Are you going to be objective and tell me where I'm wrong or not? Are you so insecure that you can't bow out gracefully?
I can't explain it any clearer. The entire debate is whether EQN should be "consensual" or "non-consensual." What else is there to explain?
BTW, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, if it were the case. I am fully cognizant of the concept that a bigger man is better off by admitting a wrong, or a misunderstanding, and moving on, rather than continue debating a losing point, and coming across like an idiot.
You should take heed.
Yes except the exchange I was having with a different person has nothing to do with EQN or what you think is the broader point of the thread. Smaller, more precise questions arise in big discussions like these.
But like I said, no context makes your statement accurate or true. You're just wrong either way. I've explained why, you've ignored it.
You are literally a legend in your own mind. Everyone else reading this thread, however, knows you for what you really are. GG, my friend. How satisfying that must be for you.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go. I do not find PvP immersive, I do not find it fun, I do not believe it is necessary or even desirable in an open world game.
All rules are arbitrary, there will be rules put in by the developer, therefore there will be arbitrary rules.
Finally I do not want to be "invulnerable to player attacks", I want a rule that says player attacks are not permitted. Invulnerable to player attacks implies a player making attacks and them failing this would be silly.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
No one is arguing whether or not a zone should have PvE value. We're talking about how getting killed by another player doesn't exactly break the in world continuity of a game.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
No one is arguing whether or not a zone should have PvE value. We're talking about how getting killed by another player doesn't exactly break the in world continuity of a game.
lol
... does not break immersion for you :- it does for me
... "doesn't exactly break the in world continuity" for you :- it does for me.
Immersion is a subjective experience, my subjective experience is obviously different to yours.
Other than suggesting that I do not understand my own subjective experience do you have anything?
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go. I do not find PvP immersive, I do not find it fun, I do not believe it is necessary or even desirable in an open world game.
All rules are arbitrary, there will be rules put in by the developer, therefore there will be arbitrary rules.
Finally I do not want to be "invulnerable to player attacks", I want a rule that says player attacks are not permitted. Invulnerable to player attacks implies a player making attacks and them failing this would be silly.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that ALL rules are arbitrary, but yeah basically rules in general are arbitrary which is why sandbox players prefer less rules, when possible/practical. When imagining a perfect game, I don't picture things like instances, invisible walls keeping me on a path, etc. Sometimes those things HAVE to exist because of technical limitations and system complexity, but it's never desired.
Also as others have pointed out, you're just not correct about what immersion means. PvP isn't, by itself, non-immersive, it's just a game that you wouldn't want to be immersed in. There's a difference.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go. I do not find PvP immersive, I do not find it fun, I do not believe it is necessary or even desirable in an open world game.
All rules are arbitrary, there will be rules put in by the developer, therefore there will be arbitrary rules.
Finally I do not want to be "invulnerable to player attacks", I want a rule that says player attacks are not permitted. Invulnerable to player attacks implies a player making attacks and them failing this would be silly.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that ALL rules are arbitrary, but yeah basically rules in general are arbitrary which is why sandbox players prefer less rules, when possible/practical. When imagining a perfect game, I don't picture things like instances, invisible walls keeping me on a path, etc. Sometimes those things HAVE to exist because of technical limitations and system complexity, but it's never desired.
Also as others have pointed out, you're just not correct about what immersion means. PvP isn't, by itself, non-immersive, it's just a game that you wouldn't want to be immersed in. There's a difference.
Again someone wants to tell me what my subjective experience is. It is not just a game that I would not want to be immersed in, it would be a game I would be being jerked out of my immersion by jerks.
You keep saying immersion, but I'm not sure you know what that word means...
Wanting to just PvE in a PvP zone, and getting killed, does not break immersion. It interrupts a desired activity, sure, but people killing eachother is not in any way unrealistic.
We have been down this path before, if the PvP zones have no PvE value then that is tolerable, not desirable but tolerable, to PvE players. But if there is any PvE advantage in the PvP zone then no. No special resources, no loot that is better than PvE loot etc. Also the size and number of these PvP areas should reflect the relative numbers of players that is no more than 25% of the landmass and not blocking travel from one PvE area to another.
But if you voluntarily go into a bandit zone, you are consenting to PvP and that is what we have been asking for consensual PvP.
He's saying immersion means you can get lost in the game world, it doesn't mean it's you not getting what you want. An invisible force field making you invulnerable to another player's attacks breaks immersion because it's an arbitrary rule put in by the developers, not a part of the world they've created. It's unrealistic, even by the standards of an unrealistic world where magic exists etc. It's akin to invisible walls and linear paths.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
No one is arguing whether or not a zone should have PvE value. We're talking about how getting killed by another player doesn't exactly break the in world continuity of a game.
lol
... does not break immersion for you :- it does for me
... "doesn't exactly break the in world continuity" for you :- it does for me.
