By its very definition if a game is FFA PvP, PvE (or non-combat) must be an afterthought.
I don't agree. FFA PvP just means the mechanic is there, that's about it. The game could still have plenty in regards to exploration, crafting, killing monsters, building houses, etc. The game becomes disbalanced when PvPers can all-too-easily disrupt these activities.
... and for a large majority of PvP players that is exactly the purpose of FFA PvP. What you are hoping for is unrealistic. A pipe dream. It will never happen. The large majority of hard core PvPers (Ie., FFA PvP) are all about player vs player conflict. They could care less about exploration, crafting, killing PvE monsters, bulding houses, etc.
By its very definition if a game is FFA PvP, PvE (or non-combat) must be an afterthought.
I don't agree. FFA PvP just means the mechanic is there, that's about it. The game could still have plenty in regards to exploration, crafting, killing monsters, building houses, etc. The game becomes disbalanced when PvPers can all-too-easily disrupt these activities.
... and for a large majority of PvP players that is exactly the purpose of FFA PvP. What you are hoping for is unrealistic. A pipe dream. It will never happen. The large majority of hard core PvPers (Ie., FFA PvP) are all about player vs player conflict. They could care less about exploration, crafting, killing PvE monsters, bulding houses, etc.
How do you know this? Where is this data coming from about what us pvp lovers want in a game?
lol no it hasn't. it works for PvE players because PVP is an afterthought in all those games. There's no game design around PVP aspects in those games. Of which are all Themeparks.
Well, unfortunately, in most FFA PvP games, the PvE (or non-combat) is what is an afterthought. Maybe if that changed, PvE players wouldn't avoid PvP games so much.
???
How can it change?
By its very definition if a game is FFA PvP, PvE (or non-combat) must be an afterthought.
Not necessarily. If you have an open world, If you have 100s of things for people to do, if you have places and things that people can choose to do to avoid combat, if you have strong game design elements that reward and punish appropriately - you can cater to more than one idea.
The problem with Open world PVP in a themepark is a few things.
One is that players generally know where the noobs are. They know what quests they need to do, etc. The gankers can sit there and wait for them to come by and nail them. Aion rifting is a great example of this. It's stupid and not that much fun. Albeit I loved the rifting idea in Aion, going behind enemy lines; but I did not care for some of its implementation.
Another issue is the PVPers need something tangible to do. PVP for the sake of PVP should not be the focus. The mini-game crap with point allocation is just as damaging. Those type of players need to go play excellent MOBA games and the like. PVP in an MMORPG needs to have tangible reasons tied to theme and lore that works with PVE elements and not against. For this reason it is why I'm against separate servers for PVE and PVP because the two IMHO needs to be integrated with a heavy emphasis on theme. That means you really can't separate one without destroying the game design of the other.
This all can be done, but the design needs to be implemented with both in mind. Not sacrificing one for the good of the other or having separate teams working on it to the point that the PVE team has not a clue what the PVP team is doing. And vice versa.
So you disagreed with me, then set out to make my point?
Developers know that they can design a pure PvE game and still be successful. The same can not be said about a game featuring FFA PvP. The only reason developers incorporate PvP in games is so that they can capitalize on the potential additional capital. The two play styles do not mix. Like Ying and Yang, hot and cold, day and night, etc., the play styles are polar opposites. We can debate the point til kingdom come and it wont change the fact.
Do you really believe that if it were possible to do so successfully, it would not have been done by now?
Another christmas list thread, but I wanted to get some opinions on this and to have some coding knowledgeables give me a reality check.
Basically I would like to see player controlled territory, but seeing how this is the "largest sandbox mmo" by territory I mean huge amounts of space. What I believe this would do, it would create PvE zones within PvP borders. I would also like these borders to be organic, so a neighboring faction could push your border back. In addition I think having NPC's controlled by the players would help. I think that if an enemy army wishes to take your castle it should take more than one battle. They could certainly win in one battle, if the make a lengthy push to eliminate all of your players/NPCs and finally lay siege upon your stronghold, but it would be more likely for the pushes to come in spurts. I hate the idea of sieges being limited to a window time, to me that makes no sense despite being beneficial to the casual players.
This could go a far way to strengthen the bond between PvP and PvE players. PvP players are protecting the lands of the PvE from their bloodthirsty adversaries, while PvE'ers are exploring/crafting/suppressing interior NPC mobs and also helping to provide the resources to keep a healthy NPC force.
So what do you guys think?
Really it's a moot point.
EQ has always been PvE-centric and to think they're changing from their base formula (even if they say it's "something new") is naive imo.
Also...everyone is hoping for a sandbox, get ready to be disappointed...
