Originally posted by ice-vortex So what in hell would you do in a sandbox game without PVP?
Whatever you want. Thats the point.
Do i want to explore? craft? go slaughter kobolds? Run Dungeons? Get 40 people and try to take a dragon down? Etc.
The concept of a themepark came from WOW not EQ. WOW was the one that made the whole idea of having quest hubs popular. This is where MMO's became linear.
In EQ1 you literally had dozens of options of where you could XP, literally dozens. Nobody told you where to go or what to kill. If you wanted to go slaughter mobs solo at a bandit camp in North Ro, go for it. If you wanted to get a couple buddies together and take down hill giants, have fun. Wanna go kill the newbie guards in the dark elf starter zone because you're a human paladin and you think it would be funny? sure. I can keep adding to this list. Its much larger than this.
"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."
Besides guild cities done in SWG, what game that isn't one of the type above, has all of what you seek? I can't think of any, which brings me back to my point about MMORPGs not really being about that. Not that I wouldn't mind that sort of PVP in my game, but don't make the PVE side suffer for it either. A great MMORPG is one that has a ton of game aspects for different players. You know, just like life has a million different choices and paths to take.
The problem with pleasing everybody is that your game lacks personality. Lacks direction and becomes more of the same.
Oh and Age of Conan is the answer to your question. It sold 1.2 million copies upon the promise that the game would have all of what you were talking about plus a lot more PvP stuff mixed in with PvE. The games backlash was because it didn't have any of that stuff in it and the stuff that was in it was poorly implemented.
Originally posted by ice-vortex So what in hell would you do in a sandbox game without PVP?
Whatever you want. Thats the point.
Do i want to explore? craft? go slaughter kobolds? Run Dungeons? Get 40 people and try to take a dragon down? Etc.
The concept of a themepark came from WOW not EQ. WOW was the one that made the whole idea of having quest hubs popular. This is where MMO's became linear.
In EQ1 you literally had dozens of options of where you could XP, literally dozens. Nobody told you where to go or what to kill. If you wanted to go slaughter mobs solo at a bandit camp in North Ro, go for it. If you wanted to get a couple buddies together and take down hill giants, have fun. Wanna go kill the newbie guards in the dark elf starter zone because you're a human paladin and you think it would be funny? sure. I can keep adding to this list. Its much larger than this.
Anyone whom thinks that EQ Next will have no PVP in it, will be very disappointed come August 2nd.
Originally posted by ice-vortex So what in hell would you do in a sandbox game without PVP?
Whatever you want. Thats the point.
Do i want to explore? craft? go slaughter kobolds? Run Dungeons? Get 40 people and try to take a dragon down? Etc.
The concept of a themepark came from WOW not EQ. WOW was the one that made the whole idea of having quest hubs popular. This is where MMO's became linear.
In EQ1 you literally had dozens of options of where you could XP, literally dozens. Nobody told you where to go or what to kill. If you wanted to go slaughter mobs solo at a bandit camp in North Ro, go for it. If you wanted to get a couple buddies together and take down hill giants, have fun. Wanna go kill the newbie guards in the dark elf starter zone because you're a human paladin and you think it would be funny? sure. I can keep adding to this list. Its much larger than this.
Anyone whom thinks that EQ Next will have no PVP in it, will be very disappointed come August 2nd.
Probably 99% of all games throw in PvP for a bullet point on the box.
But so too anyone who thinks the game will be mostly PvP based is probably going to be just as disappointed.
Both groups deserve disappointment for getting hyped on almost no information.
Originally posted by ice-vortex So what in hell would you do in a sandbox game without PVP?
Whatever you want. Thats the point.
Do i want to explore? craft? go slaughter kobolds? Run Dungeons? Get 40 people and try to take a dragon down? Etc.
The concept of a themepark came from WOW not EQ. WOW was the one that made the whole idea of having quest hubs popular. This is where MMO's became linear.
In EQ1 you literally had dozens of options of where you could XP, literally dozens. Nobody told you where to go or what to kill. If you wanted to go slaughter mobs solo at a bandit camp in North Ro, go for it. If you wanted to get a couple buddies together and take down hill giants, have fun. Wanna go kill the newbie guards in the dark elf starter zone because you're a human paladin and you think it would be funny? sure. I can keep adding to this list. Its much larger than this.
Anyone whom thinks that EQ Next will have no PVP in it, will be very disappointed come August 2nd.
