NO. At almost all costs I would avoid features in games that stop you from playing the game. That's why I'm a little hesitant to jail time. I'm ok with temporary statloss, etc but something that stops you from playing the game is silly imo.
Here's the problem. In order to discourage griefing and mindless / needless ganking they need to implement something that people are NOT OK with, or else you're just going to keep encouraging that behavior. Temporary stat loss means jack when you're griefing lowbies or hunting in a group. That is not a harsh penalty, which is what you've been advocating for this entire thread. That is a slap on the wrist, a "don't do it again" with a wink.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
You need to decide if OW PvP games with sufficient penalties exist or not.
I mention safe areas pretty much the entire time if you cared to read, but, yeah, you can just grab a quote with no context. Link me the post and I'll find you the next instance where I mentioned safe areas. Pretty much all of my comments are made with the intent to make the equivalent of EVE's high sec actually safe instead of theoretically safe.
Very few people here said you personally did anything. "You" is also a plural and is usually used to describe the general mass of PvP griefers, or to generalize at large, and it was generally qualified.
You can argue that may plan is good or bad or whatever, but I have my own agenda which is very clear: I want safe areas to be very, very safe, virtually no PK. I want it to not be possible for people to PK willy nilly under the nose of guards and only get a slap on the wrist. I could extend this further, but safe areas are my main concern. What I suggested accomplished what I want. It doesn't accomplish what you want, and I know that.
So you calling my idea dumb doesn't make sense. It works, for me. Your ideas work, for you. I am explaining what doesn't work for PvEers, why they don't like your systems. That is all. Calling something dumb because it's not what you want is, well, dumb.
I checked page 58, I don't see how your system is different from something like EVE's system? People still get the magical right to occassionally murder, which doesn't make any sense. Murder should never recede or come down if it was proven, if you're a griefer you're a griefer.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
To answer your question about having full loot pvp, well it makes the game into a pure pvp game. The looting makes ganking a viable way of gaining equipment which lowers the amount of players interested in doing hard pve content. As there is no risk involved in ganking the game will change into something that doesn't interest most pve players.
So your problem isn't with dying and losing the gear, it's the fact that they're gaining the gear?
No, but the whole game changes to a focus on PVP and the PVE will be secondary. Compare this with the idea to add pvp flagging. It changes the game as well, in a way that many PVP players don't want.
But to be honest, i don't think there will be any full loot pvp in EQNext, i think we will have asset destruction and FFA PVP with smaller death penalty in PVP then PVE.
No, but the whole game changes to a focus on PVP and the PVE will be secondary. Compare this with the idea to add pvp flagging. It changes the game as well, in a way that many PVP players don't want.
But to be honest, i don't think there will be any full loot pvp in EQNext, i think we will have asset destruction and FFA PVP with smaller death penalty in PVP then PVE.
Which game?
Are you saying it is impossible to have a robust PVE experience in a game where one can loot other players?
I also don't expect EQN to be full PvP on all levels. There are quotes that indicate very good PvP (destructible terrain, etc.) but nothing to indicate it will include everyone. Great points have been made on how to be a true PvP game it needs to be at the core, where everyone is involved, but on the end I can't see SoE pulling that trigger. Not with the EQ brand since it's their flagship and was quoted also by Smed thy it had to work, it had to be sucessful.
McPherson himself said "we avoid bad design decisions" when being specifically asked about full PvP. Indicating first that they know it's a problem with some people but even if full PvP is there that aparently people would be okay with it, indicating a method not seen and may not be to full PvPers liking.
Dave said that one of the main pillars to EQN is that everything is fun. Well it's pretty common knowledge that many people don't find full PvP fun.
Any indication thus far, taking out hypothetical situations, is that full PvP has about 20% support. It's too small a market for EQ and already has titles people playing. Yes, EQN would be better but even lesser games have a dedicated playerbase.
Anytime Smed has gotten flak (EQ2 F2P, PSS1, etc.) has been from him making responsible decisions as the president of a company. Do you think he'll risk losing a portion of 20% or a portion of 80%?
Thing is if the PvP is great and fun its likely to appease at least a portio of core PvP fans, GW2 did right?
Originally posted by cheyane I hope the next FFA PvP game has some real penalties for PKing lower levels then I will play.
Same.
I like a game where there are huge areas where no matter what level I am I can do fun things and, maybe not be safe from pvp, but at least know that if someone tries to get me they are gonna experience some loss. Maybe some wandering guardsmen run up and hack em to bits :P
I'm one of the few who just wants the ability to attack folks. Even if its against the law of the land and I really get nowhere doing it.
For me its partially just an immersion thing.
Its a shame though so few feel that way. Not many developers are going to implement such a system with it being such a turn off.
