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.
However there is a problem with this...given no interference people will dot he same thing over and over again...cause chaos...which just like in reality as in game will not work long term. Only in game money is involved and they don't want to lose money on an unproven tactic. however if they do go this route hopefully there will be a balanced penalty, jail, judge, jury, executioner, death row perhaps....something at the least.
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.
However there is a problem with this...given no interference people will dot he same thing over and over again...cause chaos...which just like in reality as in game will not work long term. Only in game money is involved and they don't want to lose money on an unproven tactic. however if they do go this route hopefully there will be a balanced penalty, jail, judge, jury, executioner, death row perhaps....something at the least.
The tactic has been proven by 20 million players and this is what is happening in Wushu right now, complete with bounties, jail, death row, and executions.
I'm not smart enough to create a vision of this. I've played it for 7 months. I'm explaining to you how it works.
Wushu aint perfect, but they got the risk reward, freedom but with consequences right. I promise you that industry has taken note.
what do you care what we want? you'll have your pvp server .. what do you care if we are on a pve server?
Good games need to be designed with PvP and destruction in mind.
A tacked on PvP server with no consideration sucks. That's not what we want. We want PvP built in from the start. And thankfully, that's what we're getting.
It'd be much easier for you, the PvE exclusive MINORITY, to get your own server.
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.
You sir are having a pipe dream. I'd be highly surprised if EQN was even remotely like you paint it to be.
what do you care what we want? you'll have your pvp server .. what do you care if we are on a pve server?
Good games need to be designed with PvP and destruction in mind.
A tacked on PvP server with no consideration sucks. That's not what we want. We want PvP built in from the start. And thankfully, that's what we're getting.
It'd be much easier for you, the PvE exclusive MINORITY, to get your own server.
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.
You sir are having a pipe dream. I'd be highly surprised if EQN was even remotely like you paint it to be.
I agree, think he thinks EQN is going to be Age Of Wushu in Norrath lol.
H is setting him self up for serious fail, Smed idea of sandbox will not be what some of these people are thinking EQN will be. I keep saying it but imo EQN is going to be more akin to something like ArcheAge but not such a robust PVP system that AA has and it will be server specific imo.
why do you think you should be able to destroy anything another player builds? who are you? why are you so special that your fun is more important than another players
This speaks more truth than many will ever care to admit.
This is why I prefer games about cooperation and community, healthy competition (i.e. having good sportsmanship/honor) and not games about kicking over other people's sand castles and generally being a bully.
I'm a rapidly aging old-school gamer. I aint got time for that shit no more.
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?
Absolutely. I would also like to have your character imprisoned for life if you attempt to murder another player. You said you wanted 'realism', well there it is. Muderers should be jailed permanently. Unless of course you are one of those open world PvP advocates that just want to abuse and grief players with no consequences. Which, by reading your posts, is exactly what you are. You and Doc are a pair of hypocritical, blind griefers who just want to harass others for your enjoyment. Want me to prove it? Sure..
First, you both are against PvE and PvP servers being separate. Only players that want to grief as many people as possible are against this.
Second, you keep saying you don't want restrictions, yet you don't want any penalties for murder/wanton destruction.
Third, you attack anyone who wants PvE in a beloved IP with insults and anger.
No matter how many posts you and Doc make...you both are wrong and part of an irrelevant, dying breed of griefers.
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
More than agreeable, EQ Next should be 100% EvE in a fantasy setting. Take my money.
Which is the point that I have been trying to make all day and all night long. Consensual PvP is a must. Eve, not a game I freely admit to knowing anything about, nor care to, gives PvE'ers the choice whether to PvP or not.
As long as I have the option to PvE in safety and the systems are in place to penalize indiscriminate killing or ganking then that is one rule I could handle. Would still prefer optional rule set servers the most through, seeing as they worked really well on the games that provided them.
Glad we're all on the same page now.
Absolutely agree, never had a problem with territory security levels. But I bet the PvE-only lobbyists come out and state how unfair it is that they can´t go EVERYWHERE in safemode. Wait for it, it´s coming. Even if there is one half square foot small space with non-consensual PvP enabled, they will stomp with their feet until they can go there too in safemode.
Usually they bring up EvE Online as their personal evil, evil nemesis and the ultimate ganker paradise (which it is not), stating how it is the most evil unfair game ever existed, filled with sociapathic murderers.