Probably 99% of all games throw in PvP for a bullet point on the box.
But so too anyone who thinks the game will be mostly PvP based is probably going to be just as disappointed.
Both groups deserve disappointment for getting hyped on almost no information.
Agreed..
I think in this day in age if you go to one extreme or the other,especially as a AAA MMO,youre only hurtng your product's chances.
Originally posted by ice-vortex So what in hell would you do in a sandbox game without PVP?
Whatever you want. Thats the point.
Do i want to explore? craft? go slaughter kobolds? Run Dungeons? Get 40 people and try to take a dragon down? Etc.
The concept of a themepark came from WOW not EQ. WOW was the one that made the whole idea of having quest hubs popular. This is where MMO's became linear.
In EQ1 you literally had dozens of options of where you could XP, literally dozens. Nobody told you where to go or what to kill. If you wanted to go slaughter mobs solo at a bandit camp in North Ro, go for it. If you wanted to get a couple buddies together and take down hill giants, have fun. Wanna go kill the newbie guards in the dark elf starter zone because you're a human paladin and you think it would be funny? sure. I can keep adding to this list. Its much larger than this.
Anyone whom thinks that EQ Next will have no PVP in it, will be very disappointed come August 2nd.
Where in my post did i say that EQN will not have PVP in it? EQ1 had PVP in it, in the form of PVP servers. EQN will likely do the exact same thing. My post was regarding this idea that Sandbox=PVP. Thats a fallacious statement and has always been wrong.
What i can for sure say is that EQN will not have forced open world PVP on PVE servers. They would not risk alienating the 90-95% of the EQ fanbase that doesnt really care for 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."
With how Storybricks integrates a lot of parameters and how the pantheon is important in EQ there's a lot of room for non PvP "conflict". I'm interested to see what they bring I the table.
One of the main design philosophies for EQN was to "make everything fun". I don't think anyone can argue against that!
Asheron's Call 1 & 2 were early versions of a more sandbox mmo and other than one particular server they thrived with only pve ... and they still had very limited sandbox elements by some of upcoming sandbox games (i.e. EQNext and CU). Likely 80+% of all pve in AC 1 & 2 I played wasn't even connected to a quest at all. I simply wanted to get resources for crafting, explore and fight monarchies for land control.
PVE can easily exist if it plays an integral part within the sandbox systems. PVE can be connected to every single system in the game other than direct pvp/rvr which still benefits from it indirectly. It can be also be an important resource to fight over as well. All of this can be done without a single text box style quest. Developers just have to think outside the themepark box and more inside the sandbox.
If there's broadly-legal PVP in EQ:N, I highly doubt it'll be a gankfest.
I think there's room for a game that has contested high-level regions with large-scale factional conflict. I'm a PVE-er, but would participate in building fortifications and probably siege/naval warfare, assuming I found a faction my small guild and I felt worth supporting.
For me the key to any MMO like this is the punishment of killing for the sake of killing. In other words, I'd be happy to live in an MMO where random ganking was technically legal but de facto non-existant.
Anything with safe zones or built in player protection, outside of that of starter cities, is not a true sandbox. It's fact whether you like it or not. I enjoy PVE, I like PVP occasionally. I love world exploration and whatnot. I just want a thriving, player run, virtual world, and any time you have the game doing anything for you or making any decisions for you, you are getting themeparked by a trail of reeses pieces, not experiencing a sandbox. I love RPGS in general, so regardless, if it's a good game it's a good game...but ANY game that leave out features that were appreciated in earlier titles has already failed in my eyes.
Leaving pvp out completely (whether I enjoy it or not)? /GTFOuttahere
What is this? The dark ages?
Sandbox has nothing to do with PvP, a sandbox is about being able to choose your own path and build things. Yes, a sandbox environment is better for a PvP game but not the other way around.
The poll itself was used to make a point and it did. Less than 50% would play EQN if it had non-consent PvP while over 80% would play if it had no PvP at all. That said I've not seen one person say that EQN should have no PvP at all. I've seen them say:
A. Seperate PvP server
B. Have a flag system so people can choose to PvP when it's there.
Just because I think this would be a neat social experiment.
And yes before I begin I understand some people don't think a sandbox is really a sandbox without PvP...going with the theory that it is still a sandbox without. Just want to see how people vote on this one to compare it to the other poll.
So no PvP and just PvE what say you?