I checked page 58, I don't see how your system is different from something like EVE's system? People still get the magical right to occassionally murder, which doesn't make any sense. Murder should never recede or come down if it was proven, if you're a griefer you're a griefer.
"NPC guards in the major cities that attack anybody who commits a crime within the city or any known murderers (reds) regardless of whether they've committed a crime recently."
Crimes in UO included looting a corpse that wasn't yours. So even if somebody somehow was able to kill you, nobody would be able to loot you. As soon as anybody even attacked you, they would be insta-killed by the guards. Killing in safezones in UO was basically impossible. Not to mention killing and then looting.
No, but the whole game changes to a focus on PVP and the PVE will be secondary. Compare this with the idea to add pvp flagging. It changes the game as well, in a way that many PVP players don't want.
But to be honest, i don't think there will be any full loot pvp in EQNext, i think we will have asset destruction and FFA PVP with smaller death penalty in PVP then PVE.
Which game?
Are you saying it is impossible to have a robust PVE experience in a game where one can loot other players?
Where did i say that, i just said it will be secondary. The same argument that PVP players have against flagging.
Nothing is impossible, but so far i have not seen any suggestions or examples of games that have a good mix of PVP and PVE, which is the topic of the thread. I would like to see one, but PVE players don't like the PVP ideas and the other way around. After 60? pages we have not reached any "compromise"
Exactly correct. I provided Holophonist with an example system that could, depending on the specific parameters, provide an actual consequence for the anti-social behavior -- a real-world cash penalty with compensation to the victim. He basically went ballistic. The idea isn't perfect, granted, as this system would be unpopular with the PvP crowd. I originally suggested a cost of $50 as a consequence, with 95% going to the victim. That's a figure that I believe would make PKing a very rare thing. If the price were adjusted down to $0.10, it wouldn't be nearly as effective a deterrent.
I went ballistic because yours was the absolute worst system or "compromise" I had ever heard. There's literally no reason for it. What exactly does it solve that other in-game penalties wouldn't solve? Aside from some warped self of satisfaction that you would get when you took the pk'ers money? Seriously, what's the point of it? Why go through the hassle of the legal problems, the bad pr (which you would get)? It's a ridiculous idea..
The in-game problem is the ability to avoid any in-game penalty by simply logging into another account or another character and being able to continue to bad behavior while the 'punishment' timer expires. Even if multiple accounts or characters are prohibited by the game, the offender can escape the punishment simply by playing another game until they are 'clear' again. Either of this avoids any attempts at a 'consequence' that happens in-game. The ability to avoid the consequences of their actions is why the only viable consequence can occur from the game company at a financial level.
The concept of money going to the victim is to compensate for the inconvenience of being murdered, much like a family can sue for civil damages. The offender has interfered on their gaming experience unilaterally. In a minor way, it mirrors the real world American jurisprudence system.
The rest of your response quickly devolves into another personal attack. The online bullying issue is one that is very real, and no one knows if this will ever extend to include non-consensual PvP in MMORPGs. These games are being marketed and sold to children, and parents believe these type of games to be more suitable for their children than other games, like First Person Shooters. I did find it rather laughable that you suggest that there might be legal ramifications of a Cash Consequences system like I suggested, and then attacked the notion that the online bullying issue might one day result in legal action involving MMORPGs.
Many FPS games offer the OW PvP experiences that many PvP gamers seem to prefer. May I respectfully suggest you try one instead of trying to change the nature of the MMORPG genre?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
No, but the whole game changes to a focus on PVP and the PVE will be secondary. Compare this with the idea to add pvp flagging. It changes the game as well, in a way that many PVP players don't want.
But to be honest, i don't think there will be any full loot pvp in EQNext, i think we will have asset destruction and FFA PVP with smaller death penalty in PVP then PVE.
Which game?
Are you saying it is impossible to have a robust PVE experience in a game where one can loot other players?
The problem is that in a focused PvE game (the game i would to play) you make difficult and long dungeons and raids to get a better equipment, that is supposed to be hard or very hard to get (expecialy in the end game PvE contents) so after hours of efforts you dont want to lose all the items you get in few seconds just because you re ganked by a group of pkers.
In a full loot game, equipment have to be very simple to get but this will erase the motivation to do challening and complex PvE...PERSONALY i like to wear my char. very slowly and i dont want that the best equipment in game will be too easy to get.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
The problem is that in a focused PvE game (the game i would to play) you make difficult and long dungeons and raids to get a better equipment, that is supposed to be hard or very hard to get (expecialy in the end game PvE contents) so after hours of efforts you dont want to lose all the items you get in few seconds just because you re ganked by a group of pkers.
In a full loot game, equipment have to be very simple to get but this will erase the motivation to do challening and complex PvE...PERSONALY i like to wear my char. very slowly and i dont want that the best equipment in game will be too easy to get.