It´s really hilarious how far paranoia and griefophobia can go. ;-)
Or how about we PvE'ers just want the option to have a server where we don't have to engage in it. I have no problem at all playing in PvP. Hell my main in WoW was on the PvP server for 6 years. I played Eve one week after launch and still do. Pvp can be fun, especially realm/faction pvp. But I want to play EQ for the same reasons I played it back then. To have a great PvE experience. Why can't you be ok with a seperate PvE server? Is it really so important that everyone plays exactly the way you do? Do you honestly believe that your way is the only way and no other game styles should be allowed?
Waste of developer time. They want to create ONE sandbox world and focus on these rulesets, criminal punishments in place, possibly territory control, possible player-killer-killer systems, possible jails for murderers.. countless possibilites of smart, modern mechanics.
Splitting up playerbase like some old server type dead end MMOs did 10 years ago should NOT happen.
It´s over. Single Server is the future, single ruleset is the future, EvE gameplay is the future, not WoW gameplay.
Those who want WoW can still play Wow or one of the 654 clones until 2046.
Details we´ll know on August 2 but I think SOE knows very well what sandbox means.
I agree that sandboxes are the future of gaming. But you need to get it out of your head that sandbox = pvp. It does not. Single server, sounds great. Those are not what I'm worried about. What I am worried about is that you claim that it's a waste of developer time to have 2 servers yet you mention immediately after that 4+ different game mechanics that need to be in place. So coding an entire game with all these rulesets is easier than just turning 'off' pvp on one server? Nope. Again, you just want everyone playing the way you want it to be, and if they disagree you tell them to go back to WoW and say your way is the future. Your way is draconic and outdated. Open world pvp has been done to death. It's not unique. It's not progressive. It's the same old pvp crap that has killed many games. No matter how many times you justify it, you only come across as saying 'I want to be able to grief anyone at anytime'.
How does a Sandbox without PvP work when Sandboxes typically the end-game is crafting for better items? Raids will be there but they arent going to be the end-all be all to item progression. In fact I'd be willing to bet the best items of the game will come from crafting only.
Dont people eventually get bored of not fighting each other at all and lollygagging in their roleplaying houses? Just curious
There isn't peace without war, and there isn't war without peace..
How is it a sandbox WITH PvP? You can do everything in a sandbox with PvP that you can do without. Building, crafting, exploring, progression does not need PvP at all. And no, some people actually like to play a game that isn't centered around just murdering every player for fun. There are other things to do than just 'lollygag' in a house. Believe it or not but PvP is very boring for a lot of people.
And that saying is absolute garbage. There can be peace without war. It's just that sociopaths choose to be violent and murder instead of enjoying that peace. That was only quoted as a means of justification. To make it seem fine that people are dying for 'peace'.
Game doesnt focus on end-game raiding
Game doesn't focus on the endless grind of monsters anymore for loot
Game likely focues on crafting as the item progression you will see in the game
Game likely wont have an AH to avoid crafters feeling unimportant when any joe-schmoe can go to the AH
I just dont see how that works without PvP at all. Whats the point of gearing up when Raids arent the focus?
With PvP and the ability to lose items, that means you arent maxing out as fast. A lot of the most popular games are games where players are interacting in a competitive manner against each other. Because no AI is ever going to match up to a human in video games unless you're just not a very skilled gamer (Losing to a level 9 CPU in Smash Bros doesnt mean the AI is good, it means you're not skilled)
"Cool.. so everyone has Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the WindSeeker and the devs dont want raiding to be the focus of the game.. You guys wanna chill in Monica's new mansion she made next to Qeynos and have some beers?"
I doubt the quote is how the game will go..
Maybe raiding isn't the only viable pve activity or reason for gearing up?
Most Everquest players prefer the wow style of mmo, wow was developed by former Everquest raiders afterall. These kinds of players don't want anything new, just the same old EQ/WOW clone.
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?
Absolutely. I would also like to have your character imprisoned for life if you attempt to murder another player. You said you wanted 'realism', well there it is. Muderers should be jailed permanently. Unless of course you are one of those open world PvP advocates that just want to abuse and grief players with no consequences. Which, by reading your posts, is exactly what you are. You and Doc are a pair of hypocritical, blind griefers who just want to harass others for your enjoyment. Want me to prove it? Sure..
First, you both are against PvE and PvP servers being separate. Only players that want to grief as many people as possible are against this.
