Thank god they will not listen to you people who want another themepark with housing, in a world with no risk reward, where you are safe to insult act an ass and not get touched because you don't consent.
that's what that statement means to me.
On release the cassuals and the im so affraid of pvper, the generation who crap in there pants if they even susspect any pvp in the fairytale game keep whining untill game have instance lvls grind armor epix sets tier1 to 100 and zones and a safe bambi world insta gratification.
I see already a parkbox in the making which prolly eventually become a fully bambi fluffy themepark game.
After all most devs dont have strong back and personality they give in easely if players demand spoon fed game.
Bambi army is just to massive im affraid hehe
I dont know dude, if anyone is capable of having a spine and telling the bambi army to eat a dick its SOE. Back in the early days of EQ, people would piss and moan just like they do now on the forums and such, and SOE would basically say, "nope, not doing, its not part of "The Vision" TM. We always used to joke about that because they were actually overly hardcore about The Vision. I'll give you an example:
In EQ1 beta, paladin and shadowknights were basically just as powerful as warriors, and on top of all that had the respective cleric or necro abilities. Because of this, the EQ devs said, "ok, hybrids take 40% more XP to get to max level". Now, during the rest of beta they realized that it wasnt a good way to do things, so they toned down SKs and Pallys to where they were still mixes of warriors and clerics/necros, But they were basically nerfed versions of each. They couldnt tank as well as a warrior, nor could they DPS as well as a warrior, but they got a lot of utility and other shit to make up for it. Problem is, SOE never took out the 40% XP detriment. So what happened is for several months after release people were pointing out that it was basically bullshit that paladins and SK's took 40% longer to level, and sony pulled "The Vision" card several times until ultimately they admitted it was dumb and changed it.
But, for the most part, SOE had no issues saying that this is the vision we have for the game and if you dont like it, dont play it.
Im hoping to high hell that smedley has put his cowboy pants back on and will start doing this again.
Thank god they will not listen to you people who want another themepark with housing, in a world with no risk reward, where you are safe to insult act an ass and not get touched because you don't consent.
that's what that statement means to me.
On release the cassuals and the im so affraid of pvper, the generation who crap in there pants if they even susspect any pvp in the fairytale game keep whining untill game have instance lvls grind armor epix sets tier1 to 100 and zones and a safe bambi world insta gratification.
I see already a parkbox in the making which prolly eventually become a fully bambi fluffy themepark game.
After all most devs dont have strong back and personality they give in easely if players demand spoon fed game.
Bambi army is just to massive im affraid hehe
I dont know dude, if anyone is capable of having a spine and telling the bambi army to eat a dick its SOE. Back in the early days of EQ, people would piss and moan just like they do now on the forums and such, and SOE would basically say, "nope, not doing, its not part of "The Vision" TM. We always used to joke about that because they were actually overly hardcore about The Vision. I'll give you an example:
In EQ1 beta, paladin and shadowknights were basically just as powerful as warriors, and on top of all that had the respective cleric or necro abilities. Because of this, the EQ devs said, "ok, hybrids take 40% more XP to get to max level". Now, during the rest of beta they realized that it wasnt a good way to do things, so they toned down SKs and Pallys to where they were still mixes of warriors and clerics/necros, But they were basically nerfed versions of each. They couldnt tank as well as a warrior, nor could they DPS as well as a warrior, but they got a lot of utility and other shit to make up for it. Problem is, SOE never took out the 40% XP detriment. So what happened is for several months after release people were pointing out that it was basically bullshit that paladins and SK's took 40% longer to level, and sony pulled "The Vision" card several times until ultimately they admitted it was dumb and changed it.
But, for the most part, SOE had no issues saying that this is the vision we have for the game and if you dont like it, dont play it.
Im hoping to high hell that smedley has put his cowboy pants back on and will start doing this again.
Me too, especially when he whips out that EVE card and smacks it down on the table!
Thank god they will not listen to you people who want another themepark with housing, in a world with no risk reward, where you are safe to insult act an ass and not get touched because you don't consent.
that's what that statement means to me.
On release the cassuals and the im so affraid of pvper, the generation who crap in there pants if they even susspect any pvp in the fairytale game keep whining untill game have instance lvls grind armor epix sets tier1 to 100 and zones and a safe bambi world insta gratification.
I see already a parkbox in the making which prolly eventually become a fully bambi fluffy themepark game.
After all most devs dont have strong back and personality they give in easely if players demand spoon fed game.
