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.
Build a systems that discourages asshattery in an extreme way - that's the way to go.
If I'm going to lose my whole character for killing another player and looting him, I better get something like everything he spent IRL money on for his character.. There is no way anyone would ever do anything (thus making it not as exciting) if the repurcussion was "Your character you spent hundreds of hours on is pretty much in virtual prison for life"
Losing your loot in a crafting based PvE endgame item progression (Which is looking likely, but we have no idea what the Raids will offer. They claim PvE/Raids arent just nothing) isnt the end of the world if someone kills you, but if one particular person is on a murdering spree then there should be a cool bounty system to go on him, yeah. Even in Skyrim -- You can commit a crime if you remove all the evidence to avoid getting a "Warrant" If I kill one person out in a forest just me and him, the whole game shouldnt turn on me.
(i'm not a griefer, but to put my mind in someone who likes the idea of World PvP while also doing my PvE stuff in an Everquest setting)
But they keep claiming they want 'reality' when defending open world pvp being forced on everyone. So why can't we use the same reasoning? They murder, they go to jail for life. It shouldn't be based on whether or not gear is 'easy' to get or not. You want reality in a game, then you get all of it. You can't pick and choose.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force a truckload of gameplay restrictions in a sandbox onto people, he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on another Wowclone. You can bet it will be one single server sandbox. There is a way to do it right the problem is no one except CCP found that cloning Wow is a dead end.
Comparing a Themepark with a sandbox will get you really far in your arguments. Especially on this site.
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!!!
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
Sure there is. Because they won't get anywhere in the game. Every time they make a new character, after the last was imprisoned, they start over again. Meaning everyone else is getting stronger, they are not. Thus, eventually, griefers won't be able to kill players at all. Sounds like a win/win to me.
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.
Build a systems that discourages asshattery in an extreme way - that's the way to go.
If I'm going to lose my whole character for killing another player and looting him, I better get something like everything he spent IRL money on for his character.. There is no way anyone would ever do anything (thus making it not as exciting) if the repurcussion was "Your character you spent hundreds of hours on is pretty much in virtual prison for life"
Losing your loot in a crafting based PvE endgame item progression (Which is looking likely, but we have no idea what the Raids will offer. They claim PvE/Raids arent just nothing) isnt the end of the world if someone kills you, but if one particular person is on a murdering spree then there should be a cool bounty system to go on him, yeah. Even in Skyrim -- You can commit a crime if you remove all the evidence to avoid getting a "Warrant" If I kill one person out in a forest just me and him, the whole game shouldnt turn on me.
(i'm not a griefer, but to put my mind in someone who likes the idea of World PvP while also doing my PvE stuff in an Everquest setting)
But they keep claiming they want 'reality' when defending open world pvp being forced on everyone. So why can't we use the same reasoning? They murder, they go to jail for life. It shouldn't be based on whether or not gear is 'easy' to get or not. You want reality in a game, then you get all of it. You can't pick and choose.
Because we're playing a video game. We aren't playing real life. Bounties are awesome. Permanent losing your character? Might as well just go the joking Perma-death route.. Losing your loot that may or may not be able to be replaced in minutes with crafting materials doesnt warrant a character that may have spent 300+ hours being locked away forever.
Now, I'm totally not against some system where some guy loses 3-5 hours of in-game time if he's on some murdering spree and gets caught.
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.
"Player Policing Themselves". Have you ever heard of that in MMOS with Open PvP?
It worked well in UO in the past, it should work well in todays Open PvP envirements.
They are called PKK (Player Killer Killers). They are a group(Or an entire guild) of individuals who play the game as everyone else would, but they also hunt those who kill other players for griefing purposes within the game.
Do a search, you would be amazed what you could find and how well it worked.
But new players nowadays (Not saying you) don't think outside the box and figure out how to make the game a BETTER experience short of the "GIMME GIMME GIMME" and "I WIN" attitudes that we see today.
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
Sure there is. Because they won't get anywhere in the game. Every time they make a new character, after the last was imprisoned, they start over again. Meaning everyone else is getting stronger, they are not. Thus, eventually, griefers won't be able to kill players at all. Sounds like a win/win to me.
The way for you to stop facing the chance to be griefed is playing a different game than EQ Next. Simple truth.
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
Sure there is. Because they won't get anywhere in the game. Every time they make a new character, after the last was imprisoned, they start over again. Meaning everyone else is getting stronger, they are not. Thus, eventually, griefers won't be able to kill players at all. Sounds like a win/win to me.
The way for you to stop facing the chance to be griefed is playing a different game than EQ Next. Simple truth.
