And the only way you could enter these regions was to be instantly flagged for PvP and not able to turn the flag off until you leave this region or until an hour has passed in game time?
Would it matter then if people could choose to not partake in PvP?
Or what if PvE and PvP relied on each other? Maybe you don't want to PvP, but someone in your faction probably does. When they're out doing their PvP thing, have them pick up some silver that's out in some mine area that they're heading off to. Maybe you have some mats you gather from farming some mobs or crafting or something for trade.
Wait that would mean people would be FORCED to talk to each other, and that would be restricting their freedom of choice not to talk to anyone.
If someone can force me to PvP, can I in turn force them to PvE? Maybe if they gank me while I'm killing orcs, I can retaliate by forcing them to do a fetch quest or kill 10 boars? I mean, I like PvE, why shouldn't they? Why should they have the freedom to avoid PvE?
Sarcastic? Sure. But isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?
I don't believe that either extreme should be necessary for both player types to have fun. If anything, a sandbox, where people should have a setting and tools that allow them to interact with the world in multiple ways, should be developed to cater to all types of players. Just because this hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's impossible to accomplish.
If you're a highly respected member of a faction it wouldn't be implausible for that faction to send out a squad of NPCs to attempt to avenge your death. I'm a huge believer in PvX myself and I believe that PvP and PvE should be joined together instead of artificially segregated. That's how you create a living world.
But why would you be fighting over these resources? To build better weapons/keeps/etc? What if there was a specific area where PvPers could have territory control and control over specific resources that were used specifically for PvP siege weapons, Keep Defenses, etc? What if these resources were totally not needed for anything in the PvE portion of the game, only useful for the PvP experience? And the only way you could enter these regions was to be instantly flagged for PvP and not able to turn the flag off until you leave this region or until an hour has passed in game time?
Would it matter then if people could choose to not partake in PvP?
Or what if PvE and PvP relied on each other? Maybe you don't want to PvP, but someone in your faction probably does. When they're out doing their PvP thing, have them pick up some silver that's out in some mine area that they're heading off to. Maybe you have some mats you gather from farming some mobs or crafting or something for trade.
Thats fine and dandy. PvP and PvE could rely on each other. Thing is, doesn't mean I should have to enter these PvP specific areas if I don't want to and there doesn't have to be any reason why I should 'want' to go there. Let PvPers have those specific areas to themselves, and give me the option to not partake in the fighting.
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?!"
Here's the problem, though. Let's say those of us who want meaningful PVP - PVP that impacts the game world - envision a game where access to resources for crafting or building is something worth fighting other players over. But then you flag yourself non_PVP and go harvest a given resource at your leisure.
If you can just do that, then why would that resource be worth fighting over? It wouldn't be. We would have no reason to fight over it. By extension, we would have no reason to fight in general, thus there would be no meaningful PVP.
It's not simply a matter of saying 'you guys can have PVP, I'll do my thing.' In fact, insisting on that IS a "my way or the highway mentality" as it severely restricts the scope of what PVP can be in the game.
I'm not saying one or the other is the right way to go in a given game, but it's an absolutely critical design choice, so you can't insist that your viewpoint is neutral to the other side, and that the other viewpoint is the one that's limiting. You can't pretend that giving you all the choices you want isn't also limiting another aspect of the game.
But why would you be fighting over these resources? To build better weapons/keeps/etc? What if there was a specific area where PvPers could have territory control and control over specific resources that were used specifically for PvP siege weapons, Keep Defenses, etc? What if these resources were totally not needed for anything in the PvE portion of the game, only useful for the PvP experience? And the only way you could enter these regions was to be instantly flagged for PvP and not able to turn the flag off until you leave this region or until an hour has passed in game time?
Would it matter then if people could choose to not partake in PvP?
There could be a balance struck somewhere there, probably. It wouldn't exactly be ideal, but I'd probably play a game set up like you describe. The PVP aspect couldn't be an afterthought or a small area of the game though.