Bambi army is just to massive im affraid hehe
I dont know dude, if anyone is capable of having a spine and telling the bambi army to eat a dick its SOE. Back in the early days of EQ, people would piss and moan just like they do now on the forums and such, and SOE would basically say, "nope, not doing, its not part of "The Vision" TM. We always used to joke about that because they were actually overly hardcore about The Vision. I'll give you an example:
In EQ1 beta, paladin and shadowknights were basically just as powerful as warriors, and on top of all that had the respective cleric or necro abilities. Because of this, the EQ devs said, "ok, hybrids take 40% more XP to get to max level". Now, during the rest of beta they realized that it wasnt a good way to do things, so they toned down SKs and Pallys to where they were still mixes of warriors and clerics/necros, But they were basically nerfed versions of each. They couldnt tank as well as a warrior, nor could they DPS as well as a warrior, but they got a lot of utility and other shit to make up for it. Problem is, SOE never took out the 40% XP detriment. So what happened is for several months after release people were pointing out that it was basically bullshit that paladins and SK's took 40% longer to level, and sony pulled "The Vision" card several times until ultimately they admitted it was dumb and changed it.
But, for the most part, SOE had no issues saying that this is the vision we have for the game and if you dont like it, dont play it.
Im hoping to high hell that smedley has put his cowboy pants back on and will start doing this again.
Me too, especially when he whips out that EVE card and smacks it down on the table!
Well, unless "the Vision" is " let's waste a fuckton of money" , it's not going to happen. At EQ's height, it had 10:1 PVE to PVP servers. At EVE's height it has 1/20th of the market share that WoW had. Seriously, figure it out.
Originally posted by stayBlind PvE servers and PvP servers are great and all, but why does everyone assume that there will be more than one server?
Everyone does not make that assumption. Some have argued very strongly that it will be a single server/shard. I assume it will be multiple servers, at least one based in Europe ( thus honoring the agreement with ProSiebenSat for European rights), at least one on the US east coast and at least one on the US west coast. I also assume that there will be different rule set servers in each of these locations.
I assume it because that seems to be the standard SOE approach and because it makes sense to me. But no evidence for that assumption, none at all, and no evidence for the single server either.
Originally posted by stayBlind PvE servers and PvP servers are great and all, but why does everyone assume that there will be more than one server?
How many people do you expect to fit on that one server?
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
Originally posted by stayBlind PvE servers and PvP servers are great and all, but why does everyone assume that there will be more than one server?
Because there is a technical limitation to how many people you can fix on one server with no instancing. While it's not lime 1999 or even 2005 you cannot fit 25k players on a single server let alone have 25k on at the same time. Remember you guys want no instancing.
Thank god they will not listen to you people who want another themepark with housing, in a world with no risk reward, where you are safe to insult act an ass and not get touched because you don't consent.
Originally posted by stayBlind PvE servers and PvP servers are great and all, but why does everyone assume that there will be more than one server?
Because there is a technical limitation to how many people you can fix on one server with no instancing. While it's not lime 1999 or even 2005 you cannot fit 25k players on a single server let alone have 25k on at the same time. Remember you guys want no instancing.
No more of a technical limitation than if you have multiple 'servers'. Each shard in a modern MMO is running on multiple servers. Whether a game is one massive shard or multiple shards is purely a software design. EVE consistently has over 25k people on its single shard.
they will make pvpers happy cause even as his stupid pole shows, the majority of people want pvp. as for the type, well i have never experience pvp more fun than the early days of EQ, wow of course was much more balanced, but the fun factor was never there.
Lets all be clear, The reason that WOW had so many more subsriptions than any other MMO has nothing to do with it being better or worse than eq, or most other MMO's for that matter. They had a following of millions before day 1 from warcraft, starcraft and diablo.
EQ was never much of a PvP game. They may implement it, but I don't understand why people think you're going to have full loot FFA PvP all of a sudden?
Originally posted by ice-vortex
No more of a technical limitation than if you have multiple 'servers'. Each shard in a modern MMO is running on multiple servers. Whether a game is one massive shard or multiple shards is purely a software design. EVE consistently has over 25k people on its single shard.
EVE is a poor example because it's mostly a blank game with nothing in it. It has a much easier time aggregating things. It's also relatively small compared to the average MMO.
Regardless of how you do your software, you still have to deal with the potential problem of a huge chunk of the server population ending up in one location, which puts strain both on the server and on the client, as well (see GW2 and having to make characters disappear in large scale WvWvW battles). Even in EVE, large collections in systems actually required them to do some funky time dillation.