Sandbox =/= Themepark safemode
Sandbox =/= PvP either. That's a misconception that players need to get out of their head. Sandbox means non-linear gameplay with player created environs and resources. No where is it stated that sandbox has to have pvp. But again, you are proving my point about the only thing you want is to force everyone to pvp so you can grief anyone, at any time. You keep repeating this 'safemode' propaganda word. So how about a new one, griefmode.
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
Sure there is. Because they won't get anywhere in the game. Every time they make a new character, after the last was imprisoned, they start over again. Meaning everyone else is getting stronger, they are not. Thus, eventually, griefers won't be able to kill players at all. Sounds like a win/win to me.
The way for you to stop facing the chance to be griefed is playing a different game than EQ Next. Simple truth.
Sandbox =/= Themepark safemode
Sandbox =/= PvP either. That's a misconception that players need to get out of their head. Sandbox means non-linear gameplay with player created environs and resources. No where is it stated that sandbox has to have pvp. But again, you are proving my point about the only thing you want is to force everyone to pvp so you can grief anyone, at any time. You keep repeating this 'safemode' propaganda word. So how about a new one, griefmode.
There is no denying Smedley's vocal infatuation with EVE and how it could rub off on Dave and the other developers. And they've been monitoring the newer MMOs that have been coming out and tanking. They knew SWTOR and other games were going to tank and it made them re-consider how to make Everquest Next.
Smedley said the future of SOE is pretty much on the line with Everquest Next -- They'd probably rather go out guns blazing than making another cookie cutter MMO that is just like the rest but a different world and different lore. Atleast, if I knew my company was on the line, I'd go for something new that could change the market much like what EQ1 did.
This game isnt like what we're used to in the current MMO market. And I love it, whatever it brings. The MMO genre needs a change.
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.
Build a systems that discourages asshattery in an extreme way - that's the way to go.
If I'm going to lose my whole character for killing another player and looting him, I better get something like everything he spent IRL money on for his character.. There is no way anyone would ever do anything (thus making it not as exciting) if the repurcussion was "Your character you spent hundreds of hours on is pretty much in virtual prison for life"
Losing your loot in a crafting based PvE endgame item progression (Which is looking likely, but we have no idea what the Raids will offer. They claim PvE/Raids arent just nothing) isnt the end of the world if someone kills you, but if one particular person is on a murdering spree then there should be a cool bounty system to go on him, yeah. Even in Skyrim -- You can commit a crime if you remove all the evidence to avoid getting a "Warrant" If I kill one person out in a forest just me and him, the whole game shouldnt turn on me.
(i'm not a griefer, but to put my mind in someone who likes the idea of World PvP while also doing my PvE stuff in an Everquest setting)
But they keep claiming they want 'reality' when defending open world pvp being forced on everyone. So why can't we use the same reasoning? They murder, they go to jail for life. It shouldn't be based on whether or not gear is 'easy' to get or not. You want reality in a game, then you get all of it. You can't pick and choose.
Because we're playing a video game. We aren't playing real life. Bounties are awesome. Permanent losing your character? Might as well just go the joking Perma-death route.. Losing your loot that may or may not be able to be replaced in minutes with crafting materials doesnt warrant a character that may have spent 300+ hours being locked away forever.
Now, I'm totally not against some system where some guy loses 3-5 hours of in-game time if he's on some murdering spree and gets caught.
But again, they want reality. Isn't that reality? Or is it simply they want the ability to murder/grief anyone WITHOUT penalty. But they want to be able to do so using the 'reality' argument. You can't just let players in a game using reality as a basis and then limit how they are punished for crimes. That leans to heavily in favor of the griefers side. There needs to be a balance. You want total freedom, there should be absolute consequences.
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.
Well isnt that one of the strongest points of sandbox games? Players interactivity with the other players and the enviroment in high levels. Unexpected things can happen etc. As to your example if someone hypothetically did such a thing he would on some ppl's kos list 24/7 (kill on sight),if supposely ppl would be in the mood to build house and i found out x genius burned out the forest lol. As for ganging theories u know that there are dogooders groups that hunt down gangers .I think ganging fear comes natural for ppl that are used to more safe inviroments and the try sandbox games.My advise? Play the game as u should ,take procautions and keep in mind that after all its a game.Just a game where u can loose things upon dying.In most cases u could regain things u lost anwy.
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
Sure there is. Because they won't get anywhere in the game. Every time they make a new character, after the last was imprisoned, they start over again. Meaning everyone else is getting stronger, they are not. Thus, eventually, griefers won't be able to kill players at all. Sounds like a win/win to me.
