Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

"The EverQuest Next riots of 2013"

2

Comments

  • MMOExposedMMOExposed Member RarePosts: 7,400
    Originally posted by Aelious
    The major deal breaker IMO will be forced OWPvP. If it's there SoE will have a steep uphill battle to convince the typical playerbase to accept it.

    I think most anything else will be pretty easy to consider since the MMO space is going through a bit of a flux.

    What about you Bidwood? Will EQN not being forced OWPvP be a deal breaker for you?

    If that's there, expect to see the same thing that happen to the hyped up Warhammer online when it launched.

    Philosophy of MMO Game Design

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Dudehog

    I don't think any irrational fear is involved, it's just not a prefered playstyle. I know I don't represent all MMO players but I used the word "typical" because every measurable matrices shows full OWPvP is by far the minority. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just what is shown.

    You don't have to believe me, on this very site are many polls tht show it. Of course it's not definitive and doesn't mean full PvP isn't good.

    I was responding to what I assume will be the "people's reaction" to whatever EQN is.

    Ya exactly.  Just because something is less popular, doesn't make it "bad".

    I'm sure EQN is going to appeal to both PVEers and PVPers.  The game will either have PVP specific areas like GW2, away from the PVE.  Or it'll have PVP and PVE servers.

    No need for people to get all fussy about it.  There's plenty of game to go around.

    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

  • Shana77Shana77 Member UncommonPosts: 290

    I think the dissapointment is going to be the biggest with people who basically expect EQN to have the exact same gamesystems in place as EQ1 but with a new graphics engine. 

     

    That being said, if the hype from the media that has seen the game without closed doors is correct, the game could be so impressive that many gamers who have their own transfixed idea of what EQN should be might be stunned and baffled and throw their own religion and beliefs out of the door after seeing a new MMO nirvana. But we will have to wait and see. 

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by denshing
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    They lost me at F2P.

    They lost me at Browser based.

    I'd be ok with Browser based, just as long as EQN isn't as bad as FFXIV.

    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

  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167

     "The EverQuest Next riots of 2013"

     

    best EQN pre-reveal forum title of 2013.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by denshing
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    They lost me at F2P.

    They lost me at Browser based.

    I'd be ok with Browser based, just as long as EQN isn't as bad as FFXIV.

    i'd be interested in hearing what your issues with FFXIV are as i am considering firing up my old account.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by aspekx
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by denshing
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    They lost me at F2P.

    They lost me at Browser based.

    I'd be ok with Browser based, just as long as EQN isn't as bad as FFXIV.

    i'd be interested in hearing what your issues with FFXIV are as i am considering firing up my old account.

    Everyone has their own personal tastes.  The open beta should be out soon (I think the 30th).  Just fire it up and try it for yourself.  Don't take my word for it.

    Personally I thought it was simply more of the same.  Not a "terrible game" like it was before the remake, but certainly nothing noteworthy for me.

    But if you're a fan of MMORPGs, couldn't hurt to try out the open beta for yourself, and see if you like it.

    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

  • BetaguyBetaguy Member UncommonPosts: 2,629
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by aspekx
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by denshing
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    They lost me at F2P.

    They lost me at Browser based.

    I'd be ok with Browser based, just as long as EQN isn't as bad as FFXIV.

    i'd be interested in hearing what your issues with FFXIV are as i am considering firing up my old account.

    Everyone has their own personal tastes.  The open beta should be out soon (I think the 30th).  Just fire it up and try it for yourself.  Don't take my word for it.

    Personally I thought it was simply more of the same.  Not a "terrible game" like it was before the remake, but certainly nothing noteworthy for me.

    But if you're a fan of MMORPGs, couldn't hurt to try out the open beta for yourself, and see if you like it.

    It kept my attention for a whole day, I did a 18 hour sitting and couldn't bring myself to log in anymore.  It is more of the same-ol. It would have hooked me if it was 2005.

    "The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by Aelious
    The major deal breaker IMO will be forced OWPvP. If it's there SoE will have a steep uphill battle to convince the typical playerbase to accept it.

    I think most anything else will be pretty easy to consider since the MMO space is going through a bit of a flux.

    What about you Bidwood? Will EQN not being forced OWPvP be a deal breaker for you?

    I'm not going to rage because I'm not invested enough in it...  but would need at least a PVP server to consider playing. Sticking around is a different story and depends on the gameplay.  I'm also done with upgrading my PCs and am going to play on PS4 - so if they break with the trend and don't put EQN on consoles, I won't be able to play. But again, nothing that will burst any blood vessels.

