› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Griefers Paradise

GrailerGrailer Member UncommonPosts: 893
in EverQuest Next

From what I've been reading is EQNext you can build cities , make lots of amazing things , world pvp maybe ?

 

But what about the guy who decides hey I can burn down forests awesome .  So we log in and there are no trees because someone is going around burning them all for fun so no one can get wood , which is probably needed to build houses .

 

And that might only be the beginning of what can be destroyed ,  What if houses can be burnt down ?

 

And as for PvP ,  you know everytime you walk out of town there will be those guys sitting there just waiting for you.

 

 

«13456

Comments

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by Grailer

    From what I've been reading is EQNext you can build cities , make lots of amazing things , world pvp maybe ?

     

    But what about the guy who decides hey I can burn down forests awesome .  So we log in and there are no trees because someone is going around burning them all for fun so no one can get wood , which is probably needed to build houses .

     

    And that might only be the beginning of what can be destroyed ,  What if houses can be burnt down ?

     

    And as for PvP ,  you know everytime you walk out of town there will be those guys sitting there just waiting for you.

     

     

    In Gotham City the place for those guys is Arkham Asylum....and yes it's people like this that ruin it for everybody and the reason alot of people who otherwise might give FFA pvp a chance want no part of it. It only takes a few dozen to ruin the whole experience.

    The nature of MMO's mean even if their "avatar" is out, they just create a new character and in begins again unless something happens to their account and even then it takes 5 minutes (even less) to get a new email address and create a new account.

  • EntinerintEntinerint Member UncommonPosts: 868
    Originally posted by Grailer

    From what I've been reading is EQNext you can build cities , make lots of amazing things , world pvp maybe ?

     

    But what about the guy who decides hey I can burn down forests awesome .  So we log in and there are no trees because someone is going around burning them all for fun so no one can get wood , which is probably needed to build houses .

     

    And that might only be the beginning of what can be destroyed ,  What if houses can be burnt down ?

     

    And as for PvP ,  you know everytime you walk out of town there will be those guys sitting there just waiting for you.

     

     

    If they don't account for such player behavior they frankly deserve to have their game griefed into oblivion.

    There are ways to have a sandbox built around freedom but also protect it from griefers.  You just have to be A. smart about your approach and B. willing to put in the time and effort of implementation.

  • aleosaleos Member UncommonPosts: 1,943

    I'd really hope as a AAA developer this was one of the first issues brought up.

     

    which means im sure its not that easy.

  • EntinerintEntinerint Member UncommonPosts: 868
    Originally posted by DMKano

    Depending on what kind of constrains and what kinds of checks and balances are put into place so that the game world doesn't deteriorate into complete self-destruction with nothing left.

    I am a strong believer of giving players a ton of freedom, but at the same time putting in major consequences for criminal acts such as murder of innocents or burning down a forest.

    Such acts should flag the offender for "life in prison" type of sentence, where they are screwed forever (might as well delete the character) - just like in RL.

    Major crimes should have MAJOR consequences - not slap on the wrist like AoW and ArcheAge where murderers spend several hours in jail, that does not go far enough.

    Now warfare - or major conflict would not have these penalties -but ganking and griefing  - death penalty or life in prison - must have extreme consequence.

     

    Thinking like this could lead to the creation of a truly revolutionary and amazing game.  This is the kinda stuff I've been saying for years.

  • lugallugal Member UncommonPosts: 671
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    The reviewer has a mishapen head
    Which means his opinion is skewed
    ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by lugal
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p

  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by lugal
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p

    Some people are discussing that.  Other people are saying that using the current models that we've seen in the past from MMOs isn't going to be what we see from EQNext.  It's going to be something different, so PvP and PvE needs to be looked and judged under that new light.  We'll have to see if that's actually the case.  But it's certainly what they've been hinting at so far.