All of this would be nice, however, I think it would be reaching and really far too open to abuse by griefer guilds (which are VERY common in PvP/PK), for this reason I would expect nothing like this to be implemented. The sad truth is that most companies would rather shy from anything that could be abused than have to police it.
sleep.....sleep.....sleep.....(Dream world) - So the first time EQN was scrapped for a new concept they were going to make a facebook like casual game. This second iteration of scrapping takes EQN back to it's roots of fantasy RPG with a twist of open world PvP. Nothing that has started out as a PvE centric game has been working; but look at that PvP game (EvE) that is growing year by year. Maybe just maybe PvP done right with asset destruction would work. I know how this could work, we already use the same PvP engine we are using in PS2. We already have Lore to base our world on, and we have excellent tools for the devs to create a great world and depth for the NPCs. (wakes up)
To the OP - I personally think that PvP will play a much larger part in EQN. Call me crazy, but I get this feeling that Smedley would like to play an EQ IP similar to EvE. PvP is not battle grounds or anything of the sort; the kind of PvP that I speak of is Asset Destruction and territory control. When it comes to territory control players will be fighting against other players, and no person that wants to be left alone is going to want to play that game. It's a mindset of being bugged and losing time when killed.
I want to touch on loot drops from PvP for a second. Personally I loved the way Shadowbane did it; anything in the back back dropped and was able to be looted, while anything equipped was safe from being looted. You did have item decay in SB though, so after a kill you would lose endurance on the item and if you didn't repair in between deaths, then you had a chance of breaking your gear permanently (this was only if the gear was at 1/30 or 2/30 HP as an example - it would not happen at 25/30 HP). When gear broke in SB it actually disappeared off of your character and was gone forever. I'm not for full loot games where equipped items drop as well. Darkfall and MO both had full loot games, and it just made things too much of a grind.
I don't think that any game will ever achieve a perfect balance of PvP and PvE. Even in EvE players that run missions know it's a PvP game. That's why I'm hoping that all the chatter about not cannibalizing EQ1/2 is accurate because then EQN is not being made for them as in not a PvE centric game but more PvP focused.
By its very definition if a game is FFA PvP, PvE (or non-combat) must be an afterthought.
I don't agree. FFA PvP just means the mechanic is there, that's about it. The game could still have plenty in regards to exploration, crafting, killing monsters, building houses, etc. The game becomes disbalanced when PvPers can all-too-easily disrupt these activities.
... and for a large majority of PvP players that is exactly the purpose of FFA PvP. What you are hoping for is unrealistic. A pipe dream. It will never happen. The large majority of hard core PvPers (Ie., FFA PvP) are all about player vs player conflict. They could care less about exploration, crafting, killing PvE monsters, bulding houses, etc.
How do you know this? Where is this data coming from about what us pvp lovers want in a game?
I am referring to FFA PvP, not PvP in general. It is understood that most gamers do not mind some form of "consensual" PvP, it is non-consensual PvP (Ie., OW FFA PvP) that most find issue with.
Originally posted by Piiritus Best compromise is separate PvP server(s) where they can gank, grief and balance as much as they want.
You can't run 2 types of servers and expect balance. It's either balanced for PvP or it's not. I jest, a tad.
Seriously though you can't balance for PvP and PvE without creating 2 separate games. I'm all for that, but then the name needs to become EQN-PvP and EQN-PvE. PvPers need PvE players, not in the form of fodder, but the crafters and builders; basically the people that make a game fun when not PvPing.
At this point we don't know what EQN will be, but I'm sure it will be fun for at least a few hundred thousand people.
Riot reports that League of Legends boasts 32 million monthly active players, with 12 million playing daily.
It's not about PVE and PVP, it's about game design. Being true to whatever type of game you want to make rather than trying to appease everyone or making gated content/user experiences because someone might get their panties in a bunch.
As for someone not doing it yet, that's more about companies having to make games like WoW the last decade because that's what their investors told them to make.
Not my problem that they or you can't see outside of the box.
Hopefully SOE is able to. It sounds like that's what they're doing with EQN. We'll have to wait and see.
Riot reports that League of Legends boasts 32 million monthly active players, with 12 million playing daily.
It's not about PVE and PVP, it's about game design. Being true to whatever type of game you want to make rather than trying to appease everyone or making gated content/user experiences because someone might get their panties in a bunch.
As for someone not doing it yet, that's more about companies having to make games like WoW the last decade because that's what their investors told them to make.
Not my problem that they or you can't see outside of the box.
Hopefully SOE is able to. It sounds like that's what they're doing with EQN. We'll have to wait and see.
The only reason I can think off why PvPers want PvE players is to gank them or because they know that PvP is such a small market that there won't be anybody to play with.
Cant we who love PvE be left alone to enjoy the game style we love.
... and for a large majority of PvP players that is exactly the purpose of FFA PvP. What you are hoping for is unrealistic. A pipe dream. It will never happen. The large majority of hard core PvPers (Ie., FFA PvP) are all about player vs player conflict. They could care less about exploration, crafting, killing PvE monsters, bulding houses, etc.