Depends on the game design.
I guess it would be possible for a dev to make a game where people who raid could have permanent gear gains that did nothing in pvp. Rendering them effectively naked or in starter gear when it came to a pvp fight, but they wouldn't drop it.
This is off the top of my head and i'm not going to claim it would be the best game design in the world. But even so there may be compromises that could allow a robust full loot and PVE progression system.
The problem is that in a focused PvE game (the game i would to play) you make difficult and long dungeons and raids to get a better equipment, that is supposed to be hard or very hard to get (expecialy in the end game PvE contents) so after hours of efforts you dont want to lose all the items you get in few seconds just because you re ganked by a group of pkers.
In a full loot game, equipment have to be very simple to get but this will erase the motivation to do challening and complex PvE...PERSONALY i like to wear my char. very slowly and i dont want that the best equipment in game will be too easy to get.
Depends on the game design.
I guess it would be possible for a dev to make a game where people who raid could have permanent gear gains that did nothing in pvp. Rendering them effectively naked or in starter gear when it came to a pvp fight, but they wouldn't drop it.
This is off the top of my head and i'm not going to claim it would be the best game design in the world. But even so there may be compromises that could allow a robust full loot and PVE progression system.
Maybe even one that doesn't revolve around gear.
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
Edit: I removed a wall of text.
My point was never to convince you to like anything, just that what you said about PVE gear and raiding wasn't necessarily true.
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
You'd either outplay your opponent, outnumber them, or lose.
Its not the type of thing where you're going to be able to win at everything all the time. I'm not sure I can come up with something that would allow you to never lose your gear in a full loot game and also beat the pants off everyone else with your awesome gear. All while not just balancing the whole thing in favor of the PVE people.
Maybe someone smarter than me or better at designing games can come up with a way for you to be happy in a full loot game.
In the end, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You seem like someone who is very much far to one side of the spectrum when it comes to tastes regarding this sort of thing. There are always going to be people so averse to certain things in games that no matter what sort of game design exists they will not play it, and that is fine. I myself have certain tastes that are like that.
edit: And no, I did not propose any system where PvE players must do PvP to get PvP gear. I never proposed any sort of PvP gear.
You guys know how many games are PVE centric and have side pvp servers for the few who want them?
What if it was just the opposite? A PVP centric game, but with a couple PVE servers for those who want them. That's always a possibility.
Or EQN can just be what we know it will be. A PVE centric game with some nice PVP servers.
People need to chill. Winter is coming. Brace yourself.
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
You'd either outplay your opponent, outnumber them, or lose.
Its not the type of thing where you're going to be able to win at everything all the time. I'm not sure I can come up with something that would allow you to never lose your gear in a full loot game and also beat the pants off everyone else with your awesome gear. All while not just balancing the whole thing in favor of the PVE people.
Maybe someone smarter than me or better at designing games can come up with a way for you to be happy in a full loot game.
In the end, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You seem like someone who is very much far to one side of the spectrum when it comes to tastes regarding this sort of thing. There are always going to be people so averse to certain things in games that no matter what sort of game design exists they will not play it, and that is fine. I myself have certain tastes that are like that.
edit: And no, I did not propose any system where PvE players must do PvP to get PvP gear. I never proposed any sort of PvP gear.
You guys know how many games are PVE centric and have side pvp servers for the few who want them?
What if it was just the opposite? A PVP centric game, but with a couple PVE servers for those who want them. That's always a possibility.
Or EQN can just be what we know it will be. A PVE centric game with some nice PVP servers.
People need to chill. Winter is coming. Brace yourself.
very good point. everquest has never been a pvp centric mmo.
despite of the trillion sandbox mmo with open world pvp systems, coming up such as archeage, black desert, etc, etc, etc. some people want EQN to be a fantasy themed EVE online
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
You'd either outplay your opponent, outnumber them, or lose.
Its not the type of thing where you're going to be able to win at everything all the time. I'm not sure I can come up with something that would allow you to never lose your gear in a full loot game and also beat the pants off everyone else with your awesome gear. All while not just balancing the whole thing in favor of the PVE people.
Maybe someone smarter than me or better at designing games can come up with a way for you to be happy in a full loot game.
In the end, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You seem like someone who is very much far to one side of the spectrum when it comes to tastes regarding this sort of thing. There are always going to be people so averse to certain things in games that no matter what sort of game design exists they will not play it, and that is fine. I myself have certain tastes that are like that.
edit: And no, I did not propose any system where PvE players must do PvP to get PvP gear. I never proposed any sort of PvP gear.
You guys know how many games are PVE centric and have side pvp servers for the few who want them?
What if it was just the opposite? A PVP centric game, but with a couple PVE servers for those who want them. That's always a possibility.