  • lugallugal Member UncommonPosts: 671
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by lugal
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p

    I see nothing mentioning that in the OP's post. I generally ignore all the following posts as they tend to be nothing but trolling or whining. Like mine. Rare is a post constructive.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    The reviewer has a mishapen head
    Which means his opinion is skewed
    ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by lugal
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p

    Some people are discussing that.  Other people are saying that using the current models that we've seen in the past from MMOs isn't going to be what we see from EQNext.  It's going to be something different, so PvP and PvE needs to be looked and judged under that new light.  We'll have to see if that's actually the case.  But it's certainly what they've been hinting at so far.

    The debate has mainly been about the virtues of non-consensual PvP, and if that is going to be the only gameplay method offered.

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation as is everything being discussed about this game ;-)

  • evilastroevilastro Member Posts: 4,270
    Originally posted by Grailer

    From what I've been reading is EQNext you can build cities , make lots of amazing things , world pvp maybe ?

     

    But what about the guy who decides hey I can burn down forests awesome .  So we log in and there are no trees because someone is going around burning them all for fun so no one can get wood , which is probably needed to build houses .

     

    And that might only be the beginning of what can be destroyed ,  What if houses can be burnt down ?

     

    And as for PvP ,  you know everytime you walk out of town there will be those guys sitting there just waiting for you.

     

     

     

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

    "This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."

  • lugallugal Member UncommonPosts: 671
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by lugal
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p

    Some people are discussing that.  Other people are saying that using the current models that we've seen in the past from MMOs isn't going to be what we see from EQNext.  It's going to be something different, so PvP and PvE needs to be looked and judged under that new light.  We'll have to see if that's actually the case.  But it's certainly what they've been hinting at so far.

    The debate has mainly been about the virtues of non-consensual PvP, and if that is going to be the only gameplay method offered.

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation.

    I think I may be misunderstanding what consent means, but consent is expressly given when pvp server is selected.

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    The reviewer has a mishapen head
    Which means his opinion is skewed
    ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley

  • azmundaiazmundai Member UncommonPosts: 1,419

    its not going to happen. why do you think UO changed?

    LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
    I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already :)

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by lugal
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by lugal
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p

    Some people are discussing that.  Other people are saying that using the current models that we've seen in the past from MMOs isn't going to be what we see from EQNext.  It's going to be something different, so PvP and PvE needs to be looked and judged under that new light.  We'll have to see if that's actually the case.  But it's certainly what they've been hinting at so far.

    The debate has mainly been about the virtues of non-consensual PvP, and if that is going to be the only gameplay method offered.

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation.

    I think I may be misunderstanding what consent means, but consent is expressly given when pvp server is selected.

    No you're accurate...just that, in some circles, people have had the notion that there would ONLY be PvP offered. So you log into the game and you HAVE to PvP just by the nature of how SOE is making the game. So there would literally be no PvE server to choose. Again just people speculating and debating.

    As I said I think most think that you will have a choice so if you don't want to PvP pick PvE and you're good.

  • fyerwallfyerwall Member UncommonPosts: 3,240
    Originally posted by lugal
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by lugal
    Gonna quote Blizzard, there is no griefing on a pvp server. You choose to be pvp'd when you select the server. Quit with the carebear whining.

    Trouble is we aren't talking about having different servers...we are discussing having just PvP only gameplay were you don't have a choice. Need to catch up on some reading here :-p

    Some people are discussing that.  Other people are saying that using the current models that we've seen in the past from MMOs isn't going to be what we see from EQNext.  It's going to be something different, so PvP and PvE needs to be looked and judged under that new light.  We'll have to see if that's actually the case.  But it's certainly what they've been hinting at so far.

    The debate has mainly been about the virtues of non-consensual PvP, and if that is going to be the only gameplay method offered.

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation.

    I think I may be misunderstanding what consent means, but consent is expressly given when pvp server is selected.

    In some MMOs you have to flag PvP on or off - This is what people mean by consent. By flagging on you agree to participate in PvP and When you flag off, you no longer agree to PvP. Has nothing to do with joining a specific server.

    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?!"


