Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Triple-A sandbox with open-world, non-consensual PVP: If you build it, they will come. And stay.
Bidwood
Member Posts: 554
I think everyone is missing the point of the PVE vs PVP argument. The point is, SOE is a business and will do whatever it can to make maximum profit. This includes implementing changes that go against the mainstream paradigm even at the risk of alienating their existing fanbase. Because if they build something truly amazing, innovative and sustainable, new players will come in droves and they will stay.
Why take the risk? Smedley explained that the devs put tonnes of money into developing expansions that players burn through at an alarming rate. And when they're done with that content, they move on to the other 1000 clone games on the market, never quite finding the one that's "just right". They don't come back until SOE spends another chunk of their fortune developing more content. Clearly, there is a goldmine to be had in a game where the players keep playing and spending between expansions. That's Smedley's theory, and he mentions EVE as an example of a sandbox that gets players totally invested in creating their own content and conflict to keep things interesting. By the way: Smedley implies it's non-consensual, open-world PVP (i.e. Hulkageddon) that keeps EVE interesting.
Some people on the forum are saying SOE won't go this route because "EverQuest has never been about PVP" and they will lose a big chunk of the existing fanbase. SOE just doesn't care because there is a way bigger return on investment in making something different from the games they made in the past. And judging by the impressions of editors from MMORPG.COM and TenTonHammer, this game is likely a triple-A blockbuster that will retain fans for a long time.
One final point... although some people claim the fanbase is categorically against this change, I disagree. ice-vortex did a poll where about half of the 300+ respondents said they would still play even if this game is open-world, non-consensual PVP. Holy cow! People are ready for change.
So yeah. If SOE builds it, they will come. And they'll stay.
Comments
If the PvP is Non-consensual, no they will not stay.
Most MMO gamers dont like PvP that is on someone elses terms.
Bringer of Eternal Darkness and Despair, but also a Nutritious way to start your Morning.
Games Played: Too Many
Nice premise but it is entirely false for one reason. Non-consensual PvP is perhaps the smallest niche market in the MMO genre and is highly doubtful SOE would commit to this style of game with such a limited return on investment.
Now I'm not saying it won't happen but I suspect that there will be alternate ruleset servers, PvE and PvP. This is the best case scenario.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Can we stop calling it non-consensual, please? Obviously you're consenting to PVP if you login to this kind of game. Call it mandatory PVP or something. I don't know.
Non-consensual just has such disturbing connotations.
I really hope this happens. I honestly don't understand why they can't just implement both pve and PvP server options. That way if you want to just run along in the world and hold hands with everyone, you can. Or if you want to play your game with people you like to play with and PK anyone you don't like and have a world of real excitement and risk, you can too:). I mean jeeze, it doesn't have to mean full loot permadeath or anything. Just good ol killin where there needs killin20 million Chinese gamers have stayed with Wushu.
Make a High Fantasy sandbox for the West in the same vain as Wushu, it will grow year after year. They will stay.
Repeating this big fat lie which has been running for years won´t make it true
+1
At the end of the day maybe they will, but I worry about the game design. I don't just want to have the ability to attack and be attacked by anyone. I want the PVP integrated with the other game systems... I think that's important for it to be fun and retain players. Things like the economy, crafting and manipulating the world should be devised with PVP in mind.
I, for one, would come and stay. I am in the niche crowd though. Sadly it seems that most gamers are casual, and they don't want a world where PVP is apt to happen at a moments notice. I also agree that non-consensual is not the correct term to use. Logging into such a game implies consent.
The OP's premise fails at his thought that because Smedley implied something that it will be included in EQNEXT. I think that right now Smedley will say whatever he thinks will generate more interest in his game. The hype is strong here. Which is what they want. My opinion.
Currently bored with MMO's.
There's very little non-consensual pvp in EVE, if one knows what they're doing. There are plenty of tools and tricks like flying while aligned, d-scan and the star map statistics options to keep one out of fights they don't want to be in.
THAT's why people like EVE, because there is danger but there are also steps you can take to minimize the danger. Hope Smedley understands that part of it.
I agree, if you go into areas where pvp is more apt tohappen that imples consent. People do not go to Null sec for example thinking their experience will not include someone wanting to kill them. It is either you go to fight or you go with a catch me if you can attitude. There is stuff that can happen in hi-sec but if you are prepared it is hard to catch you. Same kind of setup would work well in EQnext. Thing about EVE that might not translate well is that in Hi-sec suicide ganking is the thing, flying ships that will not cost a lot if you lose them. I can only think that would translate to having a guild where you have players with low level alts that mob someone - you don't care if they die because they have nothing on them to lose.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Currently playing Everquest on Project1999
If they do server specific rule sets, PvE on some server, FFA PvP on others, it might work.
I myself do like a decent open world PvP rule set, but I only ever really enjoyed Shadowbane in that aspect.
But as some have mentioned, being a FFA PvP game is a mighty niche market.
I don't think SOE will go the full FFA PvP route.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
They are a completely different audience in both culture and play patterns. That said, let's see how Age of Wushu does over here. My experience with the game didn't reveal much sandbox gameplay, but you and others with far greater knowledge of the game feel it is so - conceding to your expertise on that point - AoW is the type of game that the OP describes in the subject line. It looks like the experiment will happen sooner than expected.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Absolutely true. This is the reason I've pretty much given up on MMOs until technology gets to the point that a smaller indie development or kickstarter-backed team can put out an MMO that rivals or at least equates to one with the same scale as a WoW or even a LotRO.