Second, you keep saying you don't want restrictions, yet you don't want any penalties for murder/wanton destruction.
Third, you attack anyone who wants PvE in a beloved IP with insults and anger.
No matter how many posts you and Doc make...you both are wrong and part of an irrelevant, dying breed of griefers.
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
More than agreeable, EQ Next should be 100% EvE in a fantasy setting. Take my money.
Which is the point that I have been trying to make all day and all night long. Consensual PvP is a must. Eve, not a game I freely admit to knowing anything about, nor care to, gives PvE'ers the choice whether to PvP or not.
As long as I have the option to PvE in safety and the systems are in place to penalize indiscriminate killing or ganking then that is one rule I could handle. Would still prefer optional rule set servers the most through, seeing as they worked really well on the games that provided them.
Glad we're all on the same page now.
Absolutely agree, never had a problem with territory security levels. But I bet the PvE-only lobbyists come out and state how unfair it is that they can´t go EVERYWHERE in safemode. Wait for it, it´s coming. Even if there is one half square foot small space with non-consensual PvP enabled, they will stomp with their feet until they can go there too in safemode.
Usually they bring up EvE Online as their personal evil, evil nemesis and the ultimate ganker paradise (which it is not), stating how it is the most evil unfair game ever existed, filled with sociapathic murderers.
It´s really hilarious how far paranoia and griefophobia can go. ;-)
Or how about we PvE'ers just want the option to have a server where we don't have to engage in it. I have no problem at all playing in PvP. Hell my main in WoW was on the PvP server for 6 years. I played Eve one week after launch and still do. Pvp can be fun, especially realm/faction pvp. But I want to play EQ for the same reasons I played it back then. To have a great PvE experience. Why can't you be ok with a seperate PvE server? Is it really so important that everyone plays exactly the way you do? Do you honestly believe that your way is the only way and no other game styles should be allowed?
Waste of developer time. They want to create ONE sandbox world and focus on these rulesets, criminal punishments in place, possibly territory control, possible player-killer-killer systems, possible jails for murderers.. countless possibilites of smart, modern mechanics.
Splitting up playerbase like some old server type dead end MMOs did 10 years ago should NOT happen.
It´s over. Single Server is the future, single ruleset is the future, EvE gameplay is the future, not WoW gameplay.
Those who want WoW can still play Wow or one of the 654 clones until 2046.
Details we´ll know on August 2 but I think SOE knows very well what sandbox means.
I agree that sandboxes are the future of gaming. But you need to get it out of your head that sandbox = pvp. It does not. Single server, sounds great. Those are not what I'm worried about. What I am worried about is that you claim that it's a waste of developer time to have 2 servers yet you mention immediately after that 4+ different game mechanics that need to be in place. So coding an entire game with all these rulesets is easier than just turning 'off' pvp on one server? Nope. Again, you just want everyone playing the way you want it to be, and if they disagree you tell them to go back to WoW and say your way is the future. Your way is draconic and outdated. Open world pvp has been done to death. It's not unique. It's not progressive. It's the same old pvp crap that has killed many games. No matter how many times you justify it, you only come across as saying 'I want to be able to grief anyone at anytime'.
How does a Sandbox without PvP work when Sandboxes typically the end-game is crafting for better items? Raids will be there but they arent going to be the end-all be all to item progression. In fact I'd be willing to bet the best items of the game will come from crafting only.
Dont people eventually get bored of not fighting each other at all and lollygagging in their roleplaying houses? Just curious
There isn't peace without war, and there isn't war without peace..
How is it a sandbox WITH PvP? You can do everything in a sandbox with PvP that you can do without. Building, crafting, exploring, progression does not need PvP at all. And no, some people actually like to play a game that isn't centered around just murdering every player for fun. There are other things to do than just 'lollygag' in a house. Believe it or not but PvP is very boring for a lot of people.
And that saying is absolute garbage. There can be peace without war. It's just that sociopaths choose to be violent and murder instead of enjoying that peace. That was only quoted as a means of justification. To make it seem fine that people are dying for 'peace'.
Game doesnt focus on end-game raiding
Game doesn't focus on the endless grind of monsters anymore for loot
Game likely focues on crafting as the item progression you will see in the game
Game likely wont have an AH to avoid crafters feeling unimportant when any joe-schmoe can go to the AH
I just dont see how that works without PvP at all. Whats the point of gearing up when Raids arent the focus?