World continuity is not a subjective thing.
If you are in a virtual world where killing other players is the norm, it does not break immersion of that game world to get killed.
Now if you've invented a fantasy out of touch with what the game you're playing is, you can't really rightly get upset if someone breaks your personal reality, founded upon nothing, can you?
I would give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you didn't cheap changing your argument.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go. I do not find PvP immersive, I do not find it fun, I do not believe it is necessary or even desirable in an open world game.
All rules are arbitrary, there will be rules put in by the developer, therefore there will be arbitrary rules.
Finally I do not want to be "invulnerable to player attacks", I want a rule that says player attacks are not permitted. Invulnerable to player attacks implies a player making attacks and them failing this would be silly.
I'm not sure if I'd agree that ALL rules are arbitrary, but yeah basically rules in general are arbitrary which is why sandbox players prefer less rules, when possible/practical. When imagining a perfect game, I don't picture things like instances, invisible walls keeping me on a path, etc. Sometimes those things HAVE to exist because of technical limitations and system complexity, but it's never desired.
Also as others have pointed out, you're just not correct about what immersion means. PvP isn't, by itself, non-immersive, it's just a game that you wouldn't want to be immersed in. There's a difference.
Again someone wants to tell me what my subjective experience is. It is not just a game that I would not want to be immersed in, it would be a game I would be being jerked out of my immersion by jerks.
I'm really not interested in entering the world of "it's my opinion and nothing you say can change my mind." It's childish really and has no place in debate. You know you're wrong and have now resorted to sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to reason.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
No one is arguing whether or not a zone should have PvE value. We're talking about how getting killed by another player doesn't exactly break the in world continuity of a game.
lol
... does not break immersion for you :- it does for me
... "doesn't exactly break the in world continuity" for you :- it does for me.
World continuity is not a subjective thing.
If you are in a virtual world where killing other players is the norm, it does not break immersion of that game world to get killed.
Now if you've invented a fantasy out of touch with what the game you're playing is, you can't really rightly get upset if someone breaks your personal reality, founded upon nothing, can you?
I would give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you didn't cheap changing your argument.
My argument is the same my words change.
As to your latest this thread is titled "PvP versus PvE compromise", that suggests we are discussing a virtual world that would allow both styles of play. By your instance that PvP can only be "immersive" for you if it is non-consensual I guess you are conceding that no compromise is possible.
Again someone wants to tell me what my subjective experience is. It is not just a game that I would not want to be immersed in, it would be a game I would be being jerked out of my immersion by jerks.
I'm really not interested in entering the world of "it's my opinion and nothing you say can change my mind." It's childish really and has no place in debate. You know you're wrong and have now resorted to sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to reason.
No I accept that other people have different preferences, you seem to be opposed to me having my preference. I am listening and responding, not sticking my fingers in my ears. Can you say the same?
Yes it absolutely does break game continuity if you don't want to PvP to have someone kill you. If you like PvP then fine, I get that and you may think that PvP is the be all, end all of play styles but it's not. It's one aspect of an MMO.
I like both PvP and PvE... I believe there is a time and place for it all... I like complex raiding as well as running in group stealth trying to take out a couple targets.. But I feel there should be servers to represent every need of gamer out there... I feel the server list should goes as follows..
Paid Sub Servers -
1. PvE
2. PvP
3. RP (I think EQ started these types of servers but people do play them w/e)
F2P servers
Same as above!!!
Keep rule sets so people know what they are walking into... no PvP?? don't complain.. Just don't join...
I do believe that they should keep SUB servers so they don't have dumb down the game with restrictions or have to purchase character slots for station cash tec...
This is just my personal opinion....
PvP has a huge market and and EQ2 was a good example of that... Nagafen was a pretty populated server through out its existence.. I love the PvP loot system in EQ2, I loved fighting over (Claining) contested raid mobs, ganking people, and HUNTING BOTS!!??? how many bots in a game have you come across and was like man I wish I just could go and kill this BOT and take his cash!! this is awesome...
I just think the servers should be as above.. You don't like PvP?? Don't Join....
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
No one is arguing whether or not a zone should have PvE value. We're talking about how getting killed by another player doesn't exactly break the in world continuity of a game.
lol
... does not break immersion for you :- it does for me
... "doesn't exactly break the in world continuity" for you :- it does for me.