The way for you to stop facing the chance to be griefed is playing a different game than EQ Next. Simple truth.
Sandbox =/= Themepark safemode
Sandbox =/= PvP either. That's a misconception that players need to get out of their head. Sandbox means non-linear gameplay with player created environs and resources. No where is it stated that sandbox has to have pvp. But again, you are proving my point about the only thing you want is to force everyone to pvp so you can grief anyone, at any time. You keep repeating this 'safemode' propaganda word. So how about a new one, griefmode.
Invincible player characters in a sandbox world are immersion breaking. Besides it´s nothing but lazy programming and lazy game design.
Sophisticated way:
Player is attackable
Other player has the option to attack. Everyone makes decisions all the time. "possible threat" of being attacked comes in as additional layer into gameplay. Social interaction comes into play.
You commit a crime, you will face consequences.
You act friendly, you may have found an ally.
Dumb, lazy, old school lazy game design, cheap internship programmer way:
Players are invincible little supermen characters made of iron, or rather bodyless ghosts you can´t even target
Death penalty or life in prison for griefers? Really. Just delete the toon and start a new one - and continue griefing. Even if you ban or delete their account just create a new account.
There is no way to stop griefing except to not allow it. That is the rub.
Sure there is. Because they won't get anywhere in the game. Every time they make a new character, after the last was imprisoned, they start over again. Meaning everyone else is getting stronger, they are not. Thus, eventually, griefers won't be able to kill players at all. Sounds like a win/win to me.
The way for you to stop facing the chance to be griefed is playing a different game than EQ Next. Simple truth.
Sandbox =/= Themepark safemode
Sandbox =/= PvP either. That's a misconception that players need to get out of their head. Sandbox means non-linear gameplay with player created environs and resources. No where is it stated that sandbox has to have pvp. But again, you are proving my point about the only thing you want is to force everyone to pvp so you can grief anyone, at any time. You keep repeating this 'safemode' propaganda word. So how about a new one, griefmode.
There is no denying Smedley's vocal infatuation with EVE and how it could rub off on Dave and the other developers. And they've been monitoring the newer MMOs that have been coming out and tanking. They knew SWTOR and other games were going to tank and it made them re-consider how to make Everquest Next.
Smedley said the future of SOE is pretty much on the line with Everquest Next -- They'd probably rather go out guns blazing than making another cookie cutter MMO that is just like the rest but a different world and different lore. Atleast, if I knew my company was on the line, I'd go for something new that could change the market much like what EQ1 did.
This game isnt like what we're used to in the current MMO market. And I love it, whatever it brings. The MMO genre needs a change.
But open world pvp MMOs have been done. And every one of them has died or is dying except Eve. Open world pvp does not appeal to enough players to warrant complete focus on just that style of gaming. Darkfall, Earthrise, Shadowbane, etc. all open world pvp games..I really don't want EQN to be next on that list.
You have countless titles who cater to "everyone".
No AAA sandbox that I'm aware of.
One will come along one day, and I was hoping EQN was it. It may or may not be, depending on mandatory grief or not.
Elder Scrolls Online.
No PvP except in Cyrodill, large focus on crafting, player housing, etc.
I keep telling people, sometimes I run into people who like ESO that sound like they'd like EQN more, and sometimes I run into hopeful EQN players that ESO probably suits them better.
ESO will protect you except in Cyrodill, there is no telling whether EQN will be as protective.
Face it. This game will fail miserably if it's forced, FFA PVP all on 1 server. End of story. Do you really think SOE is going to cater to this? If so, there goes all the players still playing EQ1, EQ2, Vanguard, etc.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
- considerable freedom
- absence of artificial barriers
- tools to modify the world
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
"But is it a risk to make an MMO that's so different from what players are familiar with? Georgeson acknowledges that it's a risk, but he's very confident that his team is on the right track. He said that the unfamiliar is going to be OK because the ideas are so cool that players will want to stick around to find out about them. At the same time, SOE is trying to make the game more intuitive. The longer a game's out, the harder it is for new players to jump into the game easily. With EQ Next, SOE is making sure to take care of accessibility now, not later.
When we spoke about the franchise as a whole, Georgeson reminded me that both EQ and EQII have been around for 14 and nine years respectively, and as far as he's concerned, there's no reason to ever turn the games off. He's not worried about EQ Next cannibalizing the two titles because it's such a different game from its siblings and because the fans are so loyal to their respective games. Both communities have developed deep, familial relationships with SOE over the years, and he expects that to continue for many years to come."