With PvP and the ability to lose items, that means you arent maxing out as fast. A lot of the most popular games are games where players are interacting in a competitive manner against each other. Because no AI is ever going to match up to a human in video games unless you're just not a very skilled gamer (Losing to a level 9 CPU in Smash Bros doesnt mean the AI is good, it means you're not skilled)
"Cool.. so everyone has Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the WindSeeker and the devs dont want raiding to be the focus of the game.. You guys wanna chill in Monica's new mansion she made next to Qeynos and have some beers?"
I doubt the quote is how the game will go..
Maybe raiding isn't the only viable pve activity or reason for gearing up?
Well we already know that the game will have end game raiding with regular end game expansions. What Smed is trying to do is give us other tools and things to do in the world but make no mistake that raiding is alive in EQN.
It'd be much easier for you, the PvE exclusive MINORITY, to get your own server.
Sorry to burst your pipe dream
Strict PvE AND strict PvP are in the MINORITY.
What most people want are a nice blend of the two. A system where PvP has consequences not just benefits. A system where if people wish to do PvP in an open world setting they can easily leave the safety of the "big city". In ages past (caution using historical "reference") there were towns that arrested people for bringing weapons into towns (usually after a chance to disarm themselves). In order to carry anything larger than a utility knife you had to be something extremely special.
I'm not a PvPer, but I REALLY enjoyed the RvR style of play where I knew if I left the "Safety" of the cities I could be ganked in a second. Yeah this was an artificial means of the "you were disarmed" rather than just giving consequences.
Play what you Like. I like SWOTR, Have a referral to get you going! --> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <-- Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
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.
However there is a problem with this...given no interference people will dot he same thing over and over again...cause chaos...which just like in reality as in game will not work long term. Only in game money is involved and they don't want to lose money on an unproven tactic. however if they do go this route hopefully there will be a balanced penalty, jail, judge, jury, executioner, death row perhaps....something at the least.
The tactic has been proven by 20 million players and this is what is happening in Wushu right now, complete with bounties, jail, death row, and executions.
I'm not smart enough to create a vision of this. I've played it for 7 months. I'm explaining to you how it works.
Wushu aint perfect, but they got the risk reward, freedom but with consequences right. I promise you that industry has taken note.
Asians have proven that they'll play anything, pvp only or pve only or a mix of both. Westerners on the other hand have not embraced pvp only in their MMORPGs. Put it in the context of a shooter or real time strategy and you'll have a large if not huge audience, but add that precious RPG factor in and it's a completely different story. It's all about time investments and the over-all atmosphere of this sub-genre that is not conducive to incessant player conflict for a majority of gamers. If you can't be happy with a pvp ruleset server, then your motives are not even remotely pure as you are surely hounding for less skilled victims to populate your dreams of ganking.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 Most Everquest players prefer the wow style of mmo, wow was developed by former Everquest raiders afterall. These kinds of players don't want anything new, just the same old EQ/WOW clone.
FFA pvp isn't really new either, nor is building houses and having them burned down. These things are new in the same way that for whatever reasons, people in the 90's started wearing bell bottoms again.
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.
However there is a problem with this...given no interference people will dot he same thing over and over again...cause chaos...which just like in reality as in game will not work long term. Only in game money is involved and they don't want to lose money on an unproven tactic. however if they do go this route hopefully there will be a balanced penalty, jail, judge, jury, executioner, death row perhaps....something at the least.
The tactic has been proven by 20 million players and this is what is happening in Wushu right now, complete with bounties, jail, death row, and executions.
I'm not smart enough to create a vision of this. I've played it for 7 months. I'm explaining to you how it works.
Wushu aint perfect, but they got the risk reward, freedom but with consequences right. I promise you that industry has taken note.
Asians have proven that they'll play anything, pvp only or pve only or a mix of both. Westerners on the other hand have not embraced pvp only in their MMORPGs. Put it in the context of a shooter or real time strategy and you'll have a large if not huge audience, but add that precious RPG factor in and it's a completely different story. It's all about time investments and the over-all atmosphere of this sub-genre that is not conducive to incessant player conflict for a majority of gamers. If you can't be happy with a pvp ruleset server, then your motives are not even remotely pure as you are surely hounding for less skilled victims to populate your dreams of ganking.
