-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations from EQN and gankfest is not one of those. I can as well suggest you EVE, Darkfall or any other FFA PvP game so don't behave here like you have a monopoly of truth here.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
- considerable freedom
- absence of artificial barriers
- tools to modify the world
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
That last point you just clashed on there completely taken out of context to suit your need. It's got nothing to do with sandbox, like the link you provided explains. PvP is common in sandbox games of the past, but doesn't have anything to do with the sandbox consept as such.
what part of "no artificial barrier" did you not understand?
If your char stands beside my character and I´m in little invincible safemode, that´s quite an artificial barrier, eh?
You want player/NPC segregation, why can´t you stick to your themeparks? Got sick of em and want to destroy the next genre?
you know they made theme parks exactly for you folks, right?
Pro tip: Instead of turning sandboxes into theme parks, why not playing the available theme parks right away?
No artificial barrier means just that. No artificial barrier. How the hell do you make that connection to PvP? They mean PHYSICAL barriers. Man, now you are just reaching aren't you? I guess desperate men do desperate things....
And we want to play sandbox games as well, that's why. Not this draconic version of sandbox pvp.
Again Sandbox =/= PvP. It even says so in the definition.
An open world is a type of video gamelevel design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.
- considerable freedom
- absence of artificial barriers
- tools to modify the world
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
That last point you just clashed on there completely taken out of context to suit your need. It's got nothing to do with sandbox, like the link you provided explains. PvP is common in sandbox games of the past, but doesn't have anything to do with the sandbox consept as such.
what part of "no artificial barrier" did you not understand?
If your char stands beside my character and I´m in little invincible safemode, that´s quite an artificial barrier, eh?
You want player/NPC segregation, why can´t you stick to your themeparks? Got sick of em and want to destroy the next genre?
you know they made theme parks exactly for you folks, right?
Pro tip: Instead of turning sandboxes into theme parks, why not playing the available theme parks right away?
Which part of the examples given (invisible walls, loading screens etc...) didn't you understand?
No permadeath is a huge artificial barrier, but being sandbox doesn't mean all barriers are gone. The wiki-article explains that well.
I won't stick to themeparks because I'm sick and tired of themeparks. I want a sandbox world to play in, where actions have meaning and I can influence the world. I want to do so without Trolzlolzlolz making it his calling in life to annoy me.
Themeparks are for busy people who just wants to pop into a game world for an hour a week for some fast fun.
PvP/PvE debate has got nothing at all to do with sandbox/themepark debate. You are mixing consepts, again in order to suit your need. You don't have any PvP argument, so you steal sandbox arguments instead.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only minority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance. Hopefully SOE will simply ignore them and do their thing. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
Says the loudest and most annoying PvP-only advocate. And you said you didn't attack or flame anyone. Shame
And no, the numbers will not be on their side if they go open world, full loot. And using CCP Eve as a case in point isn't wise. They've lost 26% of their population in 3 quarters. That a hell of a lot.
Again a lie. I am not a PvP-only advocate. I am a PvAll unified playerbase advocate, or PvPvE advocate. PvP-only is not up for debate.
You are the one wanting segregation and everyone knows. And you flamed again personally, I just made a general statement.
This is fun. Every single post from you can be taken apart so easily.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
PvP won't ruin the game. But open world, full loot pvp? That's a griefers paradise. Hence the title of the thread made by the man who claims he isn't a griefer. Go figure.
Look, the fact of the matter is nobody has an idea what will work for EverQuest Next because none of us knows exactly what EverQuest Next is and yet we have people threatening to boycott the game if it has open world PvP.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only minority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance. Hopefully SOE will simply ignore them and do their thing. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
Says the loudest and most annoying PvP-only advocate. And you said you didn't attack or flame anyone. Shame
And no, the numbers will not be on their side if they go open world, full loot. And using CCP Eve as a case in point isn't wise. They've lost 26% of their population in 3 quarters. That a hell of a lot.
