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.
Bad business model as in forcing the majority of your player base into a system they don't want. If it's going to be as you describe than PvP is going to be forced on you. Because having to flag for PvP would be "old" MMO thinking and not something new.
Again why can't innovation happen without PvP...seems to be this aspect is so trival and unimportant in the grand scheme of things yet people here are making it out to be the be all end all of game design...i just don't see it. Don't want to be everything to everyone...than fine, cut out PvP...problem solved.
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.
EVE has over 500k players and has on average about 40k players on at once.
I am pretty sure EU and America would have separate servers.
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.
EVE has over 500k players and has on average about 40k players on at once.
I am pretty sure EU and America would have separate servers.
But we cant have PvE and PvP servers because that would be bad? Interesting....
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.
EVE has over 500k players and has on average about 40k players on at once.
I am pretty sure EU and America would have separate servers.
But we cant have PvE and PvP servers because that would be bad? Interesting....
The general answer I seem to see when asking why its so bad that someone has the option to not PvP is that "It's not fun for me if I can't kill them"
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?!"
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.
Is there a name for trolls who play the victim? That's a form of trolling.
I've seen these GREIFER argument on every MMORPG game there is. It's as if the same people come out of the wood works everytime.
"OMG, greifers will spawn kill newbie levelers" , "OMG greifers will burn the towns down if the game allows them access to", "OMG greifers will play as female characthers when they are male"
My response is: "YES , yes they will ... they always have and they always will decades from now"
If you go on xboxlive, you'll get greifed. If you go on another MMO you'll get greifed. If you go on a forum you'll get griefed. If you go outside to the real world you'll get greifed.
Solution: "Read a book for entertainment... you can't get greifed on there"
Bad business model as in forcing the majority of your player base into a system they don't want.
Who's the majority of the player base? What system? My point is we don't know how PvP is going to be handled in EQ Next.
Here's some facts that we do know.
One) There will be PvP
Two) Game will be Sandbox
Three) You will not be coddled
Four) It will not be linear
Five) It will be on PS4
Six) EVE is an influence
Seven) EQ Next will be nothing like TSW, SWTOR, etc.
Eight) The game feel wise is going back to original EQ.
I mean common let's not insult anyone's intelligence here shall we. Vast majority of the player base, IE EQ fans!
Again the argument being made is having ONE server...PvP server and not separating PvE from PvP. Thereby forcing PvE people into a PvP situation. You can easily fix this problem by having a PvE and PvP server, but for some reason this seems to be a problem as well for some. And if that is a problem than yes, you are FORCING people into PvP situations that they would otherwise be avoiding, therefore don't want. Last I checked EQ was primarily a PvE game...so most of the fans (the vast majority) would be aligned to PvE not PvP
If a new character can grief the players and game world, then the game is doomed.
The game is going to be free to play, their would be nothing to stop someone from being a jerk, even if their are consequences, then they just make a new account, because it is free to play.
So I imagine they would of thought of this, but we have no idea what all they are doing, or what people can do.
This is one of the reasons I am more for b2p or p2p, I feel f2p can give too much anonymity, and too much ease to abuse systems. If you had to pay for a new account to be a jerk, some would still do it, but probably a much smaller amount. Most people do not have $40-60 to throw away repeatedly to do something jerkish, just to have to rinse and repeat.
The general answer I seem to see when asking why its so bad that someone has the option to not PvP is that "It's not fun for me if I can't kill them"
If EQ Next was to be a WoW Clone, you would be right. What if....just if...the game is DESIGNED around PvP being in it. That means you can't have one without the other. If the whole game is designed with PvP in mind, then you can't separate one from the other.
The general answer I seem to see when asking why its so bad that someone has the option to not PvP is that "It's not fun for me if I can't kill them"
If EQ Next was to be a WoW Clone, you would be right. What if....just if...the game is DESIGNED around PvP being in it. That means you can't have one without the other. If the whole game is designed with PvP in mind, then you can't separate one from the other.
Then you are removing player choice - one of the items Dave spoke of in his interview. They want to appeal to many groups of players without forcing them into something they don't find fun. And there are a lot of people out there who do not want to be forced into PvP situations.