League of Legends is probably the most popular game in the west and that game is all about PvP.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 Most Everquest players prefer the wow style of mmo, wow was developed by former Everquest raiders afterall. These kinds of players don't want anything new, just the same old EQ/WOW clone.
Good thing we're not getting that. EQ1 and WoW had pretty awful linear tierred raid gear design.
In a sandbox game that'll hopefully be gone. No instancing, no loot cenric gameplay, no elitist raiding system. And hopefully, lots of PvP options. Risk vs reward.
Maybe people who don't want their houses knocked over are limited to more mundane houses in cramped areas. BUt if you want to build a tower or a cabin on an island in a PvP zone, you have more rewards and options, but you have to defend it.
Good games have risk vs reward, bad WoW clones have a flat line of boredom.
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?
This is why there is confusion. You (and apparently others) don't read.
just because everything can be destroyed doesn't mean that everything is always destroyable "all the time" and doesn't mean it's always destroyable at all times by players.
for instance, one can say in Lineage 2 that every keep can be sieged. But the reality is that they can't be sieged any time.
in addition, that time frame is only two hours every other week. And sometimes it's players sieging a pve castle.
Now take it one step further:
If a game (or server) was "pve only" a statement could still be made that "everything can be destroyed" but that doesn't mean it's always destroyed by player vs player. Or, one could say "every keep can be destroyed but only by willing participants."
Just because your house can be destroyed doesn't mean it can be destroyed by players or by players any time they want or that it's easy for players to destroy it or that some things can be destroyed by players and some things require a pve enemy to destroy it.
All you see is "everything can be destroyed so that automatically means that all players can destroy all things at all times."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Darkfall, MO, Xysom...
Make a list of Triple A Sandbox PvE MMOs with similar scope/budget of those themepark games you listed.
I'll start that list. '.....', Please continue...
Sandbox =/= PvP.
Are you FREAKIN´ kidding me? Are you? You MUST be kidding, bringing up these half broken cheap indie low budget tiltles, right?
I was asking for a triple A budget title, done by some developer with a name.
What do we have? Nothing but EVE. What if I don´t want to be a freakin´ spaceship all the time?
You have dozens of PVE consensual everything , not forced to anything, casual friendly, broad audience "accessible" alternatives. We have nothing. EQ Next better change this, or else
And yet not one sandbox. At least you all have pvp sandboxes, we don't even have broken ones.
You have Minecraft. 10 million downloads, online mode. Go get it.
Wrong. Minecraft has open world pvp WITH full loot. Go get it.
Optional. Countless "consensual" server modes. Go get it.
Bingo!
Ohh whats my point? Ohh yea, consensual PvP via alternate rule set servers is the perfect way to give both parties something they desire.
All I see is us PvE'ers going for the middle ground by allowing your preferred playstyle to be catered too, but the moment we request the same for us it gets shot down with the utmost sense of urgency because your draconic sense of immersion is the "only way". When in reality both ways can be and are immersive.
But then again I wouldn't expect anything else from the PvP mindset, and its that very brash critique of any dissenting opinion as why most of us "carebears" detest your kind and request segregation and rules to disassociate from your mentality.
oh you are "allowing" us our playstyle? How sweet of the PvE-only minority to allow the PvPvE-majority their preferred playstyle. As long as you get what you want! LOL.. minority dictatorship, this is
Just like "possible" criminal minority is the reason everyone gets on CCD cameras in public places. Just like "possible" criminal minority is the reason we have to line up 3 hours before flights.
Let´s cripple everyone´s experience because of your Angst to be ganked/griefed and die a gruesome death in a videogame.
Pathetic, really. Even more pathetic that game developers have been jumping on that safemode train for a decade. Time for this to end.
Reality has enough safety nets, I don´t want those restrictive BS mechanics in MMOs anymore.
Good grief, where do you get the delusional belief that PvE only gamers are in the minority? Post Trammel UO and EQ and just about every PvE focused MMO since, which accounts for about 90% of the Western MMOs in the market attest to a much different scenario than you try to paint. Even when you look at the numbers put out by Blizzard, you can see that the majority of their audience does not participate in pvp. That doesn't mean there aren't a significant number of you, but you are far from the majority on this issue.
It'd be much easier for you, the PvE exclusive MINORITY, to get your own server.
Sorry to burst your pipe dream
Strict PvE AND strict PvP are in the MINORITY.