I guess you do not quite understand my stake in this (not that you would care to, perhaps).
What I want is definitely realistic and not at all a pipe dream. It has nothing to do with satisfying PvPers or PvEers. In my "dream", those two classes of players are irrelevant and not stratified. It is not for people to arrive and say: "This is a PvP game" or "this is a PvE game", that's unrealistic and silly. No, it's a game. A world. It has rules. It has rules in both directions, written and unofficial. And a world should make sense. The fact that you can shoot at someone makes sense. The fact that you can collect flowers makes sense. The fact that being alone with a lot of stuff in the middle of nowhere is dangerous makes sense. And the fact that there are consequences for both activities, makes sense. And with that, my objective is a world that makes sense and where people acutely define themselves through their actions.
People that want such a thing, whether they are more into PvP or PvE, will come. You are confusing things. The person you're describing is not a PvPer. PvPers want fair play and play games like StarCraft, Dota, Counter-Strike, where they can test their skill against another on an even footing to see who is better, and where they seek to improve. And as you will see, that market is huge and has no problem staying afloat at all. Funny, isn't it? So why PvP servers do so badly?
I PvE, I PvP, I craft, I pick flowers, I socialize, I build houses, I do lots of things... I can devote my gaming life to kill a player because I think they are a piece of shit. So I like games that are fully immersive, where, in theory, everything is possible, which is why I preefer FFA PvP.
But there's one thing I do not do and never will. I do not grief, spawn camp, corpse camp, exploit, scam, hack, run bots, or macros.
What you're describing is griefers. They are not those who PvP for honor, for conquest, or even just for profit - they PvP to ruin someone's game, they PvP because they "can". They also do it outside of PvP - scams and lies and hacking is their trait. It's really not about PvP combat for them at all, it's about bullying and getting something for nothing. The reason that PvP-only servers have trouble staying afloat is because they're full of griefers instead of PvPers. Griefers sum in a loss overall and serve no purpose to any game they are in (well, they would if maybe they were .001 of the server). Most PvP open games give them way, way too much room to the point where no other playstyle is viable. Thing is, they only exist because they are able to exist. They exist because games are tailored for them. Spawn camping? Preposterous. Choke points? "PvP"-centered specializations? What is this?
Remove all the easy ways to ruin someone's day, create severe punishments for PvP for giggles, generally equate PvPers to PvE monsters and griefers will pretty much die out because they'll have to work for things like everyone else, and that's not what they're here for.
So you're right. Such a situation will not satisfy a griefer. They won't play this game. They will leave. I think that's awesome.
Everyone else, whether it's people looking to craft a great item, people who want to immerse themselves in a world that works, people who will sacrifice what they have in the name of revenge, people who want to roleplay the harsh life of a bandit or pirate, or people who want to have large clan wars over an area, I think they should be very happy.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Can someone link me a thread where a non-PvP sandbox is talked about?
I'm not saying sandboxes NEED PvP, but for me it is hard to imagine one without it. Mainly because (current) sandboxes are conflict driven and if the conflict is provided by the devs, doesn't that take away from the sandboxness?
I'm interested to see what kind of features a PvE'er would expect in their sandbox.
I'm interested to see what kind of features a PvE'er would expect in their sandbox.
All these posters PVE enthusiasts spouting anti-PVP rhetoric are coming from a Themepark mindset. They have never played nor have the slightest clue as to what a Sandbox game actually is.
The only reason I can think off why PvPers want PvE players is to gank them or because they know that PvP is such a small market that there won't be anybody to play with.
Cant we who love PvE be left alone to enjoy the game style we love.
Yes you can. You have EQ1, EQ2, VG, AoC, etc etc. All of those options have pure PvE servers. There are very few AAA games that offer pure PvP games. Sure they offer PvP servers, which are only PvE games with PvP as an add on. The game mechanics for PvP games change the entire game and the meaning of the game.
I wish that people would not want a PvP game but an asset destruction game. Meaning you fight over territory and castles like in Shadowbane.
I don't want PvE players in my game, I want gamers that enjoy getting together as a guild to kill an enemies castle. I don't care if after the siege they go back to crafting, questing or exploring. The issue is that when you allow asset destruction in a game you almost have to have an open world combat mechanic which most people equate to PvP which they equate to ganking. Ganking is not what I want from a PvP game.
There are 2 ways you can make a sandbox, either pve or pvp. Normally you cannot combine the two and still keep it as a sandbox because one side starts to limit the other sides content. It will be interesting to see how SOE will combine or not include one or the other. I think games that focus on one style tend to work at the core a lot better. The constant balancing of pvp and pve is not worth it. I would rather play a game that has one or the other and a strong set of skills, rather then play a game that has both and have to have updates everyweek to keep the game from breaking.
Can someone link me a thread where a non-PvP sandbox is talked about?