You can design a game around both PvP and PvE, but you don't have to force a group into partaking in something they don't want to. Thing is PvE'ers don't care if there is PvP, so long as they are not forced to deal with it. PvPers on the other hand don't like the fact that some people don't want to have to PvP and feel it ruins the game for them. And when asked why, the general answer has been "Because I want to have the ability to kill someone". They always throw out things like territory control and resource control, but you can have that happen and still allow people to opt out of PvP. When you point that out you get hit with either insults, dead air (no replies) or get the "Well then it wouldn't be fun for me"...
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 F2P MMO's are the new wave that everyone uses, then the devs need to start implementing (or figure out how to) IP address bans instead of just account bans. It was less of an issue when every game had box prices and subscriptions. One of the reasons I still prefer subs, even more so if name changes and server transfers aren't possible, people make a name for themselves (either good or bad) in the community, and have to live with it (unless they reroll and start from scratch).
Ideally a game would be subscription based, with one character per server, no name changes, and maybe an extremely limited number of server transfers (like 1, ever, dont waste it). But I seriously doubt that would ever happen.
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 the game world is big enough, and the systems are in place to prohibit that then the worry is moot. Because if the game world is large enough, one person or heck a thousand people are not quick enough to burn down all the trees in the game world. Secondly, if the systems are in palce such as growth patterns sped up to match the rate of decay then it also becomes moot.
Mankind has been deforesting this planet for 10,000 years and we still have on average 61 trees per every human.
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.
And strictly limit their player base if taking this route. Until the day a Triple-A MMO comes out with forced, non-consensual PvP and reaches millions of subscribers then I'll continue to believe your premise false and wishful thinking. And in before bcbully posits AoW as a source. I mean western markets, using a fantasy based system.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Then you are removing player choice - one of the items Dave spoke of in his interview. They want to appeal to many groups of players without forcing them into something they don't find fun. And there are a lot of people out there who do not want to be forced into PvP situations.
You can design a game around both PvP and PvE, but you don't have to force a group into partaking in something they don't want to. Thing is PvE'ers don't care if there is PvP, so long as they are not forced to deal with it. PvPers on the other hand don't like the fact that some people don't want to have to PvP and feel it ruins the game for them. And when asked why, the general answer has been "Because I want to have the ability to kill someone". They always throw out things like territory control and resource control, but you can have that happen and still allow people to opt out of PvP. When you point that out you get hit with either insults, dead air (no replies) or get the "Well then it wouldn't be fun for me"...
No. My point is that PvE people are demanding that they can never encounter PvP if they don't want it.
There's a difference from having a situation where there are areas that you think or know that should be safe vs. you will get ganked no matter where you are.
But like I said we don't know how they will implement PvP. We do know that when a statement was made to Smedley on twitter...
A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward.
Until the day a Triple-A MMO comes out with forced, non-consensual PvP and reaches millions of subscribers then I'll continue to believe your premise false and wishful thinking. And in before bcbully posits AoW as a source. I mean western markets, using a fantasy based system.
And that sir...is why EQ Next could be ground breaking.
Then you are removing player choice - one of the items Dave spoke of in his interview. They want to appeal to many groups of players without forcing them into something they don't find fun. And there are a lot of people out there who do not want to be forced into PvP situations.
You can design a game around both PvP and PvE, but you don't have to force a group into partaking in something they don't want to. Thing is PvE'ers don't care if there is PvP, so long as they are not forced to deal with it. PvPers on the other hand don't like the fact that some people don't want to have to PvP and feel it ruins the game for them. And when asked why, the general answer has been "Because I want to have the ability to kill someone". They always throw out things like territory control and resource control, but you can have that happen and still allow people to opt out of PvP. When you point that out you get hit with either insults, dead air (no replies) or get the "Well then it wouldn't be fun for me"...
No. My point is that PvE people are demanding that they can never encounter PvP if they don't want it.
There's a difference from having a situation where there are areas that you think or know that should be safe vs. you will get ganked no matter where you are.