Reading comprehension, I said PvE exclusive is in the minority, and it is. The people saying for PvP players to get a single server and all the rest to be PvE only, are short sighted and small in number.
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.
However there is a problem with this...given no interference people will dot he same thing over and over again...cause chaos...which just like in reality as in game will not work long term. Only in game money is involved and they don't want to lose money on an unproven tactic. however if they do go this route hopefully there will be a balanced penalty, jail, judge, jury, executioner, death row perhaps....something at the least.
The tactic has been proven by 20 million players and this is what is happening in Wushu right now, complete with bounties, jail, death row, and executions.
I'm not smart enough to create a vision of this. I've played it for 7 months. I'm explaining to you how it works.
Wushu aint perfect, but they got the risk reward, freedom but with consequences right. I promise you that industry has taken note.
Asians have proven that they'll play anything, pvp only or pve only or a mix of both. Westerners on the other hand have not embraced pvp only in their MMORPGs. Put it in the context of a shooter or real time strategy and you'll have a large if not huge audience, but add that precious RPG factor in and it's a completely different story. It's all about time investments and the over-all atmosphere of this sub-genre that is not conducive to incessant player conflict for a majority of gamers. If you can't be happy with a pvp ruleset server, then your motives are not even remotely pure as you are surely hounding for less skilled victims to populate your dreams of ganking.
What in the world are you talking about? Are you baiting me?
You can't just make an argument, say it's mine then argue against it. Well, you can It's your choice; however it does not make your decission valid or reasonable.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 Most Everquest players prefer the wow style of mmo, wow was developed by former Everquest raiders afterall. These kinds of players don't want anything new, just the same old EQ/WOW clone.
Good thing we're not getting that. EQ1 and WoW had pretty awful linear tierred raid gear design.
In a sandbox game that'll hopefully be gone. No instancing, no loot cenric gameplay, no elitist raiding system. And hopefully, lots of PvP options. Risk vs reward.
Maybe people who don't want their houses knocked over are limited to more mundane houses in cramped areas. BUt if you want to build a tower or a cabin on an island in a PvP zone, you have more rewards and options, but you have to defend it.
Good games have risk vs reward, bad WoW clones have a flat line of boredom.
I fail to see how replacing raiding with pvp is any less elitist. Perhaps their intent is to focus more on other things like crafting, exploration, puzzle solving, roleplaying, 'real' quests, missions, dungeons, factions...etc, allowing all play styles to progress your characters through leveling / skilling and loot acquisition. If they do have pvp, I do not believe, from the hints they have made about progression, that pvp will be the raid progression replacement.
Comments
However there is a problem with this...given no interference people will dot he same thing over and over again...cause chaos...which just like in reality as in game will not work long term. Only in game money is involved and they don't want to lose money on an unproven tactic. however if they do go this route hopefully there will be a balanced penalty, jail, judge, jury, executioner, death row perhaps....something at the least.
The tactic has been proven by 20 million players and this is what is happening in Wushu right now, complete with bounties, jail, death row, and executions.
I'm not smart enough to create a vision of this. I've played it for 7 months. I'm explaining to you how it works.
Wushu aint perfect, but they got the risk reward, freedom but with consequences right. I promise you that industry has taken note.
Good games need to be designed with PvP and destruction in mind.
A tacked on PvP server with no consideration sucks. That's not what we want. We want PvP built in from the start. And thankfully, that's what we're getting.
It'd be much easier for you, the PvE exclusive MINORITY, to get your own server.
You sir are having a pipe dream. I'd be highly surprised if EQN was even remotely like you paint it to be.
You want unskilled fodder.
I agree, think he thinks EQN is going to be Age Of Wushu in Norrath lol.
H is setting him self up for serious fail, Smed idea of sandbox will not be what some of these people are thinking EQN will be. I keep saying it but imo EQN is going to be more akin to something like ArcheAge but not such a robust PVP system that AA has and it will be server specific imo.
Sandpark Hybrid.
This speaks more truth than many will ever care to admit.
This is why I prefer games about cooperation and community, healthy competition (i.e. having good sportsmanship/honor) and not games about kicking over other people's sand castles and generally being a bully.
I'm a rapidly aging old-school gamer. I aint got time for that shit no more.
Maybe raiding isn't the only viable pve activity or reason for gearing up?
Well we already know that the game will have end game raiding with regular end game expansions. What Smed is trying to do is give us other tools and things to do in the world but make no mistake that raiding is alive in EQN.