I'm not saying sandboxes NEED PvP, but for me it is hard to imagine one without it. Mainly because (current) sandboxes are conflict driven and if the conflict is provided by the devs, doesn't that take away from the sandboxness?
I'm interested to see what kind of features a PvE'er would expect in their sandbox.
Probably up until a few weeks ago, EQ1 was considered a prime example of a sandbox. And PvP certainly wasn't a focus of that game. I really don't know if EQ1 and sandbox are even used in the same sentence anymore.
Mostly though, I think EQ1 was a sandbox in the fact that there were no linear or near linear paths to advance. There were no quest hubs. There were multiple places to go at every level. Didn't like Tox Forest as a newbie zone? Simply hop the boat and head to Qeynos and rebind. Didn't like that area? You could make a run for Everfrost, Misty Thicket or The Feerrot. It was possible to go anywhere, but there were risks. You could have Barbarians leveling in Butcherblock or Ogres in Qeynos. Once you leveled up past the newbie zones, there was a lot more flexibility in zones. It was the openness, the ability to 'write your own personal journey' whichever way you wanted that appealed to many.
Also, not every vendor had every item that you wanted or needed, especially when it came to trade skills. If you wanted to be highly proficient at one craft skill, you needed to know where the vendors were that sold that specific component you needed. And since the game was well ahead of the spoiler sites, it was frequently necessary to find the vendor through good, old-fashioned exploration.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The only reason I can think off why PvPers want PvE players is to gank them or because they know that PvP is such a small market that there won't be anybody to play with.
Cant we who love PvE be left alone to enjoy the game style we love.
You just fundamentally don't understand our intentions then. If by "pvper" you mean people who advocate sandbox games with open world pvp and pvp with consequences (looting or something similar), then I would say it's because we recognize that in order to have a better, deeper game you have to have it. Without real consequences when you die (not just spawning far away so you have to walk forever to get back where you were), and without the threat of death at all times, there's no (or less) immersion. It's BORING to grind pve/harvesting/crafting without any real threat.
The "PvE" crowd (and by that I mean pve ONLY and no pvp or no forced pvp) always seems to think it's about guys who like to fight vs guys who don't like to fight. And how we just want to force our playstyle onto you. And why can't you just be left alone? It must be because we want to kill you! We're no-good dirty murderers who scare off entire playerbases with our ganking, looting, bindcamping etc. Why is the simple concept of risk vs reward such a hard thing to grasp? What if I want to be the one occasionally getting ganked?
The only reason I can think off why PvPers want PvE players is to gank them or because they know that PvP is such a small market that there won't be anybody to play with.
Cant we who love PvE be left alone to enjoy the game style we love.
Yes you can. You have EQ1, EQ2, VG, AoC, etc etc. All of those options have pure PvE servers. There are very few AAA games that offer pure PvP games. Sure they offer PvP servers, which are only PvE games with PvP as an add on. The game mechanics for PvP games change the entire game and the meaning of the game.
I wish that people would not want a PvP game but an asset destruction game. Meaning you fight over territory and castles like in Shadowbane.
I don't want PvE players in my game, I want gamers that enjoy getting together as a guild to kill an enemies castle. I don't care if after the siege they go back to crafting, questing or exploring. The issue is that when you allow asset destruction in a game you almost have to have an open world combat mechanic which most people equate to PvP which they equate to ganking. Ganking is not what I want from a PvP game.
I dont know how EQN will be but...
"The developers have stated an intention to return to a style of gameplay more like the original EverQuest, while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched."
if this is true, EQN should be a PvE focused game with an addiction of PvP, so if you dont want PvE players in your game and you like to siege castles probably this is not the game for you...GW2, TESO or Camelot Unchained could be better choices.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I'm interested to see what kind of features a PvE'er would expect in their sandbox.
All these posters PVE enthusiasts spouting anti-PVP rhetoric are coming from a Themepark mindset. They have never played nor have the slightest clue as to what a Sandbox game actually is.
I believe for the most part they're just walking in the footsteps of the people who originally started this terrible trend of themepark games. It's always just a "why can't we just have..." They don't understand that it's a slippery slope. Taking simulation OUT of a game, is a bad idea... even if you think it's what you want, it's probably going to eventually lead to something that's shallow and boring. It's like using cheat codes in single player games. You think you want infinite money and no-clipping, until you actually get what you wish for and then stop playing forever the next day because it's boring.
The "PvE" crowd (and by that I mean pve ONLY and no pvp or no forced pvp) always seems to think it's about guys who like to fight vs guys who don't like to fight. And how we just want to force our playstyle onto you. And why can't you just be left alone? It must be because we want to kill you! We're no-good dirty murderers who scare off entire playerbases with our ganking, looting, bindcamping etc. Why is the simple concept of risk vs reward such a hard thing to grasp? What if I want to be the one occasionally getting ganked?