But like I said we don't know how they will implement PvP. We do know that when a statement was made to Smedley on twitter...
A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward.
His response was this...
And when someone pointed that statement out to Dave, he replied with "@S_Franchise73@PoeticStanziel hehe. If you think that's an announcement of a feature, then enjoy it. (I don't. "
So again, who knows if Smed was talking about PvP or just agreeing to the need for a form of Risk vs Reward. And judging by Daves comment, I doubt Open PvP is the correct answer.
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?!"
Until the day a Triple-A MMO comes out with forced, non-consensual PvP and reaches millions of subscribers then I'll continue to believe your premise false and wishful thinking. And in before bcbully posits AoW as a source. I mean western markets, using a fantasy based system.
And that sir...is why EQ Next could be ground breaking.
It's not ground breaking if the game manages only 50,000 players. Give or take a fee thousand.
The day that EQN reaches millions (2-3 million will suffice for me) utilizing a non-consensual PvP mechanic then that will be the date I came back here and agree with you. Till that day, I stand by my assessment and historical reference that a FFA PvP has been and forever be niche within the realm of persistent online RPG's.
Edit: your greatest source of inspiration (Eve) manages a paltry 500,000 player base. Further proof that FFA Non-consensual or Forced FFA PvP will forever be small potatoes in the genre.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Until the day a Triple-A MMO comes out with forced, non-consensual PvP and reaches millions of subscribers then I'll continue to believe your premise false and wishful thinking. And in before bcbully posits AoW as a source. I mean western markets, using a fantasy based system.
And that sir...is why EQ Next could be ground breaking.
It's not ground breaking if the game manages only 50,000 players. Give or take a fee thousand.
The day that EQN reaches millions (2-3 million will suffice for me) utilizing a non-consensual PvP mechanic then that will be the date I came back here and agree with you. Till that day, I stand by my assessment and historical reference that a FFA PvP has been and forever be niche within the realm of persistent online RPG's.
Edit: your greatest source of inspiration (Eve) manages a paltry 500,000 player base. Further proof that FFA Non-consensual or Forced FFA PvP will forever be small potatoes in the genre.
500k is paltry? Compared to what? It's the second highest western MMORPG, behind WoW.
The day that EQN reaches millions (2-3 million will suffice for me) utilizing a non-consensual PvP mechanic then that will be the date I came back here and agree with you. Till that day, I stand by my assessment and historical reference that a FFA PvP has been and forever be niche within the realm of persistent online RPG's.
Edit: your greatest source of inspiration (Eve) manages a paltry 500,000 player base. Further proof that FFA Non-consensual or Forced FFA PvP will forever be small potatoes in the genre.
500k isn't paltry. I don't know where you got that idea.
We don't know what EQN is going to be. What we do know is that it's not going to be EQ. It's not going to be EQ2. It's not going to be a themepark. That we know. Oh and we know it's going to have PvP and you're not going to be coddled and it won't be linear. That we know.
I could care less what will suffice for you. I'm saying what they are planning on doing. Something different. Something that hasn't been done before. Which is what you're plainly pointing out to others as a negative. My point is that you might be pointing out the motivation why SOE is doing something in the first place. Not saying that's what's going to happen, but I do think there will be more PvP in the PvE game of EQ than most fanboys will be comfortable with.
What matters is what's already been said. I've been basing my opinion and guesses on what Smed has already said. Many people (perhaps yourself) are having a tough time dealing with EQ Next not being EQ3, rather than looking at what we know and going from there.
And when someone pointed that statement out to Dave, he replied with "@S_Franchise73@PoeticStanziel hehe. If you think that's an announcement of a feature, then enjoy it. (I don't. "
You think that's an answer to refute what Smed said? Sounds more like someone whom is glossing over a comment that they weren't ready to make.
And when someone pointed that statement out to Dave, he replied with "@S_Franchise73@PoeticStanziel hehe. If you think that's an announcement of a feature, then enjoy it. (I don't. "
You think that's an answer to refute what Smed said? Sounds more like someone whom is glossing over a comment that they weren't ready to make.