  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation as is everything being discussed about this game ;-)

    I'm not sure that everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers.  I think the point is that they're doing something different.  That means our concept of what PvP and PvE will be in their game will be different from what we're used to.  That means having PvP/PvE servers won't be needed.  Heck we don't even know if there will be more than one server.

    edit- as you said; this is all speculation.  Of course we have Smedley's tweets and interviews to go by.  But most haven't bothered to read any of that.

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation as is everything being discussed about this game ;-)

    I'm not sure that everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers.  I think the point is that they're doing something different.  That means our concept of what PvP and PvE will be in their game will be different from what we're used to.  That means having PvP/PvE servers won't be needed.  Heck we don't even know if there will be more than one server.

     

    No that would be a disaster...trying to put EVERYONE on one server. I cannot imagine that happening, just from a technological standpoint. Frankly I don't see any downside to running a PvP and a PvE server. Let those who want to PvP have at it and let those that don't...well, don't. Why do they need to be intermingled? What purpose would that server to anyone?

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Member UncommonPosts: 2,051
    I have never seen anything quite like this for a game with no more information than a couple of tweets and a well timed smiley-face-o-doom.  
  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    No that would be a disaster...trying to put EVERYONE on one server. I cannot imagine that happening, just from a technological standpoint. Frankly I don't see any downside to running a PvP and a PvE server. Let those who want to PvP have at it and let those that don't...well, don't. Why do they need to be intermingled? What purpose would that server to anyone?

    EVE did it.  You don't see a downside?  Stop thinking of the game as a themepark or sandbox that you've seen before.  There's a very real probability that they will be offering a completely new MMORPG gaming experience.  Kind of what they did with original EQ.

     

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation as is everything being discussed about this game ;-)

    I'm not sure that everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers.  I think the point is that they're doing something different.  That means our concept of what PvP and PvE will be in their game will be different from what we're used to.  That means having PvP/PvE servers won't be needed.  Heck we don't even know if there will be more than one server.

     

    No that would be a disaster...trying to put EVERYONE on one server. I cannot imagine that happening.], just from a technological standpoint. Frankly I don't see any downside to running a PvP and a PvE server. Let those who want to PvP have at it and let those that don't...well, don't. Why do they need to be intermingled? What purpose would that server to anyone?

    I already pointed out the downsides of PvP and PvE servers  - you have 2 code branches, so when you are pushing patches out, you have to have 2 patches coded - one for PvE one for PvP - it's twice the work, it's like having 2 products almost, it SUCKS from the development perspective.

    2nd one is - PvE/PvP servers are old way of thinking, it's what has been done since EQ1 - this does not progress the genre at all, there is nothing revolutionary about this setup.

    If EQN is really to break the mold, it has to be different than the old systems - it would serve the purpose of setting a new paradigm of having a fair PvE+PvP system with major consequences for major crimes.

     

    SOE and this game in particular I don't think is all that worried about the amount of work it would take for something like that because, as you said, the are used to it. I still don't understand, don't see the point it, or the benefit of just having one server. You're taking choice away from the players and forcing them into a situation they don't want. It's frankly bad business.

    Why can't they break the mold with new design, gameplay and it countless other ways? why force something onto their player base that, the majority who are used to EQ being a PvE centered game, don't want?

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    No that would be a disaster...trying to put EVERYONE on one server. I cannot imagine that happening, just from a technological standpoint. Frankly I don't see any downside to running a PvP and a PvE server. Let those who want to PvP have at it and let those that don't...well, don't. Why do they need to be intermingled? What purpose would that server to anyone?

    EVE did it.  You don't see a downside?  Stop thinking of the game as a themepark or sandbox that you've seen before.  There's a very real probability that they will be offering a completely new MMORPG gaming experience.  Kind of what they did with original EQ.

     

    There also a very real possibility that smeads is talking out of his butt (as usual). EVE will have nowhere near the amount of players this game is going to have....so I still don't see how they are going to handle that technologically.

     

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    No that would be a disaster...trying to put EVERYONE on one server. I cannot imagine that happening, just from a technological standpoint. Frankly I don't see any downside to running a PvP and a PvE server. Let those who want to PvP have at it and let those that don't...well, don't. Why do they need to be intermingled? What purpose would that server to anyone?