EQ was never much of a PvP game. They may implement it, but I don't understand why people think you're going to have full loot FFA PvP all of a sudden?
Originally posted by ice-vortex
No more of a technical limitation than if you have multiple 'servers'. Each shard in a modern MMO is running on multiple servers. Whether a game is one massive shard or multiple shards is purely a software design. EVE consistently has over 25k people on its single shard.
EVE is a poor example because it's mostly a blank game with nothing in it. It has a much easier time aggregating things. It's also relatively small compared to the average MMO.
Regardless of how you do your software, you still have to deal with the potential problem of a huge chunk of the server population ending up in one location, which puts strain both on the server and on the client, as well (see GW2 and having to make characters disappear in large scale WvWvW battles). Even in EVE, large collections in systems actually required them to do some funky time dillation.
What? Eve has over 5000 zones in space and 2500 in wormhole space. It takes hours to travel across the galaxy. It's not in any way small. Yes, a lot of it is 'empty', but that only has to do with how the game was designed on a very low budget with old technology. Though it really isn't empty, as each system has planets. SOE could develop a far more advanced procedural generation technology. I mean, outside of the main areas, it would be nothing but wilderness. Wilderness is really easy to generate.
If they have all the original EQ starting cities, the population is already spread out. A Forgelight zone can hold at least 2,000 people, that's 22,000 people alone. They could divide the number of players up even further. Examples could be anything from starting villages on the outskirts of the cities to having the cities divided up into multiple zones with different classes starting in different locations.
What? Eve has over 5000 zones in space and 2500 in wormhole space. It takes hours to travel across the galaxy. It's not in anyway small. Yes, a lot of it is 'empty', but that only has to do with how the game was designed on a very low budget with old technology. Though it really isn't empty, as each system has planets. SOE could develop a far more advanced procedural generation technology. I mean, outside of the main areas, it would be nothing but wilderness. Wilderness is really easy to generate.
If they have all the original EQ starting cities, the population is already spread out. A Forgelight zone can hold at least 2,000 people, that's 22,000 people alone. They could divide the number of players up even further. Examples could be anything from starting villages on the outskirts of the cities to having the cities divided up into multiple zones with different classes starting in different locations.
So basically you just agreed with me that there's indeed nothing in it (a lot of it is empty). Why there's nothing in it doesn't concern me much. It's a very barebones game that is basically empty space with generated stuff in it and a few stations. It's not hard to create a hundred of empty spheres. And wilderness is a lot harder to generate than empty space with WH complexes, I assure you, and it is also harder to manage (trees, elevation, mobs, etc.). As far as server issues go, EVE is a very easy game to manage, especially as you may or may not be aware a lot of stuff in EVE actually ceases to exist once you stop seeing it. The fact that an EVE solar system is very large relative to non-warp speed allows the devs to cut a lot of interesting corners. EQN won't be able to generate some terrain and then delete it and regenerate it again later.
You're basically advocating EVE's and also SWG's approach: make the world very, very large so that everyone fits. That works much better for a game like EVE than for games where the stuff you're generating is actual land. There are also no guarantees that players won't aggregate regardless - again, see Jita. I am thinking in terms of rather obscene amounts of players. If it's large enough, enlarging zones won't solve the problem because you'll hit a critical number of players in some trading area.
It's really relative to how popular EQN ends up being. If it's average, it could probably run with an EVE like system. But if it's above average, I am not seeing it.
Imagine the entire population of WoW on one sever for a second... o.O
There are some of us that hate PvP. IF Sony made this a PvP game. I wouldn't even beta test it.
EQ should keep PvP on PvP servers. The main reason for this is Class Balancing SUCKS.
EQ's staple is that each class has a specific roll. A cleric shouldn't be equal to a Wizard in DPS just to make things "fair"
I can not stand getting nerfed because of the PvP cry babies complaining about how that Rogue owned that Cleric in a one on one battle.
Class balancing basically dumbs the game down to an illusion. Everyone is dead equal, they do the Same dps no matter what class / race you choose, they spells / abilities are all the same but have a different name that gives the illusion that its different than the spell/ability the other class has.
If the game is like EQ1 but allows open PVP at any time, imagine camping a rare spawn like you would in EQ 1.
it spawns, some guy sees it spawn, ganks you soon as you get into combat with the mob and takes what you camped for the last 6 hours.. Talk about a lame game. That would be the worst game design ever.
You couldn't pay me to play EQ Next with open world PVP on every server. I don't even want "flagged" pvp because the pvp players will get classes all nerfed and balanced making class choices basically meaning less because all are equal....