World continuity is not a subjective thing.
If you are in a virtual world where killing other players is the norm, it does not break immersion of that game world to get killed.
Now if you've invented a fantasy out of touch with what the game you're playing is, you can't really rightly get upset if someone breaks your personal reality, founded upon nothing, can you?
I would give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you didn't cheap changing your argument.
My argument is the same my words change.
As to your latest this thread is titled "PvP versus PvE compromise", that suggests we are discussing a virtual world that would allow both styles of play. By your instance that PvP can only be "immersive" for you if it is non-consensual I guess you are conceding that no compromise is possible.
Thanks for that.
I did not argue or say ANY of that. Again you're throwing up misdirections to take attention away from the fact that you don't know what immersion is.
I like both PvP and PvE... I believe there is a time and place for it all... I like complex raiding as well as running in group stealth trying to take out a couple targets.. But I feel there should be servers to represent every need of gamer out there... I feel the server list should goes as follows..
Paid Sub Servers -
1. PvE
2. PvP
3. RP (I think EQ started these types of servers but people do play them w/e)
F2P servers
Same as above!!!
Keep rule sets so people know what they are walking into... no PvP?? don't complain.. Just don't join...
I do believe that they should keep SUB servers so they don't have dumb down the game with restrictions or have to purchase character slots for station cash tec...
This is just my personal opinion....
PvP has a huge market and and EQ2 was a good example of that... Nagafen was a pretty populated server through out its existence.. I love the PvP loot system in EQ2, I loved fighting over (Claining) contested raid mobs, ganking people, and HUNTING BOTS!!??? how many bots in a game have you come across and was like man I wish I just could go and kill this BOT and take his cash!! this is awesome...
I just think the servers should be as above.. You don't like PvP?? Don't Join....
I have one and only one disagreement with your point of view, "PvP has a huge market" it definitely has a market, perhaps a large one but not huge one, my best guess around 20%.
I'm just tired of PvP crybabies ruining PvE. They are two separate games and they shouldn't even be considered together. PvP games should focus on PvP and PvE games focus on PvE... ONLY.
The first thing that happens in a mixed PvP/PvE game (even one with separate servers) is some whiny PvP player gets owned in PVP and immediately runs to the boards to cry about how X class needs to be nerfed. Next thing that happens the devs nerf it and all the PvE players who were happy with the class balance since they are all pulling together as a team have to suffer because the PvP players who always talk so big about carebears, and real skill and challenge are suddenly but inevitably crying and smearing their snot bubbles on their sleeve and begging mommy (game devs) to go tell that bully to play nice.
It's tedious, and I am sick of having to give up a PvE class or give up a game because the class or role I was happy with made some poor whiny PvPer cry.
WoW Stun mace rogue was one of the most fun classes ever. Thanks for nothing whiners.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
same happened in EQ . Enchanters got the biggist nurf to there charm spells which nearly made the class useless and it allmost died out at one time all because a PvP player got charmed on the PVP server.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
lol
... does not break immersion for you :- it does for me
... "doesn't exactly break the in world continuity" for you :- it does for me.
World continuity is not a subjective thing.
If you are in a virtual world where killing other players is the norm, it does not break immersion of that game world to get killed.
Now if you've invented a fantasy out of touch with what the game you're playing is, you can't really rightly get upset if someone breaks your personal reality, founded upon nothing, can you?
I would give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you didn't cheap changing your argument.
My argument is the same my words change.
As to your latest this thread is titled "PvP versus PvE compromise", that suggests we are discussing a virtual world that would allow both styles of play. By your instance that PvP can only be "immersive" for you if it is non-consensual I guess you are conceding that no compromise is possible.
Thanks for that.
I did not argue or say ANY of that. Again you're throwing up misdirections to take attention away from the fact that you don't know what immersion is.
ROFLMAO, there are many definitions of what immersion is including being submerged in water. With reference to computer games they all refer to a subjective state of mind. That is it is what the person feels, what breaks that state of mind is going to vary by individual for some it may be a particular animation or a particular piece of geometry in a zone a broken mechanic, a sound that seems out of place just about anything.
For me being attacked by a PKer breaks my immersion, it takes me out of the virtual world and makes me feel annoyed by the real world pest doing it. I do not regard PvP as part of the game world, seeing it breaks my immersion. Deny that as you will it is a subjective state and therefore either you monitor my brain activity or you accept I know what goes on inside my head.
Oh and since you still have not stated how a compromise between a PvP versus PvE compromise could work, I accept your concession.