Because that is specifically how a certain subset of "PvPers" (again, the group that I refer to as "griefers") position themselves. This is particularly apparently in EVE. A large subset of EVE has open dislike of the non-PvP portion of EVE (especially miners). So it very much becomes about the "PvPers" infringing on the PvE playstyles with a purpose, this is not made up nor is it a joke. Miners are specifically targeted and their ships suicide ganked for no profit.
Why is this possible? Because griefing is easy and it is not in any way controlled. When a game is designed in that manner, the things you claim that are not true DO become true, people DO scare off entire playerbases, people DO prey on the PvE side on purpose. And until they are policed, controlled, and removed from the game, you can forget about the average PvEer or even PvPer, since they are both not into cheap ganking activities.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
The only reason I can think off why PvPers want PvE players is to gank them or because they know that PvP is such a small market that there won't be anybody to play with.
Cant we who love PvE be left alone to enjoy the game style we love.
Yes you can. You have EQ1, EQ2, VG, AoC, etc etc. All of those options have pure PvE servers. There are very few AAA games that offer pure PvP games. Sure they offer PvP servers, which are only PvE games with PvP as an add on. The game mechanics for PvP games change the entire game and the meaning of the game.
I wish that people would not want a PvP game but an asset destruction game. Meaning you fight over territory and castles like in Shadowbane.
I don't want PvE players in my game, I want gamers that enjoy getting together as a guild to kill an enemies castle. I don't care if after the siege they go back to crafting, questing or exploring. The issue is that when you allow asset destruction in a game you almost have to have an open world combat mechanic which most people equate to PvP which they equate to ganking. Ganking is not what I want from a PvP game.
I dont know how EQN will be but...
"The developers have stated an intention to return to a style of gameplay more like the original EverQuest, while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched."
if this is true, EQN should be a PvE focused game with an addiction of PvP, so if you dont want PvE players in your game and you like to siege castles probably this is not the game for you...GW2, TESO or Camelot Unchained could be better choices.
Sandbox has PVP, end of discussion (even SWG had PVP, rather more restricted than EVE's I will give the "PVE crowd reps" on this thread that but PVP all the same).
Also to anyone pulling numbers from arse to prove PVE is the most popular option I will remind them that the last poll on this very forum had around 55% of people ok with a MMO sandbox with both PVP and PVE so kindly stop acting like you're a majority.
If EQN hopes to be anything other than a pathetic nostalgia trip/milking session for EQ1 BitterVets it needs to be more than quote "more like the original EverQuest, while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched." because to put it bluntly that either equates to a rehashed PVE game with tacked on or RvR PVP which, I am sad to say for everyone holding their breaths for such, SOE ain't stupid enough to do, not with WoW still dominating the tacked on PVP segment and GW2, DAoC still holding the RvR PVP guys with many other options available or incoming (such as Camelot Unchained).
To repurpose the chant some of you are making: If you expect this game to live as anything other than a PVE/PVP sandbox in this market, either august the 2nd or time itself will make you a really sad puppy.
The "PvE" crowd (and by that I mean pve ONLY and no pvp or no forced pvp) always seems to think it's about guys who like to fight vs guys who don't like to fight. And how we just want to force our playstyle onto you. And why can't you just be left alone? It must be because we want to kill you! We're no-good dirty murderers who scare off entire playerbases with our ganking, looting, bindcamping etc. Why is the simple concept of risk vs reward such a hard thing to grasp? What if I want to be the one occasionally getting ganked?
Because that is specifically how a certain subset of "PvPers" (again, the group that I refer to as "griefers") position themselves. This is particularly apparently in EVE. A large subset of EVE has open dislike of the non-PvP portion of EVE (especially miners). So it very much becomes about the "PvPers" infringing on the PvE playstyles with a purpose, this is not made up nor is it a joke. Miners are specifically targeted and their ships suicide ganked for no profit.
Why is this possible? Because griefing is easy and it is not in any way controlled. When a game is designed in that manner, the things you claim that are not true DO become true, people DO scare off entire playerbases, people DO prey on the PvE side on purpose. And until they are policed, controlled, and removed from the game, you can forget about the average PvEer or even PvPer, since they are both not into cheap ganking activities.
I didn't say nobody would ever grief and I didn't suggest a game where griefing is "not in any way controlled." But the guy I quoted said he can't think of any other reason why a "pvper" would want "pveers" in the game. I'm explained to him why he's wrong.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there should be no griefing whatsoever. People are assholes and for the most part the game should let people be who they are. Let the community sort them out in their own way. To arbitrarily impose restrictions as simply an easy way out of dealing with the problem players is just lazy game design and it will lead to stale gameplay.
I want to make it clear that I'm not asking for a game that "caters to everybody." There is no such game. In my perfect game, there would be no place for somebody who wants to pve in peace with no consequence or threat. Talking about "infringing on the pve playstyles" means literally nothing to me.