Op.... I hate to burst your bubble but all that twitter post states is that whatever system they do go for will be well designed in their mind, if this means PVP and PVE will exist in the same world at the same time or not isn't up for debate yet as this is neither a confirmation or a statement negating it, it is merely a statement to the effect "We are building something we feel is well built." which in the context of what many, many PVP detractors ignorantly state about PVP (IE that sociopaths love it when it is OW PVP and that no game would ever work with non-consensual PVP) is pretty much a neutral statement.
TL;DR: The guy said for people to have faith in the developers, that is all.
What? Eve has over 5000 zones in space and 2500 in wormhole space. It takes hours to travel across the galaxy. It's not in anyway small. Yes, a lot of it is 'empty', but that only has to do with how the game was designed on a very low budget with old technology. Though it really isn't empty, as each system has planets. SOE could develop a far more advanced procedural generation technology. I mean, outside of the main areas, it would be nothing but wilderness. Wilderness is really easy to generate.
If they have all the original EQ starting cities, the population is already spread out. A Forgelight zone can hold at least 2,000 people, that's 22,000 people alone. They could divide the number of players up even further. Examples could be anything from starting villages on the outskirts of the cities to having the cities divided up into multiple zones with different classes starting in different locations.
So basically you just agreed with me that there's indeed nothing in it (a lot of it is empty). Why there's nothing in it doesn't concern me much. It's a very barebones game that is basically empty space with generated stuff in it and a few stations. It's not hard to create a hundred of empty spheres. And wilderness is a lot harder to generate than empty space with WH complexes, I assure you, and it is also harder to manage (trees, elevation, mobs, etc.). As far as server issues go, EVE is a very easy game to manage, especially as you may or may not be aware a lot of stuff in EVE actually ceases to exist once you stop seeing it. The fact that an EVE solar system is very large relative to non-warp speed allows the devs to cut a lot of interesting corners. EQN won't be able to generate some terrain and then delete it and regenerate it again later.
You're basically advocating EVE's and also SWG's approach: make the world very, very large so that everyone fits. That works much better for a game like EVE than for games where the stuff you're generating is actual land. There are also no guarantees that players won't aggregate regardless - again, see Jita. I am thinking in terms of rather obscene amounts of players. If it's large enough, enlarging zones won't solve the problem because you'll hit a critical number of players in some trading area.
It's really relative to how popular EQN ends up being. If it's average, it could probably run with an EVE like system. But if it's above average, I am not seeing it.
Imagine the entire population of WoW on one sever for a second... o.O
Of course it is harder to process terrain than space. EVE is built on 2003 technology on a low budget. There have already been advancements in the procedural rendering technology such as VoxelFarm. The only thing holding companies back from developing an MMORPG with heavy reliance on procedural content is the will, not any technological restrictions.
Procedural environments and dynamic ecology with player created content can create a world that would constantly allow growth. The more the players expand into the wilderness, the more content there is for new players.
Op.... I hate to burst your bubble but all that twitter post states is that whatever system they do go for will be well designed in their mind, if this means PVP and PVE will exist in the same world at the same time or not isn't up for debate yet as this is neither a confirmation or a statement negating it, it is merely a statement to the effect "We are building something we feel is well built." which in the context of what many, many PVP detractors ignorantly state about PVP (IE that sociopaths love it when it is OW PVP and that no game would ever work with non-consensual PVP) is pretty much a neutral statement.
TL;DR: The guy said for people to have faith in the developers, that is all.
I would argue that a design that alienates the huge majority of it's player base can be considered objectively bad design.
Op.... I hate to burst your bubble but all that twitter post states is that whatever system they do go for will be well designed in their mind, if this means PVP and PVE will exist in the same world at the same time or not isn't up for debate yet as this is neither a confirmation or a statement negating it, it is merely a statement to the effect "We are building something we feel is well built." which in the context of what many, many PVP detractors ignorantly state about PVP (IE that sociopaths love it when it is OW PVP and that no game would ever work with non-consensual PVP) is pretty much a neutral statement.
TL;DR: The guy said for people to have faith in the developers, that is all.
I would argue that a design that alienates the huge majority of it's player base can be considered objectively bad design.
I will continue pointing to EVE until people get it through their thick opinions that OW PVP can work if done right. Thus if one example of the contrary exists it isn't "objectively bad design" but "subjectively bad design" and as for the huge majority... per the poll in one of the threads on mmorpg.com the people who want PVP in their game in equal part as PVE (not Open World but in equal part which could mean a very well built version of Open World) is about 1.5 times the size of people who just want a PVE experience so the "huge majority" bit of the equation goes out the window as well.