Originally posted by Utinni Hopefully they don't emphasize PvP too much. The whole beauty of everquest is that they dont balance classes for PvP.
I hope they listen to this, if one thing I have learned over the past 10 years of MMO's, it is that when you balance classes for PvP, your PvE suffers greatly. These 2 play styles just do not mix in a great game, the result of trying to mix them yields a mediocre PvP game with mediocre PvE thrown in. At least up to this point it has not worked out.
Its a shame because I think it could be a simple fix, by adding PvP and PVE only gear. Make the pvp gear worthless in a PvE situation and PvE gear worthles in a PvP situation. Just make the values on the gear null if a player is using the wrong gear in a situation. For pvp skills let the players choose what skills they want to use for PVP only, but those skills are only PvP based, would have no effect on the PvE mobs, that way you can still balance the class skills for true PvE roles.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
I'm just tired of PvP crybabies ruining PvE. They are two separate games and they shouldn't even be considered together. PvP games should focus on PvP and PvE games focus on PvE... ONLY.
The first thing that happens in a mixed PvP/PvE game (even one with separate servers) is some whiny PvP player gets owned in PVP and immediately runs to the boards to cry about how X class needs to be nerfed. Next thing that happens the devs nerf it and all the PvE players who were happy with the class balance since they are all pulling together as a team have to suffer because the PvP players who always talk so big about carebears, and real skill and challenge are suddenly but inevitably crying and smearing their snot bubbles on their sleeve and begging mommy (game devs) to go tell that bully to play nice.
It's tedious, and I am sick of having to give up a PvE class or give up a game because the class or role I was happy with made some poor whiny PvPer cry.
WoW Stun mace rogue was one of the most fun classes ever. Thanks for nothing whiners.
IIRC Enchanters got raped with the nerf bat early in EQ's life due to the aforementioned snot-bubblers getting charmed and subsequently used and abused. Hilarious stuff. :-) I also remember a vid of shadow priests mind controlling newbs off the lift in the barrens.
Comments
That is why you fail. /wink
You are literally a legend in your own mind. Everyone else reading this thread, however, knows you for what you really are. GG, my friend. How satisfying that must be for you.
.... and you are saying immersion for you is being able to kill me at any time and in any place. Round and round we go. I do not find PvP immersive, I do not find it fun, I do not believe it is necessary or even desirable in an open world game.
All rules are arbitrary, there will be rules put in by the developer, therefore there will be arbitrary rules.
Finally I do not want to be "invulnerable to player attacks", I want a rule that says player attacks are not permitted. Invulnerable to player attacks implies a player making attacks and them failing this would be silly.
This.
We aren't going round and round, I'm pretty sure you just don't know what immersion means.
No one is arguing whether or not a zone should have PvE value. We're talking about how getting killed by another player doesn't exactly break the in world continuity of a game.
lol
... does not break immersion for you :- it does for me
... "doesn't exactly break the in world continuity" for you :- it does for me.
Immersion is a subjective experience, my subjective experience is obviously different to yours.
Other than suggesting that I do not understand my own subjective experience do you have anything?
I'm not sure if I'd agree that ALL rules are arbitrary, but yeah basically rules in general are arbitrary which is why sandbox players prefer less rules, when possible/practical. When imagining a perfect game, I don't picture things like instances, invisible walls keeping me on a path, etc. Sometimes those things HAVE to exist because of technical limitations and system complexity, but it's never desired.
Also as others have pointed out, you're just not correct about what immersion means. PvP isn't, by itself, non-immersive, it's just a game that you wouldn't want to be immersed in. There's a difference.
Don't think I'm ignorant to what you did there.
Again someone wants to tell me what my subjective experience is. It is not just a game that I would not want to be immersed in, it would be a game I would be being jerked out of my immersion by jerks.
World continuity is not a subjective thing.
If you are in a virtual world where killing other players is the norm, it does not break immersion of that game world to get killed.
Now if you've invented a fantasy out of touch with what the game you're playing is, you can't really rightly get upset if someone breaks your personal reality, founded upon nothing, can you?
I would give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you didn't cheap changing your argument.
I'm really not interested in entering the world of "it's my opinion and nothing you say can change my mind." It's childish really and has no place in debate. You know you're wrong and have now resorted to sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to reason.
My argument is the same my words change.
As to your latest this thread is titled "PvP versus PvE compromise", that suggests we are discussing a virtual world that would allow both styles of play. By your instance that PvP can only be "immersive" for you if it is non-consensual I guess you are conceding that no compromise is possible.
Thanks for that.
No I accept that other people have different preferences, you seem to be opposed to me having my preference. I am listening and responding, not sticking my fingers in my ears. Can you say the same?