Voted yes and it is refreshing to see an overwhelmingly 81% majority for those who answered yes. However not to go off topic but you can have a sandbox without PvP of any kind, the two are not mutually exclusive, never have and never will be.
not sure if i would call it refreshing, since this is more or less usual result
Comments
Whatever you want. Thats the point.
Do i want to explore? craft? go slaughter kobolds? Run Dungeons? Get 40 people and try to take a dragon down? Etc.
The concept of a themepark came from WOW not EQ. WOW was the one that made the whole idea of having quest hubs popular. This is where MMO's became linear.
In EQ1 you literally had dozens of options of where you could XP, literally dozens. Nobody told you where to go or what to kill. If you wanted to go slaughter mobs solo at a bandit camp in North Ro, go for it. If you wanted to get a couple buddies together and take down hill giants, have fun. Wanna go kill the newbie guards in the dark elf starter zone because you're a human paladin and you think it would be funny? sure. I can keep adding to this list. Its much larger than this.
"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
The problem with pleasing everybody is that your game lacks personality. Lacks direction and becomes more of the same.
Oh and Age of Conan is the answer to your question. It sold 1.2 million copies upon the promise that the game would have all of what you were talking about plus a lot more PvP stuff mixed in with PvE. The games backlash was because it didn't have any of that stuff in it and the stuff that was in it was poorly implemented.
Anyone whom thinks that EQ Next will have no PVP in it, will be very disappointed come August 2nd.
Probably 99% of all games throw in PvP for a bullet point on the box.
But so too anyone who thinks the game will be mostly PvP based is probably going to be just as disappointed.
Both groups deserve disappointment for getting hyped on almost no information.
Agreed..
I think in this day in age if you go to one extreme or the other,especially as a AAA MMO,youre only hurtng your product's chances.
Where in my post did i say that EQN will not have PVP in it? EQ1 had PVP in it, in the form of PVP servers. EQN will likely do the exact same thing. My post was regarding this idea that Sandbox=PVP. Thats a fallacious statement and has always been wrong.
What i can for sure say is that EQN will not have forced open world PVP on PVE servers. They would not risk alienating the 90-95% of the EQ fanbase that doesnt really care for 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
One of the main design philosophies for EQN was to "make everything fun". I don't think anyone can argue against that!
Asheron's Call 1 & 2 were early versions of a more sandbox mmo and other than one particular server they thrived with only pve ... and they still had very limited sandbox elements by some of upcoming sandbox games (i.e. EQNext and CU). Likely 80+% of all pve in AC 1 & 2 I played wasn't even connected to a quest at all. I simply wanted to get resources for crafting, explore and fight monarchies for land control.
PVE can easily exist if it plays an integral part within the sandbox systems. PVE can be connected to every single system in the game other than direct pvp/rvr which still benefits from it indirectly. It can be also be an important resource to fight over as well. All of this can be done without a single text box style quest. Developers just have to think outside the themepark box and more inside the sandbox.
You stay sassy!
I voted "yes" in both polls.
I'll play it either way.
If there's broadly-legal PVP in EQ:N, I highly doubt it'll be a gankfest.
I think there's room for a game that has contested high-level regions with large-scale factional conflict. I'm a PVE-er, but would participate in building fortifications and probably siege/naval warfare, assuming I found a faction my small guild and I felt worth supporting.
For me the key to any MMO like this is the punishment of killing for the sake of killing. In other words, I'd be happy to live in an MMO where random ganking was technically legal but de facto non-existant.
I'm not against PvP servers. If that's what you're into, knock yourself out.
Forcing PvE players to PvP will kill this game. Alienating 80% of the player base is giving up on EQ Next before it even gets started.
Sandbox has nothing to do with PvP, a sandbox is about being able to choose your own path and build things. Yes, a sandbox environment is better for a PvP game but not the other way around.
The poll itself was used to make a point and it did. Less than 50% would play EQN if it had non-consent PvP while over 80% would play if it had no PvP at all. That said I've not seen one person say that EQN should have no PvP at all. I've seen them say:
A. Seperate PvP server
B. Have a flag system so people can choose to PvP when it's there.
There would have to pvp on a grand scale if they want money from me.
If it turns out that the game is not built around pvp, I'll still log in to check out what theyve developed - as long as its free to play >.<not sure if i would call it refreshing, since this is more or less usual result
see e.g. this poll
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/269822/Would-you-play-a-100-PVE-MMO-No-PVP-at-all-.html