To be honest I'd try almost any well-made sandbox game at this point, even a fully PVE one, as if it was well made enough, and had a strong enough feeling of immersion, then I'd be able to enjoy it. I just would prefer one like I described (at least I think I would, anyway - I've never actually played a game exactly like what I envision. Shadowbane was close in some ways but had its issues, and I couldn't quite get into EVE for some reason).
Thing is, doesn't mean I should have to enter these PvP specific areas if I don't want to
woah woah woah....hold the ph...ummm keyboard? lol
You're right. You shouldn't have to. That wouldn't be sandbox if you were forced to. That's the whole point.
Look SWG has a whole class devoted to entertainer. Completely non-combatant. There's no reason why something like that or a few things like that wouldn't exist in EQ Next. We just now found out that Factions is going to be a HUGE deal with EQ Next, so there already lies your solid foundation of protection. Now could an enterprising assassin try to sneak past enemy lines? Perhaps. But being forced to go somewhere is not sandbox. The point of sandbox is that you get tools/options and you build upon that.
Thing is, doesn't mean I should have to enter these PvP specific areas if I don't want to
woah woah woah....hold the ph...ummm keyboard? lol
You're right. You shouldn't have to. That wouldn't be sandbox if you were forced to. That's the whole point.
Look SWG has a whole class devoted to entertainer. Completely non-combatant. There's no reason why something like that or a few things like that wouldn't exist in EQ Next. We just now found out that Factions is going to be a HUGE deal with EQ Next, so there already lies your solid foundation of protection. Now could an enterprising assassin try to sneak past enemy lines? Perhaps. But being forced to go somewhere is not sandbox. The point of sandbox is that you get tools/options and you build upon that.
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
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?!"
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
Honestly? It breaks immersion. It makes the game more meta and less 'real.' Having guards there that will protect you makes the chances of you being attacked a lot less however. Granted this is only opinion. I have no idea how SOE is going to do it. You and I don't agree on this point. We'll see what they do come August.
edit- If you go into enemy territory, you should be attacked. Being able to run around an enemy in their backyard REALLY breaks immersion and that use to mean something in MMORPGs before the days of solo themeparks.
Originally posted by hayes303 There is no chance that this game with be FFA PVP. Look at Darkfall's original run, the first chalk of players got in, macroed their skills up and then commenced the nub farming. New players were rarely seen in the game as they were viewed as pinatas with no realistic chance of being left alone long enough to compete. AV finally had to reboot the game.Games with these mechanics are griefer paradise. They don't bring in new players and the population tends to dwindle until its just the griefers feeding on each other. Sony isn't going to make their great white hope hobbled from the start by making it a ffa pvp grieffest.
This..
And if Smed says something it must be true? Really? He has said so many things that were out right lies I cant even begin to count.
Originally posted by hayes303 There is no chance that this game with be FFA PVP. Look at Darkfall's original run, the first chalk of players got in, macroed their skills up and then commenced the nub farming. New players were rarely seen in the game as they were viewed as pinatas with no realistic chance of being left alone long enough to compete. AV finally had to reboot the game.
Games with these mechanics are griefer paradise. They don't bring in new players and the population tends to dwindle until its just the griefers feeding on each other. Sony isn't going to make their great white hope hobbled from the start by making it a ffa pvp grieffest.
This..
And if Smed says something it must be true? Really? He has said so many things that were out right lies I cant even begin to count.
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
Being forced
Being FORCED
BEING FORCED....
CONSENSUAL
I WANT
I WANT
I DO NOT WANT
You know what, you´re neither "forced" to buy the game nor to log in.
Besides, this is a videogames topic not a discussion about the Geneva Convention.
Check the gameplay before hand and if you don´t like it, simply stay away - how about that?