Or EQN can just be what we know it will be. A PVE centric game with some nice PVP servers.
People need to chill. Winter is coming. Brace yourself.
very good point. everquest has never been a pvp centric mmo.
despite of the trillion sandbox mmo with open world pvp systems, coming up such as archeage, black desert, etc, etc, etc. some people want EQN to be a fantasy themed EVE online
No doubt, and it would be a great game.
But EQN is going to appeal to PVE players equally, if not more than, the OWPVP crowd. There is no doubt about that.
very good point. everquest has never been a pvp centric mmo.
despite of the trillion sandbox mmo with open world pvp systems, coming up such as archeage, black desert, etc, etc, etc. some people want EQN to be a fantasy themed EVE online
The heart wants what the heart wants.
It's perfectly fair for us to want an EQ version of Eve.
Very few of us are claiming that we expect it to be such.
I'm still going to want what I want though.
About Everquest not being a pvp centric MMO. I have seen so many people say this but I have never seen anyone make the claim that it was a PvP centric MMO. Who exactly are you guys refuting? Smedley?
From what i've seen the EQN developers are the only ones that have really claimed EQN will have any sort of design for PvP in it. I guess some posters here have pointed that out but I frankly don't believe them, personally.
In any case, most folks agree EQ was a fairly PVE centric game.
very good point. everquest has never been a pvp centric mmo.
despite of the trillion sandbox mmo with open world pvp systems, coming up such as archeage, black desert, etc, etc, etc. some people want EQN to be a fantasy themed EVE online
The heart wants what the heart wants.
It's perfectly fair for us to want an EQ version of Eve.
Very few of us are claiming that we expect it to be such.
I'm still going to want what I want though.
About Everquest not being a pvp centric MMO. I have seen so many people say this but I have never seen anyone make the claim that it was a PvP centric MMO. Who exactly are you guys refuting? Smedley?
From what i've seen the EQN developers are the only ones that have really claimed EQN will have any sort of design for PvP in it. I guess some posters here have pointed that out but I frankly don't believe them, personally.
In any case, most folks agree EQ was a fairly PVE centric game.
Ya we know from a couple teases that there will be some sort of OWPVP in EQN. But it would be foolish to assume that's going to comprise the bulk of the game or that it's going to force it on every single player. It would just kill their potential revenue. Appealing to both crowds is where they're going to take the game.
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
You'd either outplay your opponent, outnumber them, or lose.
Its not the type of thing where you're going to be able to win at everything all the time. I'm not sure I can come up with something that would allow you to never lose your gear in a full loot game and also beat the pants off everyone else with your awesome gear. All while not just balancing the whole thing in favor of the PVE people.
Maybe someone smarter than me or better at designing games can come up with a way for you to be happy in a full loot game.
In the end, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You seem like someone who is very much far to one side of the spectrum when it comes to tastes regarding this sort of thing. There are always going to be people so averse to certain things in games that no matter what sort of game design exists they will not play it, and that is fine. I myself have certain tastes that are like that.
edit: And no, I did not propose any system where PvE players must do PvP to get PvP gear. I never proposed any sort of PvP gear.
You guys know how many games are PVE centric and have side pvp servers for the few who want them?
What if it was just the opposite? A PVP centric game, but with a couple PVE servers for those who want them. That's always a possibility.
Or EQN can just be what we know it will be. A PVE centric game with some nice PVP servers.
People need to chill. Winter is coming. Brace yourself.
very good point. everquest has never been a pvp centric mmo.
despite of the trillion sandbox mmo with open world pvp systems, coming up such as archeage, black desert, etc, etc, etc. some people want EQN to be a fantasy themed EVE online
No doubt, and it would be a great game.
But EQN is going to appeal to PVE players equally, if not more than, the OWPVP crowd. There is no doubt about that.
i would like a mix btween SWG and a Daoc. i said daoc because a dark and light, rvr system would fit perfectly the Everquest lore.
i would have a hard time trying to imagine, some wood elves killing each other lol, i like inmersion as much as the most hardcore roleplayer but senseless, pking, just feels out of place, retarded in the EQ world.
to me a sandbox has to be alot more than fighting, it most be a world that feels alive, with a player controlled economy. and player interaction on all levels. with taverns owned by players, cities managed by players, with rangers finding rare baby pets after taming them, and then selling them in the city markets, with crafters selling their wares in their shops, with sexy half elf dancers trying to get your coins lol, with haflings having fishing contests, with guilds building cities, houses and castles. with crazy gnomes making powerful potions or trying to scam you.
in a good Sandbox MMO pve, pvp is just a side dish that comes after you enjoyed the main meal.!p
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
You'd either outplay your opponent, outnumber them, or lose.