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
- considerable freedom
- absence of artificial barriers
- tools to modify the world
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
That last point you just clashed on there completely taken out of context to suit your need. It's got nothing to do with sandbox, like the link you provided explains. PvP is common in sandbox games of the past, but doesn't have anything to do with the sandbox consept as such.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only minority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance. Hopefully SOE will simply ignore them and do their thing. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
PvP won't ruin the game. But open world, full loot pvp? That's a griefers paradise. Hence the title of the thread made by the man who claims he isn't a griefer. Go figure.
I don't even think PvP when I think true sandbox. I think of games like Second Life and Minecraft as pure sandboxes. The FFA PVP games usually aren't all that sandboxy in my opinion.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
- considerable freedom
- absence of artificial barriers
- tools to modify the world
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
That last point you just clashed on there completely taken out of context to suit your need. It's got nothing to do with sandbox, like the link you provided explains. PvP is common in sandbox games of the past, but doesn't have anything to do with the sandbox consept as such.
what part of "no artificial barrier" did you not understand?
If your char stands beside my character and I´m in little invincible safemode, that´s quite an artificial barrier, eh?
You want player/NPC segregation, why can´t you stick to your themeparks? Got sick of em and want to destroy the next genre?
you know they made theme parks exactly for you folks, right?
Pro tip: Instead of turning sandboxes into theme parks, why not playing the available theme parks right away?
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only minority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance. Hopefully SOE will simply ignore them and do their thing. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
Hahaha! I like the way you apply irony to your own arguments. I LOL'ed hard when I read about the 'PvE minority' 'screaming the loudest' hahaha
Yes, Bill Gates has got no money and Obama is white.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only minority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance. Hopefully SOE will simply ignore them and do their thing. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
Says the loudest and most annoying PvP-only advocate. And you said you didn't attack or flame anyone. Shame
And no, the numbers will not be on their side if they go open world, full loot. And using CCP Eve as a case in point isn't wise. They've lost 26% of their population in 3 quarters. That a hell of a lot.
Comments
But they keep claiming they want 'reality' when defending open world pvp being forced on everyone. So why can't we use the same reasoning? They murder, they go to jail for life. It shouldn't be based on whether or not gear is 'easy' to get or not. You want reality in a game, then you get all of it. You can't pick and choose.
Comparing a Themepark with a sandbox will get you really far in your arguments. Especially on this site.
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!!!
Sure there is. Because they won't get anywhere in the game. Every time they make a new character, after the last was imprisoned, they start over again. Meaning everyone else is getting stronger, they are not. Thus, eventually, griefers won't be able to kill players at all. Sounds like a win/win to me.
Because we're playing a video game. We aren't playing real life. Bounties are awesome. Permanent losing your character? Might as well just go the joking Perma-death route.. Losing your loot that may or may not be able to be replaced in minutes with crafting materials doesnt warrant a character that may have spent 300+ hours being locked away forever.
Now, I'm totally not against some system where some guy loses 3-5 hours of in-game time if he's on some murdering spree and gets caught.
"Player Policing Themselves". Have you ever heard of that in MMOS with Open PvP?
It worked well in UO in the past, it should work well in todays Open PvP envirements.
They are called PKK (Player Killer Killers). They are a group(Or an entire guild) of individuals who play the game as everyone else would, but they also hunt those who kill other players for griefing purposes within the game.
Do a search, you would be amazed what you could find and how well it worked.
But new players nowadays (Not saying you) don't think outside the box and figure out how to make the game a BETTER experience short of the "GIMME GIMME GIMME" and "I WIN" attitudes that we see today.
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
The way for you to stop facing the chance to be griefed is playing a different game than EQ Next. Simple truth.
Sandbox =/= Themepark safemode
Sandbox =/= PvP either. That's a misconception that players need to get out of their head. Sandbox means non-linear gameplay with player created environs and resources. No where is it stated that sandbox has to have pvp. But again, you are proving my point about the only thing you want is to force everyone to pvp so you can grief anyone, at any time. You keep repeating this 'safemode' propaganda word. So how about a new one, griefmode.
There is no denying Smedley's vocal infatuation with EVE and how it could rub off on Dave and the other developers. And they've been monitoring the newer MMOs that have been coming out and tanking. They knew SWTOR and other games were going to tank and it made them re-consider how to make Everquest Next.
Smedley said the future of SOE is pretty much on the line with Everquest Next -- They'd probably rather go out guns blazing than making another cookie cutter MMO that is just like the rest but a different world and different lore. Atleast, if I knew my company was on the line, I'd go for something new that could change the market much like what EQ1 did.
This game isnt like what we're used to in the current MMO market. And I love it, whatever it brings. The MMO genre needs a change.