Comments
... and for a large majority of PvP players that is exactly the purpose of FFA PvP. What you are hoping for is unrealistic. A pipe dream. It will never happen. The large majority of hard core PvPers (Ie., FFA PvP) are all about player vs player conflict. They could care less about exploration, crafting, killing PvE monsters, bulding houses, etc.
How do you know this? Where is this data coming from about what us pvp lovers want in a game?
So you disagreed with me, then set out to make my point?
Developers know that they can design a pure PvE game and still be successful. The same can not be said about a game featuring FFA PvP. The only reason developers incorporate PvP in games is so that they can capitalize on the potential additional capital. The two play styles do not mix. Like Ying and Yang, hot and cold, day and night, etc., the play styles are polar opposites. We can debate the point til kingdom come and it wont change the fact.
Do you really believe that if it were possible to do so successfully, it would not have been done by now?
sleep.....sleep.....sleep.....(Dream world) - So the first time EQN was scrapped for a new concept they were going to make a facebook like casual game. This second iteration of scrapping takes EQN back to it's roots of fantasy RPG with a twist of open world PvP. Nothing that has started out as a PvE centric game has been working; but look at that PvP game (EvE) that is growing year by year. Maybe just maybe PvP done right with asset destruction would work. I know how this could work, we already use the same PvP engine we are using in PS2. We already have Lore to base our world on, and we have excellent tools for the devs to create a great world and depth for the NPCs. (wakes up)
To the OP - I personally think that PvP will play a much larger part in EQN. Call me crazy, but I get this feeling that Smedley would like to play an EQ IP similar to EvE. PvP is not battle grounds or anything of the sort; the kind of PvP that I speak of is Asset Destruction and territory control. When it comes to territory control players will be fighting against other players, and no person that wants to be left alone is going to want to play that game. It's a mindset of being bugged and losing time when killed.
I want to touch on loot drops from PvP for a second. Personally I loved the way Shadowbane did it; anything in the back back dropped and was able to be looted, while anything equipped was safe from being looted. You did have item decay in SB though, so after a kill you would lose endurance on the item and if you didn't repair in between deaths, then you had a chance of breaking your gear permanently (this was only if the gear was at 1/30 or 2/30 HP as an example - it would not happen at 25/30 HP). When gear broke in SB it actually disappeared off of your character and was gone forever. I'm not for full loot games where equipped items drop as well. Darkfall and MO both had full loot games, and it just made things too much of a grind.
I don't think that any game will ever achieve a perfect balance of PvP and PvE. Even in EvE players that run missions know it's a PvP game. That's why I'm hoping that all the chatter about not cannibalizing EQ1/2 is accurate because then EQN is not being made for them as in not a PvE centric game but more PvP focused.
I am referring to FFA PvP, not PvP in general. It is understood that most gamers do not mind some form of "consensual" PvP, it is non-consensual PvP (Ie., OW FFA PvP) that most find issue with.
You can't run 2 types of servers and expect balance. It's either balanced for PvP or it's not. I jest, a tad.
Seriously though you can't balance for PvP and PvE without creating 2 separate games. I'm all for that, but then the name needs to become EQN-PvP and EQN-PvE. PvPers need PvE players, not in the form of fodder, but the crafters and builders; basically the people that make a game fun when not PvPing.
At this point we don't know what EQN will be, but I'm sure it will be fun for at least a few hundred thousand people.
Yeah. That's bullshit.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/league-of-legends-breaks-5-million-concurrent-players-6405485
Riot reports that League of Legends boasts 32 million monthly active players, with 12 million playing daily.
It's not about PVE and PVP, it's about game design. Being true to whatever type of game you want to make rather than trying to appease everyone or making gated content/user experiences because someone might get their panties in a bunch.
As for someone not doing it yet, that's more about companies having to make games like WoW the last decade because that's what their investors told them to make.
Not my problem that they or you can't see outside of the box.
Hopefully SOE is able to. It sounds like that's what they're doing with EQN. We'll have to wait and see.
LoL is not an MMORPG.
Keep up, champ.
The only reason I can think off why PvPers want PvE players is to gank them or because they know that PvP is such a small market that there won't be anybody to play with.
Cant we who love PvE be left alone to enjoy the game style we love.
More popular than the PVE MMORPG Themepark games you want the industry to keep making. Enjoy it now, cause it's changing kid.
I guess you do not quite understand my stake in this (not that you would care to, perhaps).
What I want is definitely realistic and not at all a pipe dream. It has nothing to do with satisfying PvPers or PvEers. In my "dream", those two classes of players are irrelevant and not stratified. It is not for people to arrive and say: "This is a PvP game" or "this is a PvE game", that's unrealistic and silly. No, it's a game. A world. It has rules. It has rules in both directions, written and unofficial. And a world should make sense. The fact that you can shoot at someone makes sense. The fact that you can collect flowers makes sense. The fact that being alone with a lot of stuff in the middle of nowhere is dangerous makes sense. And the fact that there are consequences for both activities, makes sense. And with that, my objective is a world that makes sense and where people acutely define themselves through their actions.