Or its a vague way of saying "Don't count on it"
Just like Smeds post, it's all in how you want to take it.
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?!"
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.
This type of thinking is one of the reasons you "hardcore" PvPers don't have a game to call your own... I mean sure, you might have Darkfall or Mortal Online but a true AAA game I don't see it happening because you are all being so "hard" that you run off the people you need playing these games.
Reap what you sow I guess, until the "wolves" stop acting like this all I see if game after game of crying about no hardcore PvP.
I love PvP, what I don't love is this kind of attitude. There are demolition derbies, does that mean that because I get in my car I should expect some retard to come crashing into me?
Narrow-minded sh*t like this is what gives PvPers a bad name to being with, let alone that you know it and I know it, there won't be true PvP in any of these games. Why? Because the "hardcore" are not that hard. You ain't hard when it is you and four of your buddies camping a zone line, or jacking the solo guy fighting a bear or using line of sight exploits to get the jump on people. Just another reason PvPers have such a bad rep. But you guys bring it on yourselves so I really can't feel bad.
I CAN feel bad for the tons of people I know are out there that would LOVE to give a game like what you want a try but are chased off by idiot "hardcore wolves" that still use the freaking term carebear...
It is a shame too. Because it takes all kinds of people to do all kinds of things. Why then would you want to run them out of your type of game? Seems to me that bashing keyboards over and over again with the same three guilds would just get so entirely tedious, then again I guess that is what you cats love and honestly, you already have your games for that.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Smed has been playing both sides in all this, and has in turn generated loads of hype and internet traffic, at this stage all word and mouth viral spread is positive, because its all about the name and name alone, as no one truly knows jack-all about the game till August.
Sad fact Smed has played a top game in viral marketing by being vague and expressing personnel opinions, not in game facts.
Until the day a Triple-A MMO comes out with forced, non-consensual PvP and reaches millions of subscribers then I'll continue to believe your premise false and wishful thinking. And in before bcbully posits AoW as a source. I mean western markets, using a fantasy based system.
And that sir...is why EQ Next could be ground breaking.
It's not ground breaking if the game manages only 50,000 players. Give or take a fee thousand.
The day that EQN reaches millions (2-3 million will suffice for me) utilizing a non-consensual PvP mechanic then that will be the date I came back here and agree with you. Till that day, I stand by my assessment and historical reference that a FFA PvP has been and forever be niche within the realm of persistent online RPG's.
Edit: your greatest source of inspiration (Eve) manages a paltry 500,000 player base. Further proof that FFA Non-consensual or Forced FFA PvP will forever be small potatoes in the genre.
500k is paltry? Compared to what? It's the second highest western MMORPG, behind WoW.
Please do a bit more research. Plenty of games out perform Eve for player bases. GW2, Runescape and SWTOR easily have higher player bases. Regardless of the numbers, the point remains, FFA PvP is niche.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Comments
Bad business model as in forcing the majority of your player base into a system they don't want. If it's going to be as you describe than PvP is going to be forced on you. Because having to flag for PvP would be "old" MMO thinking and not something new.
Again why can't innovation happen without PvP...seems to be this aspect is so trival and unimportant in the grand scheme of things yet people here are making it out to be the be all end all of game design...i just don't see it. Don't want to be everything to everyone...than fine, cut out PvP...problem solved.
EVE has over 500k players and has on average about 40k players on at once.
I am pretty sure EU and America would have separate servers.
But we cant have PvE and PvP servers because that would be bad? Interesting....
The general answer I seem to see when asking why its so bad that someone has the option to not PvP is that "It's not fun for me if I can't kill them"
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?!"
Is there a name for trolls who play the victim? That's a form of trolling.
I've seen these GREIFER argument on every MMORPG game there is. It's as if the same people come out of the wood works everytime.
"OMG, greifers will spawn kill newbie levelers" , "OMG greifers will burn the towns down if the game allows them access to", "OMG greifers will play as female characthers when they are male"
My response is: "YES , yes they will ... they always have and they always will decades from now"
If you go on xboxlive, you'll get greifed. If you go on another MMO you'll get greifed. If you go on a forum you'll get griefed. If you go outside to the real world you'll get greifed.