    EVE did it.  You don't see a downside?  Stop thinking of the game as a themepark or sandbox that you've seen before.  There's a very real probability that they will be offering a completely new MMORPG gaming experience.  Kind of what they did with original EQ.

     

    There also a very real possibility that smeads is talking out of his butt (as usual). EVE will have nowhere near the amount of players this game is going to have....so I still don't see how they are going to handle that technologically.

     

    Technology has advanced since 2003 when EVE was released. One Forgelight zones can hold 2000 players in Planetside 2.

  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    Why can't they break the mold with new design, gameplay and it countless other ways? why force something onto their player base that, the majority who are used to EQ being a PvE centered game, don't want?

    Because if PvP is interwoven into the game rather than being an add-on or separated part of the game, it's really not possible to separate the two.  Bad business model?  I'll tell you what's a bad business model.  Being everything for everyone, so people are bored out of their minds and quit after two weeks because they've been there done that.

    EQ Next is promising something new.  We'll see what they have to deliver.

  • kellian1kellian1 Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    No that would be a disaster...trying to put EVERYONE on one server. I cannot imagine that happening, just from a technological standpoint. Frankly I don't see any downside to running a PvP and a PvE server. Let those who want to PvP have at it and let those that don't...well, don't. Why do they need to be intermingled? What purpose would that server to anyone?

    EVE did it.  You don't see a downside?  Stop thinking of the game as a themepark or sandbox that you've seen before.  There's a very real probability that they will be offering a completely new MMORPG gaming experience.  Kind of what they did with original EQ.

     

    There also a very real possibility that smeads is talking out of his butt (as usual). EVE will have nowhere near the amount of players this game is going to have....so I still don't see how they are going to handle that technologically.

     

    Technology has advanced since 2003 when EVE was released.

    I'm pretty aware of the fact...but thanks for pointing it out. Now if they can get one server to handle a few million people at once...hundrends of thousands logging on during peak hours from all over the world without any issues...I'd REALLY like to see that.

  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    I still don't see how they are going to handle that technologically. 

    Well if they're saying that they're breaking the mold for the MMO genre...and if the game world is big....and they're touting this new forgelight engine...and there's also instancing (GW2 calls this 'overflow')...and EVE has 500k+ players...

  • jonrd463jonrd463 Member UncommonPosts: 607
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by kellian1
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by kellian1
     

    I think mostly everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers, so the debate is really just speculation as is everything being discussed about this game ;-)

    I'm not sure that everyone thinks they will have PvP and PvE servers.  I think the point is that they're doing something different.  That means our concept of what PvP and PvE will be in their game will be different from what we're used to.  That means having PvP/PvE servers won't be needed.  Heck we don't even know if there will be more than one server.

     

    No that would be a disaster...trying to put EVERYONE on one server. I cannot imagine that happening.], just from a technological standpoint. Frankly I don't see any downside to running a PvP and a PvE server. Let those who want to PvP have at it and let those that don't...well, don't. Why do they need to be intermingled? What purpose would that server to anyone?

    I already pointed out the downsides of PvP and PvE servers  - you have 2 code branches, so when you are pushing patches out, you have to have 2 patches coded - one for PvE one for PvP - it's twice the work, it's like having 2 products almost, it SUCKS from the development perspective.

    2nd one is - PvE/PvP servers are old way of thinking, it's what has been done since EQ1 - this does not progress the genre at all, there is nothing revolutionary about this setup.

    If EQN is really to break the mold, it has to be different than the old systems - it would serve the purpose of setting a new paradigm of having a fair PvE+PvP system with major consequences for major crimes.

     

    How is balancing PVP and PVE on two servers more difficult than balancing it on one? We already know there will be PVE content in the game, based on the use of Storybricks, so whether it's one kind of server with both PVE and PVP or two kinds of servers, each catering to the respective rule sets, the balancing act is the same.

    "You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous

Sign In or Register to comment.