Again a lie. I am not a PvP-only advocate. I am a PvAll unified playerbase advocate, or PvPvE advocate. PvP-only is not up for debate.
You are the one wanting segregation and everyone knows. And you flamed again personally, I just made a general statement.
This is fun. Every single post from you can be taken apart so easily.
As well as yours. So much easier though. You are a PvP advocate. You even said so. You only recently changed your claim when I caught you lying. You go back far enough in your posts and you see how many, many times you called PvE'ers carebears. You attacked the way they play. You've even called them pathetic. I do want segregation. I want griefers removed from good games. Absolutely.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
PvP won't ruin the game. But open world, full loot pvp? That's a griefers paradise. Hence the title of the thread made by the man who claims he isn't a griefer. Go figure.
Look, the fact of the matter is nobody has an idea what will work for EverQuest Next because none of us knows exactly what EverQuest Next is and yet we have people threatening to boycott the game if it has open world PvP.
Because if you want change you need to start at the beginning. Crossing fingers and hoping it's not full loot pvp does nothing. You need to voice opinions early and often. And if heard, you can make changes. I don't want to sit around and 'see' if a good game is playable or not. I'd like to give opinions on what I think would help.
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations...
..which are all moot. You knew about the transition from Theme Park to Sandbox months ago. Why the late discussion?
Smedley cited EvE and "biggest sandbox", so we kinda know where this is heading since a few months. They are innovating instead of endlessly regurgitating the past of failed theme parks which all were oh so consensual and pleasing EVERYBODY.
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations...
..which are all moot. You knew about the transition from Theme Park to Sandbox months ago. Why the late discussion?
Smedley cited EvE and "biggest sandbox", so we kinda know where this is heading since a few months. They are innovatiing instead of endlessly regurgitating the past of failed theme parks which all were oh so consensual and pleasing EVERYBODY.
Sure, by endlessly regurgitating the same old forced open world pvp? You say consensual like it's somehow a bad word. Like the thought of not being able to murder at will somehow upsets you. You know that means 'to agree upon' right? As in everyone has the right to play the way they want to and not forced to play your way. And please, stop equating 'innovating' or 'progressive' with PvP. It's not even close to innovative.
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations...
..which are all moot. You knew about the transition from Theme Park to Sandbox months ago. Why the late discussion?
Smedley cited EvE and "biggest sandbox", so we kinda know where this is heading since a few months. They are innovatiing instead of endlessly regurgitating the past of failed theme parks which all were oh so consensual and pleasing EVERYBODY.
Sure, by endlessly regurgitating the same old forced open world pvp? You say consensual like it's somehow a bad word. Like the thought of not being able to murder at will somehow upsets you. You know that means 'to agree upon' right? As in everyone has the right to play the way they want to and not forced to play your way. And please, stop equating 'innovating' or 'progressive' with PvP. It's not even close to innovative.
"SAME OLD FORCED OPEN WORLD PVP" DONE IN WHICH TRIPLE-A BUDGET MMOs ???
LIST GOES HERE PLEASE:
1. EvE
2 ....
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ..
9. ....
10. ...
LIST OF TRIPLE A BUDGET CONSENSUAL EVERYTHING / "PLEASE EVERYBODY" MMOs
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations...
..which are all moot. You knew about the transition from Theme Park to Sandbox months ago. Why the late discussion?
Smedley cited EvE and "biggest sandbox", so we kinda know where this is heading since a few months. They are innovatiing instead of endlessly regurgitating the past of failed theme parks which all were oh so consensual and pleasing EVERYBODY.
Sure, by endlessly regurgitating the same old forced open world pvp? You say consensual like it's somehow a bad word. Like the thought of not being able to murder at will somehow upsets you. You know that means 'to agree upon' right? As in everyone has the right to play the way they want to and not forced to play your way. And please, stop equating 'innovating' or 'progressive' with PvP. It's not even close to innovative.
"SAME OLD FORCED OPEN WORLD PVP" DONE IN WHICH TRIPLE-A BUDGET MMOs ???
LIST GOES HERE PLEASE:
1. .....