Solution: "Read a book for entertainment... you can't get greifed on there"
Who's the majority of the player base? What system? My point is we don't know how PvP is going to be handled in EQ Next.
Here's some facts that we do know.
One) There will be PvP
Two) Game will be Sandbox
Three) You will not be coddled
Four) It will not be linear
Five) It will be on PS4
Six) EVE is an influence
Seven) EQ Next will be nothing like TSW, SWTOR, etc.
Eight) The game feel wise is going back to original EQ.
The real question is will there be fat chicks on EQ Next? That's hot.
I mean common let's not insult anyone's intelligence here shall we. Vast majority of the player base, IE EQ fans!
Again the argument being made is having ONE server...PvP server and not separating PvE from PvP. Thereby forcing PvE people into a PvP situation. You can easily fix this problem by having a PvE and PvP server, but for some reason this seems to be a problem as well for some. And if that is a problem than yes, you are FORCING people into PvP situations that they would otherwise be avoiding, therefore don't want. Last I checked EQ was primarily a PvE game...so most of the fans (the vast majority) would be aligned to PvE not PvP
If a new character can grief the players and game world, then the game is doomed.
The game is going to be free to play, their would be nothing to stop someone from being a jerk, even if their are consequences, then they just make a new account, because it is free to play.
So I imagine they would of thought of this, but we have no idea what all they are doing, or what people can do.
This is one of the reasons I am more for b2p or p2p, I feel f2p can give too much anonymity, and too much ease to abuse systems. If you had to pay for a new account to be a jerk, some would still do it, but probably a much smaller amount. Most people do not have $40-60 to throw away repeatedly to do something jerkish, just to have to rinse and repeat.
If EQ Next was to be a WoW Clone, you would be right. What if....just if...the game is DESIGNED around PvP being in it. That means you can't have one without the other. If the whole game is designed with PvP in mind, then you can't separate one from the other.
Then you are removing player choice - one of the items Dave spoke of in his interview. They want to appeal to many groups of players without forcing them into something they don't find fun. And there are a lot of people out there who do not want to be forced into PvP situations.
You can design a game around both PvP and PvE, but you don't have to force a group into partaking in something they don't want to. Thing is PvE'ers don't care if there is PvP, so long as they are not forced to deal with it. PvPers on the other hand don't like the fact that some people don't want to have to PvP and feel it ruins the game for them. And when asked why, the general answer has been "Because I want to have the ability to kill someone". They always throw out things like territory control and resource control, but you can have that happen and still allow people to opt out of PvP. When you point that out you get hit with either insults, dead air (no replies) or get the "Well then it wouldn't be fun for me"...
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 F2P MMO's are the new wave that everyone uses, then the devs need to start implementing (or figure out how to) IP address bans instead of just account bans. It was less of an issue when every game had box prices and subscriptions. One of the reasons I still prefer subs, even more so if name changes and server transfers aren't possible, people make a name for themselves (either good or bad) in the community, and have to live with it (unless they reroll and start from scratch).
Ideally a game would be subscription based, with one character per server, no name changes, and maybe an extremely limited number of server transfers (like 1, ever, dont waste it). But I seriously doubt that would ever happen.
If the game world is big enough, and the systems are in place to prohibit that then the worry is moot. Because if the game world is large enough, one person or heck a thousand people are not quick enough to burn down all the trees in the game world. Secondly, if the systems are in palce such as growth patterns sped up to match the rate of decay then it also becomes moot.
Mankind has been deforesting this planet for 10,000 years and we still have on average 61 trees per every human.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96758439
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
And strictly limit their player base if taking this route. Until the day a Triple-A MMO comes out with forced, non-consensual PvP and reaches millions of subscribers then I'll continue to believe your premise false and wishful thinking. And in before bcbully posits AoW as a source. I mean western markets, using a fantasy based system.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
No. My point is that PvE people are demanding that they can never encounter PvP if they don't want it.
There's a difference from having a situation where there are areas that you think or know that should be safe vs. you will get ganked no matter where you are.