Its not the type of thing where you're going to be able to win at everything all the time. I'm not sure I can come up with something that would allow you to never lose your gear in a full loot game and also beat the pants off everyone else with your awesome gear. All while not just balancing the whole thing in favor of the PVE people.
Maybe someone smarter than me or better at designing games can come up with a way for you to be happy in a full loot game.
In the end, I don't expect to convince you of anything. You seem like someone who is very much far to one side of the spectrum when it comes to tastes regarding this sort of thing. There are always going to be people so averse to certain things in games that no matter what sort of game design exists they will not play it, and that is fine. I myself have certain tastes that are like that.
edit: And no, I did not propose any system where PvE players must do PvP to get PvP gear. I never proposed any sort of PvP gear.
You guys know how many games are PVE centric and have side pvp servers for the few who want them?
What if it was just the opposite? A PVP centric game, but with a couple PVE servers for those who want them. That's always a possibility.
Or EQN can just be what we know it will be. A PVE centric game with some nice PVP servers.
People need to chill. Winter is coming. Brace yourself.
I have nothing against PvP servers, the point is that there are people here that want an OW FFA PVP game with FULL LOOT without PvP or PvE servers with only one server like EVE.
I dont know how EQN will be, but i really hope that it will be totaly different from this type of game
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I've never once belittled people for wanting something different. I've never argued with somebody for saying they hope EQN doesn't have ow pvp. I argue with people when they say something that is incorrect, that's all.
For instance. tt's ok to want separate pvp/pve servers. It's NOT ok to tell me that I should be ok with it or that it's a "win-win" situation. I'll argue with those people all day long.
I didn't intend to paint you in an unreasonable light.
It was just my way of trying to get across that so many of us aren't trying to force our viewpoints, but rather, understanding of our viewpoints and why things are as you say above.
I've read everything you've written in this thread and I agree with a great deal of it. I see a lot of reason from some of the more PVE centered people as well, but I also see a lot of what I can only hope is them reading too fast and not really absorbing what was said. Maybe just focusing on key words and replying to them out of context?
It was that sort of poster I was aiming at.
Which is not to say I am always completely on top of the comprehension game with other's posts.
Now I will include an obligatory disclaimer that there is misunderstanding and half-cocked arguments on both sides of the fence :P
I know. I just have to reiterate it as often as possible because people like jean-luc and others seem intent on smearing my character.
Ya we know from a couple teases that there will be some sort of OWPVP in EQN. But it would be foolish to assume that's going to comprise the bulk of the game or that it's going to force it on every single player. It would just kill their potential revenue. Appealing to both crowds is where they're going to take the game.
The part in yellow I refute. Not saying that PVE itself is bad, but I think that they seem pretty confident that they won't take players from EQ and EQ2. The only way I see that not happening is if the play style of EQN is so different, that it would warrant that opinion. That sounds like to me that they are going for non-EQ players with EQN. They could be going after WoW players or other Themepark players from other games, but that doesn't make sense either. Everything they said is about being different and a different approach. I interpret that as going after a different gaming group entirely. Probably one that might not be playing any Themepark MMORPGs. The disagreement for discussion then shifts to whether there's enough people that would be interested in that different of a game to warrant such a big change. And the answer is...we just don't know. No one's tried that yet. All most dev teams have tried to do in recent years is capture some (if not all) of the WoW players.
And the answer is...we just don't know. No one's tried that yet. All most dev teams have tried to do in recent years is capture some (if not all) of the WoW players.
I share many of your sentiments.
Too many people are experts on what is good from SOE's financial standpoint all while lacking in hard information or alternative insights.
This isn't strictly a "maximize the box sales" type of release. Games like GW2 that rely on box sales have a bit of a different challenge as they have a small window in which to convince everyone to buy their game. A box sales game then never has the opportunity to sell us again quite like they had before the game released.
This sort of environment in my opinion is MUCH more conducive to the "me too" titles we've been seeing so often.
With them launching free to play it is a bit of a different strategy. They, instead of relying on first impressions, can be a little more lax on the "mass appeal" and it is possible they found instead of creating a "me too" title, they can focus on making something that will have long term longevity and grow over the years.
The game being cash shop driven they need to focus a lot more on keeping customers playing for long periods of time rather than just attracting as many initial customers as possible regardless of how long they play.
Important questions then become - "what game models show to have great longevity?" "Are there any types of games that might grow over time rather than dwindle away?" Whatever your answer is to these questions, in my opinion they are much more relevant than the question, "what game will appeal to the most people up front?" when talking about EQN.
None of this is to say they can simply ignore what gamer's want because the game is free to play. Obviously getting "butts in the seats" so to speak is important to any title, especially a cash shop driven one.
Originally posted by HolophonistIf we add permadeath though...
NO. At almost all costs I would avoid features in games that stop you from playing the game. That's why I'm a little hesitant to jail time. I'm ok with temporary statloss, etc but something that stops you from playing the game is silly imo.