2 ....
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ..
9. ....
10. ...
Well, before I head to work...
Like I said in a previous post. The reason Triple A MMO's with open world, full loot pvp do not exist is because smart companies know they won't work. Sandbox, sure. Full pvp, nope. Only small budget indies have tried it and failed. And please, list all the PvE Sandbox games....That's right, there are none.
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations...
..which are all moot. You knew about the transition from Theme Park to Sandbox months ago. Why the late discussion?
Smedley cited EvE and "biggest sandbox", so we kinda know where this is heading since a few months. They are innovatiing instead of endlessly regurgitating the past of failed theme parks which all were oh so consensual and pleasing EVERYBODY.
Sure, by endlessly regurgitating the same old forced open world pvp? You say consensual like it's somehow a bad word. Like the thought of not being able to murder at will somehow upsets you. You know that means 'to agree upon' right? As in everyone has the right to play the way they want to and not forced to play your way. And please, stop equating 'innovating' or 'progressive' with PvP. It's not even close to innovative.
"SAME OLD FORCED OPEN WORLD PVP" DONE IN WHICH TRIPLE-A BUDGET MMOs ???
LIST GOES HERE PLEASE:
1. .....
2 ....
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ..
9. ....
10. ...
Well, before I head to work...
Like I said in a previous post. The reason Triple A MMO's with open world, full loot pvp does not exist is because smart companies know they won't work. Sandbox, sure. Full pvp, nope. Only small budget indies have tried it and failed. And please, list all the PvE Sandbox games....That's right, there are none.
Yeah yeah. As "smart" as this guy who predicted 50 million players for SWTOR
Doc you will be let down if you go into this thinking this game is going to be PVP oriented all I am saying. You will know why in just over a month.
Just to quote your previous post.
1. WOW
2. RIFT
3. TERA
4. GW2
5. TSW
6. AOC
7. LOTRO
8. FF IX
9. EQ2
10. WILDSTAR
= ballpark it 15m players probably more.
1. Eve
= 500k players if that ?
Yep I am going to take my most valuable IP invest millions upon millions into a new game design an entirely new Game Engine for this game and shit all over it by limiting its market to less than 5 % of the total customers that play MMOs and yes the Game Engine was designed for EQN not PS2. EQN was suppose to come out a year before PS2.
Now you will reply that is what you would do and I will reply you would be out of a job for being a dumbass. So let's just not do the back and forth.
EQN will have PVP, EQN will have PVE, EQN will not have forced full loot PVP period. Why would they copy what Eve did ? he said its something new not something done better. Maybe they're doing pvp in a way that is different, but isn't really open world PVP who knows.
Just to clarify I actually like PVP, but forcing PVP onto people maybe that gets you a few 100k players maybe it doesn't the potential is too low even if you hit a home run with an amazing game. However if you do it right and keep the PVE players interested and the PVP players you have a game that will appeal to millions.
Something you need to think about here. Smed said the reason they went F2P was because players are content your paying customers have more fun and spend more money when they have more people to play with. Dave has said the same thing SOE looks as players as content. If they believe the more people playing a game the better especially when its f2p why would they make a game that appeals to only a fraction of MMO players ? They wouldn't.
LOL world of tanks is hardly in the same ballpark when thinking about PvP. Each side gets 15 tanks, the teams are for the most part balanced in levels and there is a set objective to the combat. If you were to compare it to how PvP in an MMO would be...it would be consensual arena fights between 2 teams on a set map. About as far away from open world PvP as you can get.
Want to try using another example because that one was stupid.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only minority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance. Hopefully SOE will simply ignore them and do their thing. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
That "vocal PvE only minority" is actually the core and majority of any game ever created in the mmo landscape. Even the most precious of precious PvP focused games playerbase's largest audience is the PvE crowd. People who play in Hi Sec exclusively in Eve. The people who turned a dying UO around with the launch of Trammel. The list goes on and on. If you believe your mindset and like-minded fanbase is the majority then you sir are delusional.