People that want such a thing, whether they are more into PvP or PvE, will come. You are confusing things. The person you're describing is not a PvPer. PvPers want fair play and play games like StarCraft, Dota, Counter-Strike, where they can test their skill against another on an even footing to see who is better, and where they seek to improve. And as you will see, that market is huge and has no problem staying afloat at all. Funny, isn't it? So why PvP servers do so badly?
I PvE, I PvP, I craft, I pick flowers, I socialize, I build houses, I do lots of things... I can devote my gaming life to kill a player because I think they are a piece of shit. So I like games that are fully immersive, where, in theory, everything is possible, which is why I preefer FFA PvP.
But there's one thing I do not do and never will. I do not grief, spawn camp, corpse camp, exploit, scam, hack, run bots, or macros.
What you're describing is griefers. They are not those who PvP for honor, for conquest, or even just for profit - they PvP to ruin someone's game, they PvP because they "can". They also do it outside of PvP - scams and lies and hacking is their trait. It's really not about PvP combat for them at all, it's about bullying and getting something for nothing. The reason that PvP-only servers have trouble staying afloat is because they're full of griefers instead of PvPers. Griefers sum in a loss overall and serve no purpose to any game they are in (well, they would if maybe they were .001 of the server). Most PvP open games give them way, way too much room to the point where no other playstyle is viable. Thing is, they only exist because they are able to exist. They exist because games are tailored for them. Spawn camping? Preposterous. Choke points? "PvP"-centered specializations? What is this?
Remove all the easy ways to ruin someone's day, create severe punishments for PvP for giggles, generally equate PvPers to PvE monsters and griefers will pretty much die out because they'll have to work for things like everyone else, and that's not what they're here for.
So you're right. Such a situation will not satisfy a griefer. They won't play this game. They will leave. I think that's awesome.
Everyone else, whether it's people looking to craft a great item, people who want to immerse themselves in a world that works, people who will sacrifice what they have in the name of revenge, people who want to roleplay the harsh life of a bandit or pirate, or people who want to have large clan wars over an area, I think they should be very happy.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Can someone link me a thread where a non-PvP sandbox is talked about?
I'm not saying sandboxes NEED PvP, but for me it is hard to imagine one without it. Mainly because (current) sandboxes are conflict driven and if the conflict is provided by the devs, doesn't that take away from the sandboxness?
I'm interested to see what kind of features a PvE'er would expect in their sandbox.
All these posters PVE enthusiasts spouting anti-PVP rhetoric are coming from a Themepark mindset. They have never played nor have the slightest clue as to what a Sandbox game actually is.
Yes you can. You have EQ1, EQ2, VG, AoC, etc etc. All of those options have pure PvE servers. There are very few AAA games that offer pure PvP games. Sure they offer PvP servers, which are only PvE games with PvP as an add on. The game mechanics for PvP games change the entire game and the meaning of the game.
I wish that people would not want a PvP game but an asset destruction game. Meaning you fight over territory and castles like in Shadowbane.
I don't want PvE players in my game, I want gamers that enjoy getting together as a guild to kill an enemies castle. I don't care if after the siege they go back to crafting, questing or exploring. The issue is that when you allow asset destruction in a game you almost have to have an open world combat mechanic which most people equate to PvP which they equate to ganking. Ganking is not what I want from a PvP game.
There are 2 ways you can make a sandbox, either pve or pvp. Normally you cannot combine the two and still keep it as a sandbox because one side starts to limit the other sides content. It will be interesting to see how SOE will combine or not include one or the other. I think games that focus on one style tend to work at the core a lot better. The constant balancing of pvp and pve is not worth it. I would rather play a game that has one or the other and a strong set of skills, rather then play a game that has both and have to have updates everyweek to keep the game from breaking.
This has weight because they said they were making EQ Next exactly in the vein of EQ1 and EQ2.
oh wait...
Probably up until a few weeks ago, EQ1 was considered a prime example of a sandbox. And PvP certainly wasn't a focus of that game. I really don't know if EQ1 and sandbox are even used in the same sentence anymore.
Mostly though, I think EQ1 was a sandbox in the fact that there were no linear or near linear paths to advance. There were no quest hubs. There were multiple places to go at every level. Didn't like Tox Forest as a newbie zone? Simply hop the boat and head to Qeynos and rebind. Didn't like that area? You could make a run for Everfrost, Misty Thicket or The Feerrot. It was possible to go anywhere, but there were risks. You could have Barbarians leveling in Butcherblock or Ogres in Qeynos. Once you leveled up past the newbie zones, there was a lot more flexibility in zones. It was the openness, the ability to 'write your own personal journey' whichever way you wanted that appealed to many.