Here's the problem. In order to discourage griefing and mindless / needless ganking they need to implement something that people are NOT OK with, or else you're just going to keep encouraging that behavior. Temporary stat loss means jack when you're griefing lowbies or hunting in a group. That is not a harsh penalty, which is what you've been advocating for this entire thread. That is a slap on the wrist, a "don't do it again" with a wink.
I don't see how this argument makes any sense. A punishment is a punishment. Whether it's statloss, in-game gold, being hunted by bounty hunters day and night, or just lack of convenience by way of being banished from npc cities, it's still going to affect that player. I'm not sure where you guys are getting the idea that these players don't care about these things. In UO the pks were constantly whining about the restrictions placed on them.
Also it seems like you're just not experienced in these games because pks rarely went after miners or low level players exclusively, even if they wanted to. Pks were constantly being run off by blue players of all different professions and skill levels.
Comments
Here's the problem. In order to discourage griefing and mindless / needless ganking they need to implement something that people are NOT OK with, or else you're just going to keep encouraging that behavior. Temporary stat loss means jack when you're griefing lowbies or hunting in a group. That is not a harsh penalty, which is what you've been advocating for this entire thread. That is a slap on the wrist, a "don't do it again" with a wink.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
You need to decide if OW PvP games with sufficient penalties exist or not.
I mention safe areas pretty much the entire time if you cared to read, but, yeah, you can just grab a quote with no context. Link me the post and I'll find you the next instance where I mentioned safe areas. Pretty much all of my comments are made with the intent to make the equivalent of EVE's high sec actually safe instead of theoretically safe.
Very few people here said you personally did anything. "You" is also a plural and is usually used to describe the general mass of PvP griefers, or to generalize at large, and it was generally qualified.
You can argue that may plan is good or bad or whatever, but I have my own agenda which is very clear: I want safe areas to be very, very safe, virtually no PK. I want it to not be possible for people to PK willy nilly under the nose of guards and only get a slap on the wrist. I could extend this further, but safe areas are my main concern. What I suggested accomplished what I want. It doesn't accomplish what you want, and I know that.
So you calling my idea dumb doesn't make sense. It works, for me. Your ideas work, for you. I am explaining what doesn't work for PvEers, why they don't like your systems. That is all. Calling something dumb because it's not what you want is, well, dumb.
I checked page 58, I don't see how your system is different from something like EVE's system? People still get the magical right to occassionally murder, which doesn't make any sense. Murder should never recede or come down if it was proven, if you're a griefer you're a griefer.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
No, but the whole game changes to a focus on PVP and the PVE will be secondary. Compare this with the idea to add pvp flagging. It changes the game as well, in a way that many PVP players don't want.
But to be honest, i don't think there will be any full loot pvp in EQNext, i think we will have asset destruction and FFA PVP with smaller death penalty in PVP then PVE.
Which game?
Are you saying it is impossible to have a robust PVE experience in a game where one can loot other players?
McPherson himself said "we avoid bad design decisions" when being specifically asked about full PvP. Indicating first that they know it's a problem with some people but even if full PvP is there that aparently people would be okay with it, indicating a method not seen and may not be to full PvPers liking.
Dave said that one of the main pillars to EQN is that everything is fun. Well it's pretty common knowledge that many people don't find full PvP fun.
Any indication thus far, taking out hypothetical situations, is that full PvP has about 20% support. It's too small a market for EQ and already has titles people playing. Yes, EQN would be better but even lesser games have a dedicated playerbase.
Anytime Smed has gotten flak (EQ2 F2P, PSS1, etc.) has been from him making responsible decisions as the president of a company. Do you think he'll risk losing a portion of 20% or a portion of 80%?
Thing is if the PvP is great and fun its likely to appease at least a portio of core PvP fans, GW2 did right?
Same.
I like a game where there are huge areas where no matter what level I am I can do fun things and, maybe not be safe from pvp, but at least know that if someone tries to get me they are gonna experience some loss. Maybe some wandering guardsmen run up and hack em to bits :P
I'm one of the few who just wants the ability to attack folks. Even if its against the law of the land and I really get nowhere doing it.
For me its partially just an immersion thing.
Its a shame though so few feel that way. Not many developers are going to implement such a system with it being such a turn off.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/5860498
"NPC guards in the major cities that attack anybody who commits a crime within the city or any known murderers (reds) regardless of whether they've committed a crime recently."
Crimes in UO included looting a corpse that wasn't yours. So even if somebody somehow was able to kill you, nobody would be able to loot you. As soon as anybody even attacked you, they would be insta-killed by the guards. Killing in safezones in UO was basically impossible. Not to mention killing and then looting.