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!!!
From what I've been reading is EQNext you can build cities , make lots of amazing things , world pvp maybe ?
But what about the guy who decides hey I can burn down forests awesome . So we log in and there are no trees because someone is going around burning them all for fun so no one can get wood , which is probably needed to build houses .
And that might only be the beginning of what can be destroyed , What if houses can be burnt down ?
And as for PvP , you know everytime you walk out of town there will be those guys sitting there just waiting for you.
could be somewhere in this thread but smedley already said the game would not be "grieferquest" and that the game systems would be set up to thwart this.
"This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
-> anything goes, and if it means a big scary griefer comes along and kills you, this is excactly what "sandbox" implies. Too hardcore? Back to themeparks then. There is your home base, and you got plenty of ´em.
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations...
..which are all moot. You knew about the transition from Theme Park to Sandbox months ago. Why the late discussion?
Smedley cited EvE and "biggest sandbox", so we kinda know where this is heading since a few months. They are innovatiing instead of endlessly regurgitating the past of failed theme parks which all were oh so consensual and pleasing EVERYBODY.
Sure, by endlessly regurgitating the same old forced open world pvp? You say consensual like it's somehow a bad word. Like the thought of not being able to murder at will somehow upsets you. You know that means 'to agree upon' right? As in everyone has the right to play the way they want to and not forced to play your way. And please, stop equating 'innovating' or 'progressive' with PvP. It's not even close to innovative.
"SAME OLD FORCED OPEN WORLD PVP" DONE IN WHICH TRIPLE-A BUDGET MMOs ???
LIST GOES HERE PLEASE:
1. EvE
2 ....
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ..
9. ....
10. ...
LIST OF TRIPLE A BUDGET CONSENSUAL EVERYTHING / "PLEASE EVERYBODY" MMOs
1. WOW
2. RIFT
3. TERA
4. GW2
5. TSW
6. AOC
7. LOTRO
8. FF IX
9. EQ2
10. WILDSTAR
This'll be my last reply to you before I block you.
DO not use
THEMEPARK MMO'S
to try and prove your point. There exactly ZERO PvE Focused
SANDBOX MMO'S
in existence, let alone even a shitty indie, low polished version .
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!!!
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
Funny. I heard he made quite a lot of money from PlanetSide 2. Now can we lay this silly argument to rest? Argumentum ad populum is and will always be a fallacy.
Planetside 2 isn't a MMORPG with PVP as an available playstyle. It's a MMOShooter that is 100% geared toward and focussed upon PVP. There is no PVE at all. There are no quests, no dungeons, no NPCs, no crafting, nothing that would make it in any way, shape, or form an MMORPG.
That would be an association fallacy.
And the same goes for associating past MMOs with EverQuest Next which is supposed to be something entirely different. This is not World of WarCraft. It's not even supposed to have the traditional questing and dungeoneering we're so accustomed to. And yet you're all screaming about how PvP will ruin the game. It's just childish.
Don´t worry, ít´s just the usual vocal PvE-only Majority screaming the loudest and with the most annoying persistance(because they dont want the game to become a shithole). Hopefully SOE will simply ignore the pvpers and do their thing and create pvp and pve servers. It will pay off in the long run, like it pays off for CCP. User numbers will be on their side.
Fixed it for you, your welcome
you can have conflict without pvp, its there in the guilds trying to be top dog, in people trying to dominate the economy, in the guy trying to have the best gear, be the best crafter completeall the quests.
reasons to hate forced pvp, say ive been camping a mob for hours suddenly the name im after pops pvper waits till its half dead and kills me and ganks it.