It´s not like you wouldn´t have 253 "consensual" MMO alternatives
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
Honestly? It breaks immersion. It makes the game more meta and less 'real.' Having guards there that will protect you makes the chances of you being attacked a lot less however. Granted this is only opinion. I have no idea how SOE is going to do it. You and I don't agree on this point. We'll see what they do come August.
edit- If you go into enemy territory, you should be attacked. Being able to run around an enemy in their backyard REALLY breaks immersion and that use to mean something in MMORPGs before the days of solo themeparks.
I can see your point and I agree with the enemy lands thing. I just feel the entire game world should not be a PvP battlefield and most areas players should have the choice. But there should also be areas that you will be flagged the second you walk into them, regardless of choice. But those areas should not contain any specific reason (better harvesting materials, better item drops, etc) to make one go into them unless they want to. Hell, those areas could have PvP specific nodes (fuel nodes for guild Keeps and seige weapons, etc) Something PvP guilds can fight over and control.
But yeah, you are right - We will just have to wait till August to find out the real story.
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 can see your point and I agree with the enemy lands thing. I just feel the entire game world should not be a PvP battlefield and most areas players should have the choice. But there should also be areas that you will be flagged the second you walk into them, regardless of choice. But those areas should not contain any specific reason (better harvesting materials, better item drops, etc) to make one go into them unless they want to. Hell, those areas could have PvP specific nodes (fuel nodes for guild Keeps and seige weapons, etc) Something PvP guilds can fight over and control.
But yeah, you are right - We will just have to wait till August to find out the real story.
I'll just say this before signing off for the night.
You keep wanting to separate the two play groups. Where I think it would be more beneficial to the game and community at large is if there were design choices in the game that encouraged both playgroups to play together in tandem. Having things in PVP areas that you want is a good thing. It means you want to deal with and trade with PVP players. Having things PVP players want in PVE areas is a good thing. It means they want to deal with and trade with PVE players. Splitting the servers into PVE vs PVP would destroy this. Go read the tweet on Factions. They're going to be a big deal. Based on what he said, probably bigger than EQ. That's a good thing. That means you could have PVPers on your faction that you will want to help and they will want to help you. Think of an army going off to war. You don't like war. Want no part of it, but your village needs to make let's say armor and weapons for them. This requires building resources, hunting and gathering. Those that need these items will want to buy or trade for them. Let's say you want to build a cool house/mill or whatever. You need certain materials. Materials you can't get in the safety of the areas you 'live' in. This by default gives value to both sides and a symbiotic relationship that the two of you rely on each other and in the process make the world feel more alive and meaningful.
Comments
Bending over backwards, I would say I would play the game if PvP could ONLY take place if:
-Both players/groups wanted to fight eachother
-There was a VERY good reason for player A to attack player B
-Criminals were permanently send to a prison zone where noone else had any reason to ever go. There they could fight each other and the local wild life, but never return.
this is not my idea, it is working as we speak.
You misread that statement. I logged off (had to stop playing) went to bed, then woke up with my time in jail still running! lol You have to stay logged in for you time to tick.So essentially for killing that one guy several times over 10 minutes, over lead mines, took me out the game for 10 hours. I raged the next day on the forums about it.
Thanks for your post.
I'm sorry for the misquote, I honestly didn't intend to.
Will PvPers be happy about such a restricted PvP? Won't they ask for a "hardcore PvP server" where you can "actually PvP" without the harsh consequences? What you descibe sounds more like a PvE enviornment to me, with the option of consesual PvP.
And one time really is enough, as long as there is likely to be an endless number of newbie-trolls taking the guy in prison's place.
If someone can force me to PvP, can I in turn force them to PvE? Maybe if they gank me while I'm killing orcs, I can retaliate by forcing them to do a fetch quest or kill 10 boars? I mean, I like PvE, why shouldn't they? Why should they have the freedom to avoid PvE?
Sarcastic? Sure. But isn't what's good for the goose, good for the gander?