Where did i say that, i just said it will be secondary. The same argument that PVP players have against flagging.
Nothing is impossible, but so far i have not seen any suggestions or examples of games that have a good mix of PVP and PVE, which is the topic of the thread. I would like to see one, but PVE players don't like the PVP ideas and the other way around. After 60? pages we have not reached any "compromise"
The in-game problem is the ability to avoid any in-game penalty by simply logging into another account or another character and being able to continue to bad behavior while the 'punishment' timer expires. Even if multiple accounts or characters are prohibited by the game, the offender can escape the punishment simply by playing another game until they are 'clear' again. Either of this avoids any attempts at a 'consequence' that happens in-game. The ability to avoid the consequences of their actions is why the only viable consequence can occur from the game company at a financial level.
The concept of money going to the victim is to compensate for the inconvenience of being murdered, much like a family can sue for civil damages. The offender has interfered on their gaming experience unilaterally. In a minor way, it mirrors the real world American jurisprudence system.
The rest of your response quickly devolves into another personal attack. The online bullying issue is one that is very real, and no one knows if this will ever extend to include non-consensual PvP in MMORPGs. These games are being marketed and sold to children, and parents believe these type of games to be more suitable for their children than other games, like First Person Shooters. I did find it rather laughable that you suggest that there might be legal ramifications of a Cash Consequences system like I suggested, and then attacked the notion that the online bullying issue might one day result in legal action involving MMORPGs.
Many FPS games offer the OW PvP experiences that many PvP gamers seem to prefer. May I respectfully suggest you try one instead of trying to change the nature of the MMORPG genre?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The problem is that in a focused PvE game (the game i would to play) you make difficult and long dungeons and raids to get a better equipment, that is supposed to be hard or very hard to get (expecialy in the end game PvE contents) so after hours of efforts you dont want to lose all the items you get in few seconds just because you re ganked by a group of pkers.
In a full loot game, equipment have to be very simple to get but this will erase the motivation to do challening and complex PvE...PERSONALY i like to wear my char. very slowly and i dont want that the best equipment in game will be too easy to get.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Depends on the game design.
I guess it would be possible for a dev to make a game where people who raid could have permanent gear gains that did nothing in pvp. Rendering them effectively naked or in starter gear when it came to a pvp fight, but they wouldn't drop it.
This is off the top of my head and i'm not going to claim it would be the best game design in the world. But even so there may be compromises that could allow a robust full loot and PVE progression system.
Maybe even one that doesn't revolve around gear.
This solution dont convince me...imagine that you have finished your raid/dungeon and you have only your PvE equipment , how can you defend yourself if you gears dont works in PvP and you are attacked by PKers? Furthermore with this solution you will force PvE players to do PvP not only to defend but even to get PvP gears.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Edit: I removed a wall of text.
My point was never to convince you to like anything, just that what you said about PVE gear and raiding wasn't necessarily true.
You guys know how many games are PVE centric and have side pvp servers for the few who want them?
What if it was just the opposite? A PVP centric game, but with a couple PVE servers for those who want them. That's always a possibility.
Or EQN can just be what we know it will be. A PVE centric game with some nice PVP servers.
People need to chill. Winter is coming. Brace yourself.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
very good point. everquest has never been a pvp centric mmo.
despite of the trillion sandbox mmo with open world pvp systems, coming up such as archeage, black desert, etc, etc, etc. some people want EQN to be a fantasy themed EVE online
No doubt, and it would be a great game.
But EQN is going to appeal to PVE players equally, if not more than, the OWPVP crowd. There is no doubt about that.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
The heart wants what the heart wants.
It's perfectly fair for us to want an EQ version of Eve.
Very few of us are claiming that we expect it to be such.
I'm still going to want what I want though.
About Everquest not being a pvp centric MMO. I have seen so many people say this but I have never seen anyone make the claim that it was a PvP centric MMO. Who exactly are you guys refuting? Smedley?
From what i've seen the EQN developers are the only ones that have really claimed EQN will have any sort of design for PvP in it. I guess some posters here have pointed that out but I frankly don't believe them, personally.
In any case, most folks agree EQ was a fairly PVE centric game.
Ya we know from a couple teases that there will be some sort of OWPVP in EQN. But it would be foolish to assume that's going to comprise the bulk of the game or that it's going to force it on every single player. It would just kill their potential revenue. Appealing to both crowds is where they're going to take the game.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
i would like a mix btween SWG and a Daoc. i said daoc because a dark and light, rvr system would fit perfectly the Everquest lore.
i would have a hard time trying to imagine, some wood elves killing each other lol, i like inmersion as much as the most hardcore roleplayer but senseless, pking, just feels out of place, retarded in the EQ world.
to me a sandbox has to be alot more than fighting, it most be a world that feels alive, with a player controlled economy. and player interaction on all levels. with taverns owned by players, cities managed by players, with rangers finding rare baby pets after taming them, and then selling them in the city markets, with crafters selling their wares in their shops, with sexy half elf dancers trying to get your coins lol, with haflings having fishing contests, with guilds building cities, houses and castles. with crazy gnomes making powerful potions or trying to scam you.
in a good Sandbox MMO pve, pvp is just a side dish that comes after you enjoyed the main meal.!p
I have nothing against PvP servers, the point is that there are people here that want an OW FFA PVP game with FULL LOOT without PvP or PvE servers with only one server like EVE.