Sorry to burst your pipe dream
Strict PvE AND strict PvP are in the MINORITY.
What most people want are a nice blend of the two. A system where PvP has consequences not just benefits. A system where if people wish to do PvP in an open world setting they can easily leave the safety of the "big city". In ages past (caution using historical "reference") there were towns that arrested people for bringing weapons into towns (usually after a chance to disarm themselves). In order to carry anything larger than a utility knife you had to be something extremely special.
I'm not a PvPer, but I REALLY enjoyed the RvR style of play where I knew if I left the "Safety" of the cities I could be ganked in a second. Yeah this was an artificial means of the "you were disarmed" rather than just giving consequences.
--> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <--
Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
Asians have proven that they'll play anything, pvp only or pve only or a mix of both. Westerners on the other hand have not embraced pvp only in their MMORPGs. Put it in the context of a shooter or real time strategy and you'll have a large if not huge audience, but add that precious RPG factor in and it's a completely different story. It's all about time investments and the over-all atmosphere of this sub-genre that is not conducive to incessant player conflict for a majority of gamers. If you can't be happy with a pvp ruleset server, then your motives are not even remotely pure as you are surely hounding for less skilled victims to populate your dreams of ganking.
FFA pvp isn't really new either, nor is building houses and having them burned down. These things are new in the same way that for whatever reasons, people in the 90's started wearing bell bottoms again.
League of Legends is probably the most popular game in the west and that game is all about PvP.
Good thing we're not getting that. EQ1 and WoW had pretty awful linear tierred raid gear design.
In a sandbox game that'll hopefully be gone. No instancing, no loot cenric gameplay, no elitist raiding system. And hopefully, lots of PvP options. Risk vs reward.
Maybe people who don't want their houses knocked over are limited to more mundane houses in cramped areas. BUt if you want to build a tower or a cabin on an island in a PvP zone, you have more rewards and options, but you have to defend it.
Good games have risk vs reward, bad WoW clones have a flat line of boredom.
This is why there is confusion. You (and apparently others) don't read.
just because everything can be destroyed doesn't mean that everything is always destroyable "all the time" and doesn't mean it's always destroyable at all times by players.
for instance, one can say in Lineage 2 that every keep can be sieged. But the reality is that they can't be sieged any time.
in addition, that time frame is only two hours every other week. And sometimes it's players sieging a pve castle.
Now take it one step further:
If a game (or server) was "pve only" a statement could still be made that "everything can be destroyed" but that doesn't mean it's always destroyed by player vs player. Or, one could say "every keep can be destroyed but only by willing participants."
Just because your house can be destroyed doesn't mean it can be destroyed by players or by players any time they want or that it's easy for players to destroy it or that some things can be destroyed by players and some things require a pve enemy to destroy it.
All you see is "everything can be destroyed so that automatically means that all players can destroy all things at all times."
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Good grief, where do you get the delusional belief that PvE only gamers are in the minority? Post Trammel UO and EQ and just about every PvE focused MMO since, which accounts for about 90% of the Western MMOs in the market attest to a much different scenario than you try to paint. Even when you look at the numbers put out by Blizzard, you can see that the majority of their audience does not participate in pvp. That doesn't mean there aren't a significant number of you, but you are far from the majority on this issue.
Reading comprehension, I said PvE exclusive is in the minority, and it is. The people saying for PvP players to get a single server and all the rest to be PvE only, are short sighted and small in number.
With a risk of loss a game become threatening and stressful.
And who is arguing that point?
in a pve only game one can still have the risk of loss. You might not value the experience but for those who prefer pve only I imagine they do.
but in your mind one can only have a sense of loss by players? Is that what you are saying?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What in the world are you talking about? Are you baiting me?
You can't just make an argument, say it's mine then argue against it. Well, you can It's your choice; however it does not make your decission valid or reasonable.
I fail to see how replacing raiding with pvp is any less elitist. Perhaps their intent is to focus more on other things like crafting, exploration, puzzle solving, roleplaying, 'real' quests, missions, dungeons, factions...etc, allowing all play styles to progress your characters through leveling / skilling and loot acquisition. If they do have pvp, I do not believe, from the hints they have made about progression, that pvp will be the raid progression replacement.
I don't know of many (or any) games where once can't lose.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I have never felt stressed or threatened in a game. Maybe you're just sensitive.