But again, they want reality. Isn't that reality? Or is it simply they want the ability to murder/grief anyone WITHOUT penalty. But they want to be able to do so using the 'reality' argument. You can't just let players in a game using reality as a basis and then limit how they are punished for crimes. That leans to heavily in favor of the griefers side. There needs to be a balance. You want total freedom, there should be absolute consequences.
Well isnt that one of the strongest points of sandbox games? Players interactivity with the other players and the enviroment in high levels. Unexpected things can happen etc. As to your example if someone hypothetically did such a thing he would on some ppl's kos list 24/7 (kill on sight),if supposely ppl would be in the mood to build house and i found out x genius burned out the forest lol. As for ganging theories u know that there are dogooders groups that hunt down gangers .I think ganging fear comes natural for ppl that are used to more safe inviroments and the try sandbox games.My advise? Play the game as u should ,take procautions and keep in mind that after all its a game.Just a game where u can loose things upon dying.In most cases u could regain things u lost anwy.
Invincible player characters in a sandbox world are immersion breaking. Besides it´s nothing but lazy programming and lazy game design.
Sophisticated way:
Player is attackable
Other player has the option to attack. Everyone makes decisions all the time. "possible threat" of being attacked comes in as additional layer into gameplay. Social interaction comes into play.
You commit a crime, you will face consequences.
You act friendly, you may have found an ally.
Dumb, lazy, old school lazy game design, cheap internship programmer way:
Players are invincible little supermen characters made of iron, or rather bodyless ghosts you can´t even target
Feature complete, Programmer takes vacation
But open world pvp MMOs have been done. And every one of them has died or is dying except Eve. Open world pvp does not appeal to enough players to warrant complete focus on just that style of gaming. Darkfall, Earthrise, Shadowbane, etc. all open world pvp games..I really don't want EQN to be next on that list.
No AAA sandbox that I'm aware of.
One will come along one day, and I was hoping EQN was it. It may or may not be, depending on mandatory grief or not.
Elder Scrolls Online.
No PvP except in Cyrodill, large focus on crafting, player housing, etc.
I keep telling people, sometimes I run into people who like ESO that sound like they'd like EQN more, and sometimes I run into hopeful EQN players that ESO probably suits them better.
ESO will protect you except in Cyrodill, there is no telling whether EQN will be as protective.
Because what you want is a theme park, not a sandbox. Wrong genre, simply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game
An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
- considerable freedom
- absence of artificial barriers
- tools to modify the world
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
PAX East
"But is it a risk to make an MMO that's so different from what players are familiar with? Georgeson acknowledges that it's a risk, but he's very confident that his team is on the right track. He said that the unfamiliar is going to be OK because the ideas are so cool that players will want to stick around to find out about them. At the same time, SOE is trying to make the game more intuitive. The longer a game's out, the harder it is for new players to jump into the game easily. With EQ Next, SOE is making sure to take care of accessibility now, not later.
When we spoke about the franchise as a whole, Georgeson reminded me that both EQ and EQII have been around for 14 and nine years respectively, and as far as he's concerned, there's no reason to ever turn the games off. He's not worried about EQ Next cannibalizing the two titles because it's such a different game from its siblings and because the fans are so loyal to their respective games. Both communities have developed deep, familial relationships with SOE over the years, and he expects that to continue for many years to come."
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
That last point you just clashed on there completely taken out of context to suit your need. It's got nothing to do with sandbox, like the link you provided explains. PvP is common in sandbox games of the past, but doesn't have anything to do with the sandbox consept as such.
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only minority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance. Hopefully SOE will simply ignore them and do their thing. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
PvP won't ruin the game. But open world, full loot pvp? That's a griefers paradise. Hence the title of the thread made by the man who claims he isn't a griefer. Go figure.
what part of "no artificial barrier" did you not understand?
If your char stands beside my character and I´m in little invincible safemode, that´s quite an artificial barrier, eh?
You want player/NPC segregation, why can´t you stick to your themeparks? Got sick of em and want to destroy the next genre?
you know they made theme parks exactly for you folks, right?
Pro tip: Instead of turning sandboxes into theme parks, why not playing the available theme parks right away?
Hahaha! I like the way you apply irony to your own arguments. I LOL'ed hard when I read about the 'PvE minority' 'screaming the loudest' hahaha
Yes, Bill Gates has got no money and Obama is white.
Says the loudest and most annoying PvP-only advocate. And you said you didn't attack or flame anyone. Shame
And no, the numbers will not be on their side if they go open world, full loot. And using CCP Eve as a case in point isn't wise. They've lost 26% of their population in 3 quarters. That a hell of a lot.