     

    So it looks like most of the people in this forum are in a similar boat - where they have deal breakers but not sanity breakers.

     

    I'm thinking there are players out there though who will lose their cool over some issues. There were some pretty passionate posts on the official forums. I see things like the art style, approach to combat and UI being potential issues for traditionalists. And as you said, PVP is something people feel strongly about. I think a lot of folks would feel betrayed by SOE if that was the standard.

    You're not invested enough in it? Could of fooled me.  If i had to, id be willing to bet real money that you are in the top 10 posters in regards to EQ:N.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415
    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Because OWPvP forced games have a long history of sub-standard performance when it comes to attracting and keeping players.

    EVE manages to do *ok* at 500k.

    MO was a flop.

    UO was only in the 100k range until they came out with a non-PVP area and then added about 150% more players.

    Darkfall was a flop.

    SWG didn't do so hot.

    Many more examples to be had.

    My wife and I are hoping for a great OWPvP game, but we know that it's almost certainly going to have PVE and PVP servers.  In fact, aside from this being logical, it's more preferable.  We don't want to have a server full of people who don't want to PVP in the first place.

     

    You might want to tell all that to Bidwood, because that guy is fully down the path of denial about FFA PVP.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167
    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Because OWPvP forced games have a long history of sub-standard performance when it comes to attracting and keeping players.

    EVE manages to do *ok* at 500k.

    MO was a flop.

    UO was only in the 100k range until they came out with a non-PVP area and then added about 150% more players.

    Darkfall was a flop.

    SWG didn't do so hot.

    Many more examples to be had.

    My wife and I are hoping for a great OWPvP game, but we know that it's almost certainly going to have PVE and PVP servers.  In fact, aside from this being logical, it's more preferable.  We don't want to have a server full of people who don't want to PVP in the first place.

     

    i agree with you, but SWG was only OWPvP for those who flagged for it. i think there were full on factional OW:PvP servers, but for the most part if you were doing PvP it was by choice. also, im not so sure the PvP in SWG was one of its major failings.

     

    as for opinions on FFXIV: i understand that everyone has different tastes, but that's actually why i occasionally ask folks for their opinion on something. i typically find something useful and interesting in the points of view of others.

     

    but i think you and another poster right after you made the  major point: there's nothing really inventive or different about it, mostly it appears to be the same game that we have all been playing since about 2005.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167
    Originally posted by Hrimnir
    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Because OWPvP forced games have a long history of sub-standard performance when it comes to attracting and keeping players.

    EVE manages to do *ok* at 500k.

    MO was a flop.

    UO was only in the 100k range until they came out with a non-PVP area and then added about 150% more players.

    Darkfall was a flop.

    SWG didn't do so hot.

    Many more examples to be had.

    My wife and I are hoping for a great OWPvP game, but we know that it's almost certainly going to have PVE and PVP servers.  In fact, aside from this being logical, it's more preferable.  We don't want to have a server full of people who don't want to PVP in the first place.

     

    You might want to tell all that to Bidwood, because that guy is fully down the path of denial about FFA PVP.

    it seems the most vocal proponents of OW:PvP tend to be that way. it kind of hurts them overall because the ones i have seen often correcting them tend to be rational and considerate players who understand that their tastes aren't the standard for the majority of gamers.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • DocBrodyDocBrody Member UncommonPosts: 1,926
    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Because OWPvP forced games have a long history of sub-standard performance when it comes to attracting and keeping players.

    EVE manages to do *ok* at 500k.

    second biggest subscription-only MMO after WOW

    MO was a flop.

    LOL Budget

    UO was only in the 100k range until they came out with a non-PVP area and then added about 150% more players.

    still considered fail after Trammel

    Darkfall was a flop.

    LOL Budget

    SWG didn't do so hot.

    At times before MMOs even were popular it was doing a stellar job  and advanced the MMO culture. Then it cloned WOW and went downhill

    Many more examples to be had.

    NOPE.

    My wife and I are hoping for a great OWPvP game, but we know that it's almost certainly going to have PVE and PVP servers

     Nah that is oldschool, they want to have everyone in the same world, I bet

  • NadiaNadia Member UncommonPosts: 11,798
    Originally posted by DocBrody
    Originally posted by Gallus85

    EVE manages to do *ok* at 500k.

    second biggest subscription-only MMO after WOW

    Lineage1 has over 1 million subs

  • AkulasAkulas Member RarePosts: 3,029
    If you can't terraform or plant and remove stuff and build a house anywhere you want to other than town owned areas then it's not a sandbox. Could include pk'ing and claim umping too to that if you want to argue about it not being just about crafting.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Originally posted by Telondariel

    I think the sandbox people are going to complain the most.  Why?  Each one of them has a rigid ideal of "what makes a real sandbox".  It's simply not possible to appease all those individual visions.  