I like both PvP and PvE... I believe there is a time and place for it all... I like complex raiding as well as running in group stealth trying to take out a couple targets.. But I feel there should be servers to represent every need of gamer out there... I feel the server list should goes as follows..
Paid Sub Servers -
1. PvE
2. PvP
3. RP (I think EQ started these types of servers but people do play them w/e)
F2P servers
Same as above!!!
Keep rule sets so people know what they are walking into... no PvP?? don't complain.. Just don't join...
I do believe that they should keep SUB servers so they don't have dumb down the game with restrictions or have to purchase character slots for station cash tec...
This is just my personal opinion....
PvP has a huge market and and EQ2 was a good example of that... Nagafen was a pretty populated server through out its existence.. I love the PvP loot system in EQ2, I loved fighting over (Claining) contested raid mobs, ganking people, and HUNTING BOTS!!??? how many bots in a game have you come across and was like man I wish I just could go and kill this BOT and take his cash!! this is awesome...
I just think the servers should be as above.. You don't like PvP?? Don't Join....
I did not argue or say ANY of that. Again you're throwing up misdirections to take attention away from the fact that you don't know what immersion is.
I have one and only one disagreement with your point of view, "PvP has a huge market" it definitely has a market, perhaps a large one but not huge one, my best guess around 20%.
I'm just tired of PvP crybabies ruining PvE. They are two separate games and they shouldn't even be considered together. PvP games should focus on PvP and PvE games focus on PvE... ONLY.
The first thing that happens in a mixed PvP/PvE game (even one with separate servers) is some whiny PvP player gets owned in PVP and immediately runs to the boards to cry about how X class needs to be nerfed. Next thing that happens the devs nerf it and all the PvE players who were happy with the class balance since they are all pulling together as a team have to suffer because the PvP players who always talk so big about carebears, and real skill and challenge are suddenly but inevitably crying and smearing their snot bubbles on their sleeve and begging mommy (game devs) to go tell that bully to play nice.
It's tedious, and I am sick of having to give up a PvE class or give up a game because the class or role I was happy with made some poor whiny PvPer cry.
WoW Stun mace rogue was one of the most fun classes ever. Thanks for nothing whiners.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
ROFLMAO, there are many definitions of what immersion is including being submerged in water. With reference to computer games they all refer to a subjective state of mind. That is it is what the person feels, what breaks that state of mind is going to vary by individual for some it may be a particular animation or a particular piece of geometry in a zone a broken mechanic, a sound that seems out of place just about anything.
For me being attacked by a PKer breaks my immersion, it takes me out of the virtual world and makes me feel annoyed by the real world pest doing it. I do not regard PvP as part of the game world, seeing it breaks my immersion. Deny that as you will it is a subjective state and therefore either you monitor my brain activity or you accept I know what goes on inside my head.
Oh and since you still have not stated how a compromise between a PvP versus PvE compromise could work, I accept your concession.
[mod edit]
No need to turn EQnext into another "me too" sandbox game.
If it is, a lot of people are just going to let it pass by.
God knows why so many people think this but sandbox does not mean, FFA PVP.
Neither does it mean a simulation of real life where the game feels like a second job.
Smedley said EQnext will be all about fun it was also mentioned it would be 'worlds largest sanbox game eva!'
And the last time I checked the mass of consumers don't think of fun when sandbox games are brought up.
So I would say a very large portion of MMORPG.com are going to be left out and that is not a bad thing.
Very well said.
Hoping for a game with lots of fun to be announced at SOE Live. I really want this one to be a delight to play for years to come.
I hope they listen to this, if one thing I have learned over the past 10 years of MMO's, it is that when you balance classes for PvP, your PvE suffers greatly. These 2 play styles just do not mix in a great game, the result of trying to mix them yields a mediocre PvP game with mediocre PvE thrown in. At least up to this point it has not worked out.
Its a shame because I think it could be a simple fix, by adding PvP and PVE only gear. Make the pvp gear worthless in a PvE situation and PvE gear worthles in a PvP situation. Just make the values on the gear null if a player is using the wrong gear in a situation. For pvp skills let the players choose what skills they want to use for PVP only, but those skills are only PvP based, would have no effect on the PvE mobs, that way you can still balance the class skills for true PvE roles.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
IIRC Enchanters got raped with the nerf bat early in EQ's life due to the aforementioned snot-bubblers getting charmed and subsequently used and abused. Hilarious stuff. :-) I also remember a vid of shadow priests mind controlling newbs off the lift in the barrens.