But like I said we don't know how they will implement PvP. We do know that when a statement was made to Smedley on twitter...
A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward.
His response was this...
And that sir...is why EQ Next could be ground breaking.
And when someone pointed that statement out to Dave, he replied with "@S_Franchise73 @PoeticStanziel hehe. If you think that's an announcement of a feature, then enjoy it. (I don't.
"
So again, who knows if Smed was talking about PvP or just agreeing to the need for a form of Risk vs Reward. And judging by Daves comment, I doubt Open PvP is the correct answer.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
It's not ground breaking if the game manages only 50,000 players. Give or take a fee thousand.
The day that EQN reaches millions (2-3 million will suffice for me) utilizing a non-consensual PvP mechanic then that will be the date I came back here and agree with you. Till that day, I stand by my assessment and historical reference that a FFA PvP has been and forever be niche within the realm of persistent online RPG's.
Edit: your greatest source of inspiration (Eve) manages a paltry 500,000 player base. Further proof that FFA Non-consensual or Forced FFA PvP will forever be small potatoes in the genre.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
500k is paltry? Compared to what? It's the second highest western MMORPG, behind WoW.
500k isn't paltry. I don't know where you got that idea.
We don't know what EQN is going to be. What we do know is that it's not going to be EQ. It's not going to be EQ2. It's not going to be a themepark. That we know. Oh and we know it's going to have PvP and you're not going to be coddled and it won't be linear. That we know.
I could care less what will suffice for you. I'm saying what they are planning on doing. Something different. Something that hasn't been done before. Which is what you're plainly pointing out to others as a negative. My point is that you might be pointing out the motivation why SOE is doing something in the first place. Not saying that's what's going to happen, but I do think there will be more PvP in the PvE game of EQ than most fanboys will be comfortable with.
What matters is what's already been said. I've been basing my opinion and guesses on what Smed has already said. Many people (perhaps yourself) are having a tough time dealing with EQ Next not being EQ3, rather than looking at what we know and going from there.
You think that's an answer to refute what Smed said? Sounds more like someone whom is glossing over a comment that they weren't ready to make.
Or its a vague way of saying "Don't count on it"
Just like Smeds post, it's all in how you want to take it.
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?!"
This type of thinking is one of the reasons you "hardcore" PvPers don't have a game to call your own... I mean sure, you might have Darkfall or Mortal Online but a true AAA game I don't see it happening because you are all being so "hard" that you run off the people you need playing these games.
Reap what you sow I guess, until the "wolves" stop acting like this all I see if game after game of crying about no hardcore PvP.
I love PvP, what I don't love is this kind of attitude. There are demolition derbies, does that mean that because I get in my car I should expect some retard to come crashing into me?
Narrow-minded sh*t like this is what gives PvPers a bad name to being with, let alone that you know it and I know it, there won't be true PvP in any of these games. Why? Because the "hardcore" are not that hard. You ain't hard when it is you and four of your buddies camping a zone line, or jacking the solo guy fighting a bear or using line of sight exploits to get the jump on people. Just another reason PvPers have such a bad rep. But you guys bring it on yourselves so I really can't feel bad.
I CAN feel bad for the tons of people I know are out there that would LOVE to give a game like what you want a try but are chased off by idiot "hardcore wolves" that still use the freaking term carebear...
It is a shame too. Because it takes all kinds of people to do all kinds of things. Why then would you want to run them out of your type of game? Seems to me that bashing keyboards over and over again with the same three guilds would just get so entirely tedious, then again I guess that is what you cats love and honestly, you already have your games for that.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Smed has been playing both sides in all this, and has in turn generated loads of hype and internet traffic, at this stage all word and mouth viral spread is positive, because its all about the name and name alone, as no one truly knows jack-all about the game till August.
Sad fact Smed has played a top game in viral marketing by being vague and expressing personnel opinions, not in game facts.
Please do a bit more research. Plenty of games out perform Eve for player bases. GW2, Runescape and SWTOR easily have higher player bases. Regardless of the numbers, the point remains, FFA PvP is niche.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!