I just finish zoneing from what i hear there will likely be zoneing between continents i like to go afk between zoneings soemtimes pvp ? sorry cant do it then
I LIKE difficult mob encoutners i abnsolutely relished the queen sendaii fight which was like 2 hours long full of explodeing mobs charms stuns and more. difficult is not getting your face torn off by a zitfaced griefer who has mommy issues whos 30 levels higher, or just so leet and kills you because he can and not forloot or gold or rep
Dont get me wrong i like pvp i did it in neverwinter till i got tired of only the 2 maps, and lousy ladder matching i did it in exteel constantly well that wasnt a mmo really it was a fps. BUT it did get old dealing with the leet jackasses the hackers
so dont force pvp on me and people like me invite them to it, kill griefers maybe youl get more people, than by calling them fucking carebears. battlegrounds and flagging would be an acceptable form of pvp for me i can always avoid it.
as long as my spells arent screwed with in pve for the sake of pvp its fine with me, eq did this fine i couldnt use any spell with flame of power i was a mage in pvp
as long as they base the spells on mobs and then when your in pvp nerf or increase them it isnt that hard .
Keep going like this hate filled forum is going with all the carebears go play wow threads and your going to not have anyone to pvp against but pro pvpers
i swear if i see another thread like this im going to boycott this forum till it launches and laugh in your faces when its as i predicted flagged or battle ground style pvp, OR pvp/ Pve servers.
Dont take smeds words as the holy grail of griefers cause its what you want to hear what he said isnt out and out there will be non consensual open world pvp ON ALL SERVERS/shards.
Originally posted by William12 Smed is not a dumbass you better believe he is not going to force PVP onto people he wants his game to make money you do not invest millions into a new game and risk your more valuable IP on a niche. You can bet it will be PVP servers and PVE servers. There is a way to do it right the problem is no ones found that balance.
I know how to balance PVP but the people would whine about the balancing act between the two. It'd make true conflict cut down massively or fully on griefing potential (groups of people could still grief solo people) The reason people would whine is you would need to have have two full sets of types A PVP type that never changes and a PVE type that changes with levels, stats that are PVE and PVP based again the PVP base of the stats never moving, and the same done for weapons and armors... You can't have a setting with open world pvp where your stats, gear etc give you an edge over anyone if you want balance and the only real progression then ends up unlocking further skills which would need to be balanced for pvp. This would also afford them being able to balance pvp elements without screwing things up for the PVE players.
Just most people won't do this as the so called "hardcore" would whine and the WoW gen pvpers love their gear and pvp specific stats and level bases to have a big edge over others.
Comments
Why? As a former EQ and EQ2 player I have certain expectations from EQN and gankfest is not one of those. I can as well suggest you EVE, Darkfall or any other FFA PvP game so don't behave here like you have a monopoly of truth here.
No artificial barrier means just that. No artificial barrier. How the hell do you make that connection to PvP? They mean PHYSICAL barriers. Man, now you are just reaching aren't you? I guess desperate men do desperate things....
And we want to play sandbox games as well, that's why. Not this draconic version of sandbox pvp.
Again Sandbox =/= PvP. It even says so in the definition.
It's like arguing with a wall I swear....
Which part of the examples given (invisible walls, loading screens etc...) didn't you understand?
No permadeath is a huge artificial barrier, but being sandbox doesn't mean all barriers are gone. The wiki-article explains that well.
I won't stick to themeparks because I'm sick and tired of themeparks. I want a sandbox world to play in, where actions have meaning and I can influence the world. I want to do so without Trolzlolzlolz making it his calling in life to annoy me.
Themeparks are for busy people who just wants to pop into a game world for an hour a week for some fast fun.
PvP/PvE debate has got nothing at all to do with sandbox/themepark debate. You are mixing consepts, again in order to suit your need. You don't have any PvP argument, so you steal sandbox arguments instead.
Again a lie. I am not a PvP-only advocate. I am a PvAll unified playerbase advocate, or PvPvE advocate. PvP-only is not up for debate.
You are the one wanting segregation and everyone knows. And you flamed again personally, I just made a general statement.
This is fun. Every single post from you can be taken apart so easily.
Look, the fact of the matter is nobody has an idea what will work for EverQuest Next because none of us knows exactly what EverQuest Next is and yet we have people threatening to boycott the game if it has open world PvP.