I don't believe that either extreme should be necessary for both player types to have fun. If anything, a sandbox, where people should have a setting and tools that allow them to interact with the world in multiple ways, should be developed to cater to all types of players. Just because this hasn't been done before doesn't mean it's impossible to accomplish.
Here's the problem, though. Let's say those of us who want meaningful PVP - PVP that impacts the game world - envision a game where access to resources for crafting or building is something worth fighting other players over. But then you flag yourself non_PVP and go harvest a given resource at your leisure.
If you can just do that, then why would that resource be worth fighting over? It wouldn't be. We would have no reason to fight over it. By extension, we would have no reason to fight in general, thus there would be no meaningful PVP.
It's not simply a matter of saying 'you guys can have PVP, I'll do my thing.' In fact, insisting on that IS a "my way or the highway mentality" as it severely restricts the scope of what PVP can be in the game.
I'm not saying one or the other is the right way to go in a given game, but it's an absolutely critical design choice, so you can't insist that your viewpoint is neutral to the other side, and that the other viewpoint is the one that's limiting. You can't pretend that giving you all the choices you want isn't also limiting another aspect of the game.
And what if he has no interest in selling? Then I have no choice but to swallow the bitter pill. You seem to believe that without PvP everybody will somehow be magically happy when that clearly isn't the case.
In fact, a huge problem you run into when it comes to housing in MMOs is that after some time all the decent lots are taken. Most MMOs solve this by just making housing instanced but that wouldn't really be appropriate for a sandbox now would it? Making houses destructible along with the rest of the world would solve this issue entirely. If you want to keep that exclusive lot you should be prepared to fight for it and not just assume that you're somehow entitled to forever own it. They've made it abundantly clear that EverQuest Next will be a constantly changing and shifting world. It would make no sense for housing to be static.
We all were unhappy about it. Said thing like "this is too much." As we continued to play thinking that changes would be made, we (I?) began to understand what risk and consequences meant and why it had to be this way.
Just because I can punch someone in the mouth anytime I want to doesn't mean I should. Sometimes people need to be punched in the mouth though, and you know the funny thing? That person usually knows they deserved to be punched in the mouth and doesn't post a bounty.
Risk, reward. Consequences to actions. Emergent game play.
But why would you be fighting over these resources? To build better weapons/keeps/etc? What if there was a specific area where PvPers could have territory control and control over specific resources that were used specifically for PvP siege weapons, Keep Defenses, etc? What if these resources were totally not needed for anything in the PvE portion of the game, only useful for the PvP experience? And the only way you could enter these regions was to be instantly flagged for PvP and not able to turn the flag off until you leave this region or until an hour has passed in game time?
Would it matter then if people could choose to not partake in PvP?
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 agree with you, and like the first idea lol.
Just throwing stuff out there now. I'm ok with you being able to build or buy personal protection, but the cost needs to be REALLY high, because there is no risk in doing so, and if the protection is too good the reward is to high.
Or what if PvE and PvP relied on each other? Maybe you don't want to PvP, but someone in your faction probably does. When they're out doing their PvP thing, have them pick up some silver that's out in some mine area that they're heading off to. Maybe you have some mats you gather from farming some mobs or crafting or something for trade.
Wait that would mean people would be FORCED to talk to each other, and that would be restricting their freedom of choice not to talk to anyone.
now all the solo players are mad.
If you're a highly respected member of a faction it wouldn't be implausible for that faction to send out a squad of NPCs to attempt to avenge your death. I'm a huge believer in PvX myself and I believe that PvP and PvE should be joined together instead of artificially segregated. That's how you create a living world.
Thats fine and dandy. PvP and PvE could rely on each other. Thing is, doesn't mean I should have to enter these PvP specific areas if I don't want to and there doesn't have to be any reason why I should 'want' to go there. Let PvPers have those specific areas to themselves, and give me the option to not partake in the fighting.
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?!"