I dont know how EQN will be, but i really hope that it will be totaly different from this type of game
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I've never once belittled people for wanting something different. I've never argued with somebody for saying they hope EQN doesn't have ow pvp. I argue with people when they say something that is incorrect, that's all.
For instance. tt's ok to want separate pvp/pve servers. It's NOT ok to tell me that I should be ok with it or that it's a "win-win" situation. I'll argue with those people all day long.
I didn't intend to paint you in an unreasonable light.
It was just my way of trying to get across that so many of us aren't trying to force our viewpoints, but rather, understanding of our viewpoints and why things are as you say above.
I've read everything you've written in this thread and I agree with a great deal of it. I see a lot of reason from some of the more PVE centered people as well, but I also see a lot of what I can only hope is them reading too fast and not really absorbing what was said. Maybe just focusing on key words and replying to them out of context?
It was that sort of poster I was aiming at.
Which is not to say I am always completely on top of the comprehension game with other's posts.
Now I will include an obligatory disclaimer that there is misunderstanding and half-cocked arguments on both sides of the fence :P
I know. I just have to reiterate it as often as possible because people like jean-luc and others seem intent on smearing my character.The part in yellow I refute. Not saying that PVE itself is bad, but I think that they seem pretty confident that they won't take players from EQ and EQ2. The only way I see that not happening is if the play style of EQN is so different, that it would warrant that opinion. That sounds like to me that they are going for non-EQ players with EQN. They could be going after WoW players or other Themepark players from other games, but that doesn't make sense either. Everything they said is about being different and a different approach. I interpret that as going after a different gaming group entirely. Probably one that might not be playing any Themepark MMORPGs. The disagreement for discussion then shifts to whether there's enough people that would be interested in that different of a game to warrant such a big change. And the answer is...we just don't know. No one's tried that yet. All most dev teams have tried to do in recent years is capture some (if not all) of the WoW players.
I share many of your sentiments.
Too many people are experts on what is good from SOE's financial standpoint all while lacking in hard information or alternative insights.
This isn't strictly a "maximize the box sales" type of release. Games like GW2 that rely on box sales have a bit of a different challenge as they have a small window in which to convince everyone to buy their game. A box sales game then never has the opportunity to sell us again quite like they had before the game released.
This sort of environment in my opinion is MUCH more conducive to the "me too" titles we've been seeing so often.
With them launching free to play it is a bit of a different strategy. They, instead of relying on first impressions, can be a little more lax on the "mass appeal" and it is possible they found instead of creating a "me too" title, they can focus on making something that will have long term longevity and grow over the years.
The game being cash shop driven they need to focus a lot more on keeping customers playing for long periods of time rather than just attracting as many initial customers as possible regardless of how long they play.
Important questions then become - "what game models show to have great longevity?" "Are there any types of games that might grow over time rather than dwindle away?" Whatever your answer is to these questions, in my opinion they are much more relevant than the question, "what game will appeal to the most people up front?" when talking about EQN.
None of this is to say they can simply ignore what gamer's want because the game is free to play. Obviously getting "butts in the seats" so to speak is important to any title, especially a cash shop driven one.
NO. At almost all costs I would avoid features in games that stop you from playing the game. That's why I'm a little hesitant to jail time. I'm ok with temporary statloss, etc but something that stops you from playing the game is silly imo.
Here's the problem. In order to discourage griefing and mindless / needless ganking they need to implement something that people are NOT OK with, or else you're just going to keep encouraging that behavior. Temporary stat loss means jack when you're griefing lowbies or hunting in a group. That is not a harsh penalty, which is what you've been advocating for this entire thread. That is a slap on the wrist, a "don't do it again" with a wink.
I don't see how this argument makes any sense. A punishment is a punishment. Whether it's statloss, in-game gold, being hunted by bounty hunters day and night, or just lack of convenience by way of being banished from npc cities, it's still going to affect that player. I'm not sure where you guys are getting the idea that these players don't care about these things. In UO the pks were constantly whining about the restrictions placed on them.Also it seems like you're just not experienced in these games because pks rarely went after miners or low level players exclusively, even if they wanted to. Pks were constantly being run off by blue players of all different professions and skill levels.