    Yeah, but there are other solutions that we just havn't thought about and if the game is good most here will forgive it (if not praise it) as long as it is really fun.

    I think that as long as they make a good game everything will be forgotten. On the other hand if we get a recycled game with a bad engine they will get a lot of nerdrage.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,904
    I think over the next few weeks the EQN forums are going to have a lot of hot topics with a lot of flipping out. Gona be fun to watch for sure.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,904
    Originally posted by Loke666
    Originally posted by Telondariel

    I think the sandbox people are going to complain the most.  Why?  Each one of them has a rigid ideal of "what makes a real sandbox".  It's simply not possible to appease all those individual visions.  

    Yeah, but there are other solutions that we just havn't thought about and if the game is good most here will forgive it (if not praise it) as long as it is really fun.

    I think that as long as they make a good game everything will be forgotten. On the other hand if we get a recycled game with a bad engine they will get a lot of nerdrage.

    I think the PvP sandbox fans will be the most vocal. Just my two cents. If the PvP sandbox fans are happy then the Pure PvEers will be the next most vocal. 

  • PulsarManPulsarMan Member Posts: 289

    My prediction. (And that of most here, I would say)

     

    /EQNext shown. 

    Fan reaction - 

    Fan #1 - THIS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER!!!!!111!!11!!

    Fan #2 - This is the dumbest crap I have ever seen!!!!!

     

    /years of arguing back and forth. 

  • bubbabillbubbabill Member Posts: 80
    really dont care about the game much,  but looking forward to much nerd rage thats gonna happen here. /popcorn
  • whisperwyndwhisperwynd Member UncommonPosts: 1,668

     Riots? No...

    But I can imagine the explosion of threads here from those who disagree with SoE's reveal. 

    So many fanbois, so many haters...and the trolls that enjoy to torment. Should be interesting reads.

  • BadSpockBadSpock Member UncommonPosts: 7,979
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    They lost me at F2P.

    Yep.

    SoE can keep their F2P, their item malls, and especially their RMT system (PS2 recent announcement is a preview of what's to come in EQN player studio, I would bet my life on it.)

    Want a new dungeon!? Buy it on the player studio! Only $2.99 with $0.47 going to the player that created it!

    No thanks.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,904
    Originally posted by BadSpock
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    They lost me at F2P.

    Yep.

    SoE can keep their F2P, their item malls, and especially their RMT system (PS2 recent announcement is a preview of what's to come in EQN player studio, I would bet my life on it.)

    Want a new dungeon!? Buy it on the player studio! Only $2.99 with $0.47 going to the player that created it!

    No thanks.

    Thats not how SoE does F2P. I think they have like 8 items in their item shop. Buy more char slot package 1, 2 or 3 new char slots, a in game item that pays for 1 month sub to gift to a friend, and a few other things. SoE F2P is more like a long demo of the game with enough restrictions that at level cap you want to sub if you want to join the end game community. They dont sell new content like GW2 does.

  • LorgarnLorgarn Member UncommonPosts: 417
    Originally posted by Aelious
    The major deal breaker IMO will be forced OWPvP. If it's there SoE will have a steep uphill battle to convince the typical playerbase to accept it.

    I think most anything else will be pretty easy to consider since the MMO space is going through a bit of a flux.

    What about you Bidwood? Will EQN not being forced OWPvP be a deal breaker for you?

    I'm wondering, "forced" OWPvP used to be almost a standard back in the day. Was it really a problem back then? I'm not so sure. I don't think it classifies as a major deal breaker as it's circumstantial and can be mostly avoided  if it really bothers you.

     

    What people need is a kick the butt. Someone needs to make it right and show people that OWPvP can be extremely fun and interesting. IMO

  • azarhalazarhal Member RarePosts: 1,402

    People who are going to be crying rage-tears this Friday:

    • OW FFA PvPers and PvP gankers
    • Anyone who want EQ1.5 or EQ2.5 (there are a lots of them)
    • Anyone who has a rigid standard for a sandbox

    People who are going to be happy:

    • player who just want something fun, new and different
     
    Although, I expect lots of passionate debates on the features announced as well, but these might not be rage-tears induced.

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.