There could be a balance struck somewhere there, probably. It wouldn't exactly be ideal, but I'd probably play a game set up like you describe. The PVP aspect couldn't be an afterthought or a small area of the game though.
To be honest I'd try almost any well-made sandbox game at this point, even a fully PVE one, as if it was well made enough, and had a strong enough feeling of immersion, then I'd be able to enjoy it. I just would prefer one like I described (at least I think I would, anyway - I've never actually played a game exactly like what I envision. Shadowbane was close in some ways but had its issues, and I couldn't quite get into EVE for some reason).
woah woah woah....hold the ph...ummm keyboard? lol
You're right. You shouldn't have to. That wouldn't be sandbox if you were forced to. That's the whole point.
Look SWG has a whole class devoted to entertainer. Completely non-combatant. There's no reason why something like that or a few things like that wouldn't exist in EQ Next. We just now found out that Factions is going to be a HUGE deal with EQ Next, so there already lies your solid foundation of protection. Now could an enterprising assassin try to sneak past enemy lines? Perhaps. But being forced to go somewhere is not sandbox. The point of sandbox is that you get tools/options and you build upon that.
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
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?!"
Honestly? It breaks immersion. It makes the game more meta and less 'real.' Having guards there that will protect you makes the chances of you being attacked a lot less however. Granted this is only opinion. I have no idea how SOE is going to do it. You and I don't agree on this point. We'll see what they do come August.
edit- If you go into enemy territory, you should be attacked. Being able to run around an enemy in their backyard REALLY breaks immersion and that use to mean something in MMORPGs before the days of solo themeparks.
This..
And if Smed says something it must be true? Really? He has said so many things that were out right lies I cant even begin to count.
Like what?
Being forced
Being FORCED
BEING FORCED....
CONSENSUAL
I WANT
I WANT
I DO NOT WANT
You know what, you´re neither "forced" to buy the game nor to log in.
Besides, this is a videogames topic not a discussion about the Geneva Convention.
Check the gameplay before hand and if you don´t like it, simply stay away - how about that?
It´s not like you wouldn´t have 253 "consensual" MMO alternatives
I can see your point and I agree with the enemy lands thing. I just feel the entire game world should not be a PvP battlefield and most areas players should have the choice. But there should also be areas that you will be flagged the second you walk into them, regardless of choice. But those areas should not contain any specific reason (better harvesting materials, better item drops, etc) to make one go into them unless they want to. Hell, those areas could have PvP specific nodes (fuel nodes for guild Keeps and seige weapons, etc) Something PvP guilds can fight over and control.
But yeah, you are right - We will just have to wait till August to find out the real story.
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'll just say this before signing off for the night.
You keep wanting to separate the two play groups. Where I think it would be more beneficial to the game and community at large is if there were design choices in the game that encouraged both playgroups to play together in tandem. Having things in PVP areas that you want is a good thing. It means you want to deal with and trade with PVP players. Having things PVP players want in PVE areas is a good thing. It means they want to deal with and trade with PVE players. Splitting the servers into PVE vs PVP would destroy this. Go read the tweet on Factions. They're going to be a big deal. Based on what he said, probably bigger than EQ. That's a good thing. That means you could have PVPers on your faction that you will want to help and they will want to help you. Think of an army going off to war. You don't like war. Want no part of it, but your village needs to make let's say armor and weapons for them. This requires building resources, hunting and gathering. Those that need these items will want to buy or trade for them. Let's say you want to build a cool house/mill or whatever. You need certain materials. Materials you can't get in the safety of the areas you 'live' in. This by default gives value to both sides and a symbiotic relationship that the two of you rely on each other and in the process make the world feel more alive and meaningful.
And with that- good night and all the best.
As has already been stated..
Just because everything is destructible doesnt mean PVP is required.Nature could come into play,Giants,Dragons,Bandits,Angry Gods.
list could go on.
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
I dont understand how not having open pvp makes an MMO a WoW Clone..