As well as yours. So much easier though. You are a PvP advocate. You even said so. You only recently changed your claim when I caught you lying. You go back far enough in your posts and you see how many, many times you called PvE'ers carebears. You attacked the way they play. You've even called them pathetic. I do want segregation. I want griefers removed from good games. Absolutely.
Because if you want change you need to start at the beginning. Crossing fingers and hoping it's not full loot pvp does nothing. You need to voice opinions early and often. And if heard, you can make changes. I don't want to sit around and 'see' if a good game is playable or not. I'd like to give opinions on what I think would help.
..which are all moot. You knew about the transition from Theme Park to Sandbox months ago. Why the late discussion?
Smedley cited EvE and "biggest sandbox", so we kinda know where this is heading since a few months. They are innovating instead of endlessly regurgitating the past of failed theme parks which all were oh so consensual and pleasing EVERYBODY.
Sure, by endlessly regurgitating the same old forced open world pvp? You say consensual like it's somehow a bad word. Like the thought of not being able to murder at will somehow upsets you. You know that means 'to agree upon' right? As in everyone has the right to play the way they want to and not forced to play your way. And please, stop equating 'innovating' or 'progressive' with PvP. It's not even close to innovative.
"SAME OLD FORCED OPEN WORLD PVP" DONE IN WHICH TRIPLE-A BUDGET MMOs ???
LIST GOES HERE PLEASE:
1. EvE
2 ....
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ..
9. ....
10. ...
LIST OF TRIPLE A BUDGET CONSENSUAL EVERYTHING / "PLEASE EVERYBODY" MMOs
1. WOW
2. RIFT
3. TERA
4. GW2
5. TSW
6. AOC
7. LOTRO
8. FF IX
9. EQ2
10. WILDSTAR
Well, before I head to work...
Like I said in a previous post. The reason Triple A MMO's with open world, full loot pvp do not exist is because smart companies know they won't work. Sandbox, sure. Full pvp, nope. Only small budget indies have tried it and failed. And please, list all the PvE Sandbox games....That's right, there are none.
Yeah yeah. As "smart" as this guy who predicted 50 million players for SWTOR
http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/01/pachter-backs-swtor-for-50-million-monthly-users/
Oh wait, what was the title with 60 million users and *shock* NO PVE at all???? Oh right. .World of Tanks.
http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/07/world-of-tanks-passes-60-million-registered-users/
Now you are just spamming nonsense (in increasingly large fonts).
I just explained why I'm waiting for a good sandbox game, and would keep waiting if EQN turned out to be a grief-party.
You say "play wow".
Doc you will be let down if you go into this thinking this game is going to be PVP oriented all I am saying. You will know why in just over a month.
Just to quote your previous post.
1. WOW
2. RIFT
3. TERA
4. GW2
5. TSW
6. AOC
7. LOTRO
8. FF IX
9. EQ2
10. WILDSTAR
= ballpark it 15m players probably more.
1. Eve
= 500k players if that ?
Yep I am going to take my most valuable IP invest millions upon millions into a new game design an entirely new Game Engine for this game and shit all over it by limiting its market to less than 5 % of the total customers that play MMOs and yes the Game Engine was designed for EQN not PS2. EQN was suppose to come out a year before PS2.
Now you will reply that is what you would do and I will reply you would be out of a job for being a dumbass. So let's just not do the back and forth.
EQN will have PVP, EQN will have PVE, EQN will not have forced full loot PVP period. Why would they copy what Eve did ? he said its something new not something done better. Maybe they're doing pvp in a way that is different, but isn't really open world PVP who knows.
Just to clarify I actually like PVP, but forcing PVP onto people maybe that gets you a few 100k players maybe it doesn't the potential is too low even if you hit a home run with an amazing game. However if you do it right and keep the PVE players interested and the PVP players you have a game that will appeal to millions.
Something you need to think about here. Smed said the reason they went F2P was because players are content your paying customers have more fun and spend more money when they have more people to play with. Dave has said the same thing SOE looks as players as content. If they believe the more people playing a game the better especially when its f2p why would they make a game that appeals to only a fraction of MMO players ? They wouldn't.