I think AoC taught us though that they need to also drop Level-based for it to work. Level-based games confine the players to specific areas depending on how much time they put into a game. UO, a skill-based game, allowed you to play anywhere in the game world no matter what your skills were. As a GM Fencer and Archer with GM Anatomy, Healing, Parrying, and Tactics I would go dungeon diving one day to rack up regs and gold in Shame from Earth Elementals and maybe Air Elementqls(even the second floor of the dungeon could be a major challenge if I didn't play smart). Another day I might just go kill mongbats, stags, and ettins for hides and a little fun.
As a newbie, 20 minutes old, I could still tag along on guild hunts as long as I kept in the back or middle and just used something like archery or lower magic spells like fireballs.
The point is: Open-PvP + Skill-Based + Dedicated and Non-Combat Crafting = A Great MMORPG. All the rest, even Star Wars Galaxies which got close with 2 of the 3, are just pale comparisons that can't hold the numbers.
It is interesting that you would consider it a "win" when mentioning that in that player poll 50% of the player base voted that they would not play if it is "non-consensual." By this logic, I can tell with a certainty that a business man you are not. Nor are you a business owner or entrepreneur with an eye toward attaining maximum profit for services rendered. Because if you were, you would realize the error of your ways.
By the same token, I noticed you failed to mention the other poll on the boards that gave gamers the opportunity to vote on the game style preferred and in that poll an overwhelming majority of 40% of the voters voted that they would absolutely not play if the game was non-consensual with the remaining 60% scattered over a variety of PvP options of which only 10% represented that group wishing all out open world non-consensual PvP.
While there is no doubt that the desires of that 10% are loud and boisterous, and they always seem to be on almost every game in development, the reality is that developers and investment funds are in the business to maximize profit. It will be a cold day in hell when a business conglomerate like SOE forgoes revenues to the tune of a 50% cut, particular on such a large AAA multi-million dollar scale, just to benefit a niche group totaling 10% of potential revenue.
I know this makes for great drama and anticipation for the PvP crowd, but you'd do well to temper your expectations. You heard it here first ...
It will be open world "CONSENSUAL" PvP.
You can take that to the bank.
if by consensual you mean arena pvp or a special place for pvp then I, for onne, will pass. I think then you lose paying customers that way, perhaps not as many but still $. My opinion.
Currently bored with MMO's.
I highlighted some of your post for emphasis.
Be careful about hanging onto anything Smedley says. He likes to troll Twitter to see how the public reacts. Additionally, he is all about spin and hype, just like his buddy Dave. Only, Dave has found himself in the position of countering Smed's outlandish comments for damage control (eg. the "we love permadeath" comment). Maybe you are new to how Smed runs things, and how he manages PR, but he's a loose cannon in some regards and more interested in his ego than the actual playerbase.
Trying to forecast what SOE will do, what they like, and what they are against is futile. You aren't SOE. Making statements on their part is wishful thinking at best, and presumptuous at most.
FInal note: The poll. So, 150 people said they'd like open-world PvP, eh? That's a pretty insignificant sample, and in no way indicates people are ready for anything.
I think you mean well, but your hype is not allowing you to see anything aside from generous interpretations of questionable info and meager data.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
They won't stay, nor will anyone join those type of games.
PVP players are a niche, and non-consensual PVP is an even smaller niche.
An extremely vocal niche, but still a niche.
EQ and EQ2 actually proves this, it's the PVE players who stuck with the game, the PVP players bailed on the games, like they usually do frankly.
This is very likely the case here. The game will have open world pvp -IF- you're flagged for it. Obviously I'm only guessing but if open world PVP were the big money maker then frankly we'd have it already. It's proven itself to be quite the opposite in most MMOs. Arena style tends to be the kind of PVP the majority wants to play, it's a low risk vs reward scenario. You ask a gamer to risk it all or a lot at the drop of a hat for potentially little or no reward, they'll avoid it.
You big bad mega PVP'rs call this casual, companies call that the majority, and the majority has more money than the minority. So what they're going to do (most likely) Is build a game that caters to that majority, and sprinkle in a few tidbits of what they suspect the pvp minority wants. In this case, "open world pvp...as long as your flagged for it." Or perhaps zones that auto flag you or something, but they won't force people thru those zones, so it may as well be flagging.
Definitely don't get your hopes up that this game is going to be the PVP hardcore thing a lot of people are trying to make it out to be based on Smed (who by the way is a notorious mouth piece who will say and do whatever to hype it up, collect a paycheck and giggle at your expense.)
I honestly suspect this title will be good, a little less theme park than most but some giant open world sand box it will not be.
No, I am fairly certain that arena or segregated type PvP is not what Smed has in mind. It will be more along the lines of the PvP mechanic implemented by SWG. Perhaps some sort of a flag system that allows those who commit to PvP to earn greater reward by virtue of the risk assumed through adventuring PvP enabled.
While I agree that Darkfall wasn't a success, I would say its failing were more due to management, quality and design choices than to the type of game they wanted to make.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It's always something. EQ had PVP servers, and everyone bailed on them.
Same thing happened in Vanguard.
Same thing (to a lesser extent) happened in EQ2.