Also, not every vendor had every item that you wanted or needed, especially when it came to trade skills. If you wanted to be highly proficient at one craft skill, you needed to know where the vendors were that sold that specific component you needed. And since the game was well ahead of the spoiler sites, it was frequently necessary to find the vendor through good, old-fashioned exploration.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
You just fundamentally don't understand our intentions then. If by "pvper" you mean people who advocate sandbox games with open world pvp and pvp with consequences (looting or something similar), then I would say it's because we recognize that in order to have a better, deeper game you have to have it. Without real consequences when you die (not just spawning far away so you have to walk forever to get back where you were), and without the threat of death at all times, there's no (or less) immersion. It's BORING to grind pve/harvesting/crafting without any real threat.
The "PvE" crowd (and by that I mean pve ONLY and no pvp or no forced pvp) always seems to think it's about guys who like to fight vs guys who don't like to fight. And how we just want to force our playstyle onto you. And why can't you just be left alone? It must be because we want to kill you! We're no-good dirty murderers who scare off entire playerbases with our ganking, looting, bindcamping etc. Why is the simple concept of risk vs reward such a hard thing to grasp? What if I want to be the one occasionally getting ganked?
A lot of people who loved EQ and EQ2 for what they were/are will probably agree with me on this:
Everquest is and should be a PvE game. It's ok for them to try to implement great PvP, but I as sure as hell won't be disappointed if it sucks.
Don't get me wrong, I like playing against other players - but not in EQ.
I dont know how EQN will be but...
"The developers have stated an intention to return to a style of gameplay more like the original EverQuest, while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched."
if this is true, EQN should be a PvE focused game with an addiction of PvP, so if you dont want PvE players in your game and you like to siege castles probably this is not the game for you...GW2, TESO or Camelot Unchained could be better choices.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
I believe for the most part they're just walking in the footsteps of the people who originally started this terrible trend of themepark games. It's always just a "why can't we just have..." They don't understand that it's a slippery slope. Taking simulation OUT of a game, is a bad idea... even if you think it's what you want, it's probably going to eventually lead to something that's shallow and boring. It's like using cheat codes in single player games. You think you want infinite money and no-clipping, until you actually get what you wish for and then stop playing forever the next day because it's boring.
Because that is specifically how a certain subset of "PvPers" (again, the group that I refer to as "griefers") position themselves. This is particularly apparently in EVE. A large subset of EVE has open dislike of the non-PvP portion of EVE (especially miners). So it very much becomes about the "PvPers" infringing on the PvE playstyles with a purpose, this is not made up nor is it a joke. Miners are specifically targeted and their ships suicide ganked for no profit.
Why is this possible? Because griefing is easy and it is not in any way controlled. When a game is designed in that manner, the things you claim that are not true DO become true, people DO scare off entire playerbases, people DO prey on the PvE side on purpose. And until they are policed, controlled, and removed from the game, you can forget about the average PvEer or even PvPer, since they are both not into cheap ganking activities.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
Sandbox has PVP, end of discussion (even SWG had PVP, rather more restricted than EVE's I will give the "PVE crowd reps" on this thread that but PVP all the same).
Also to anyone pulling numbers from arse to prove PVE is the most popular option I will remind them that the last poll on this very forum had around 55% of people ok with a MMO sandbox with both PVP and PVE so kindly stop acting like you're a majority.
If EQN hopes to be anything other than a pathetic nostalgia trip/milking session for EQ1 BitterVets it needs to be more than quote "more like the original EverQuest , while retaining the advances in MMORPG design that have developed in the years since that game first launched." because to put it bluntly that either equates to a rehashed PVE game with tacked on or RvR PVP which, I am sad to say for everyone holding their breaths for such, SOE ain't stupid enough to do, not with WoW still dominating the tacked on PVP segment and GW2, DAoC still holding the RvR PVP guys with many other options available or incoming (such as Camelot Unchained).
To repurpose the chant some of you are making: If you expect this game to live as anything other than a PVE/PVP sandbox in this market, either august the 2nd or time itself will make you a really sad puppy.
I didn't say nobody would ever grief and I didn't suggest a game where griefing is "not in any way controlled." But the guy I quoted said he can't think of any other reason why a "pvper" would want "pveers" in the game. I'm explained to him why he's wrong.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't think there should be no griefing whatsoever. People are assholes and for the most part the game should let people be who they are. Let the community sort them out in their own way. To arbitrarily impose restrictions as simply an easy way out of dealing with the problem players is just lazy game design and it will lead to stale gameplay.
I want to make it clear that I'm not asking for a game that "caters to everybody." There is no such game. In my perfect game, there would be no place for somebody who wants to pve in peace with no consequence or threat. Talking about "infringing on the pve playstyles" means literally nothing to me.