LOL world of tanks is hardly in the same ballpark when thinking about PvP. Each side gets 15 tanks, the teams are for the most part balanced in levels and there is a set objective to the combat. If you were to compare it to how PvP in an MMO would be...it would be consensual arena fights between 2 teams on a set map. About as far away from open world PvP as you can get.
Want to try using another example because that one was stupid.
That "vocal PvE only minority" is actually the core and majority of any game ever created in the mmo landscape. Even the most precious of precious PvP focused games playerbase's largest audience is the PvE crowd. People who play in Hi Sec exclusively in Eve. The people who turned a dying UO around with the launch of Trammel. The list goes on and on. If you believe your mindset and like-minded fanbase is the majority then you sir are delusional.
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!!!
could be somewhere in this thread but smedley already said the game would not be "grieferquest" and that the game systems would be set up to thwart this.
"This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This'll be my last reply to you before I block you.
DO not use
THEMEPARK MMO'S
to try and prove your point. There exactly ZERO PvE Focused
SANDBOX MMO'S
in existence, let alone even a shitty indie, low polished version .
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!!!
Fixed it for you, your welcome
you can have conflict without pvp, its there in the guilds trying to be top dog, in people trying to dominate the economy, in the guy trying to have the best gear, be the best crafter completeall the quests.
reasons to hate forced pvp, say ive been camping a mob for hours suddenly the name im after pops pvper waits till its half dead and kills me and ganks it.
I just finish zoneing from what i hear there will likely be zoneing between continents i like to go afk between zoneings soemtimes pvp ? sorry cant do it then
I LIKE difficult mob encoutners i abnsolutely relished the queen sendaii fight which was like 2 hours long full of explodeing mobs charms stuns and more. difficult is not getting your face torn off by a zitfaced griefer who has mommy issues whos 30 levels higher, or just so leet and kills you because he can and not forloot or gold or rep
Dont get me wrong i like pvp i did it in neverwinter till i got tired of only the 2 maps, and lousy ladder matching i did it in exteel constantly well that wasnt a mmo really it was a fps. BUT it did get old dealing with the leet jackasses the hackers
so dont force pvp on me and people like me invite them to it, kill griefers maybe youl get more people, than by calling them fucking carebears. battlegrounds and flagging would be an acceptable form of pvp for me i can always avoid it.
as long as my spells arent screwed with in pve for the sake of pvp its fine with me, eq did this fine i couldnt use any spell with flame of power i was a mage in pvp
as long as they base the spells on mobs and then when your in pvp nerf or increase them it isnt that hard .
Keep going like this hate filled forum is going with all the carebears go play wow threads and your going to not have anyone to pvp against but pro pvpers
i swear if i see another thread like this im going to boycott this forum till it launches and laugh in your faces when its as i predicted flagged or battle ground style pvp, OR pvp/ Pve servers.
Dont take smeds words as the holy grail of griefers cause its what you want to hear what he said isnt out and out there will be non consensual open world pvp ON ALL SERVERS/shards.
Thank youyou do understand that not all pvp is about ganking newbs?
Currently bored with MMO's.
for some people yes the outcry is mostly against those insisting if we want to play eqnext we have to be pvparticipant or just targets
I know how to balance PVP but the people would whine about the balancing act between the two. It'd make true conflict cut down massively or fully on griefing potential (groups of people could still grief solo people) The reason people would whine is you would need to have have two full sets of types A PVP type that never changes and a PVE type that changes with levels, stats that are PVE and PVP based again the PVP base of the stats never moving, and the same done for weapons and armors... You can't have a setting with open world pvp where your stats, gear etc give you an edge over anyone if you want balance and the only real progression then ends up unlocking further skills which would need to be balanced for pvp. This would also afford them being able to balance pvp elements without screwing things up for the PVE players.
Just most people won't do this as the so called "hardcore" would whine and the WoW gen pvpers love their gear and pvp specific stats and level bases to have a big edge over others.