Op.... I hate to burst your bubble but all that twitter post states is that whatever system they do go for will be well designed in their mind, if this means PVP and PVE will exist in the same world at the same time or not isn't up for debate yet as this is neither a confirmation or a statement negating it, it is merely a statement to the effect "We are building something we feel is well built." which in the context of what many, many PVP detractors ignorantly state about PVP (IE that sociopaths love it when it is OW PVP and that no game would ever work with non-consensual PVP) is pretty much a neutral statement.
TL;DR: The guy said for people to have faith in the developers, that is all.
I would argue that a design that alienates the huge majority of it's player base can be considered objectively bad design.
I will continue pointing to EVE until people get it through their thick opinions that OW PVP can work if done right. Thus if one example of the contrary exists it isn't "objectively bad design" but "subjectively bad design" and as for the huge majority... per the poll in one of the threads on mmorpg.com the people who want PVP in their game in equal part as PVE (not Open World but in equal part which could mean a very well built version of Open World) is about 1.5 times the size of people who just want a PVE experience so the "huge majority" bit of the equation goes out the window as well.
You point to one sci-fi game that managed to get a decent player base and I can point to a half dozen ambitious fantasy titles that tried to be the same as eve and failed horribly.
Also the polls showed that the people who want EQN to be PVE only / only care about PVE we're about 100% bigger in population per poll. Sometimes more.
Huge majority indeed. I might be in the minority camp, but at least I can admit it.
Op.... I hate to burst your bubble but all that twitter post states is that whatever system they do go for will be well designed in their mind, if this means PVP and PVE will exist in the same world at the same time or not isn't up for debate yet as this is neither a confirmation or a statement negating it, it is merely a statement to the effect "We are building something we feel is well built." which in the context of what many, many PVP detractors ignorantly state about PVP (IE that sociopaths love it when it is OW PVP and that no game would ever work with non-consensual PVP) is pretty much a neutral statement.
TL;DR: The guy said for people to have faith in the developers, that is all.
I would argue that a design that alienates the huge majority of it's player base can be considered objectively bad design.
I will continue pointing to EVE until people get it through their thick opinions that OW PVP can work if done right. Thus if one example of the contrary exists it isn't "objectively bad design" but "subjectively bad design" and as for the huge majority... per the poll in one of the threads on mmorpg.com the people who want PVP in their game in equal part as PVE (not Open World but in equal part which could mean a very well built version of Open World) is about 1.5 times the size of people who just want a PVE experience so the "huge majority" bit of the equation goes out the window as well.
You point to one sci-fi game that managed to get a decent player base and I can point to a half dozen ambitious fantasy titles that tried to be the same as eve and failed horribly.
Also the polls showed that the people who want EQN to be PVE only / only care about PVE we're about 100% bigger in population per poll. Sometimes more.
Huge majority indeed. I might be in the minority camp, but at least I can admit it.
Pulling numbers out of arse and pointing to games made by people who had no idea what they wanted besides OW PVP is a sure fire way to disprove the argument that EVE as a scion of OW PVP works, it isn't a decent playerbase, it is a growing playerbase in a shrinking P2P market where space sims aren't that rare.
Add the percentage of sandbox both and sandbox pvp, lets do you a favour and not add in half the people from themepark both whom will jump at the chance of a sandbox both with decent combat.
Thank god they will not listen to you people who want another themepark with housing, in a world with no risk reward, where you are safe to insult act an ass and not get touched because you don't consent.
that's what that statement means to me.
The problem I have with statements like this is it infers that gamers will be civil. Full on PvP has always degraded into a gankfest to the point where you cant focus on exploring. That may be fun for some but its not fun to me. I agree with separate PvP and PvE servers. If you want to PvP? Get on your own server and gank to your hearts content.
Why do you insist everything but PvP (what you want) at the cost of what other (different playstyle) gamers might want?
Comments
Hear, hear!
Me too, especially when he whips out that EVE card and smacks it down on the table!
Well, unless "the Vision" is " let's waste a fuckton of money" , it's not going to happen. At EQ's height, it had 10:1 PVE to PVP servers. At EVE's height it has 1/20th of the market share that WoW had. Seriously, figure it out.
Nice to see you PvP players are sticking to your reputation for being thorough gentleman, always polite and respectful of others.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
Everyone does not make that assumption. Some have argued very strongly that it will be a single server/shard. I assume it will be multiple servers, at least one based in Europe ( thus honoring the agreement with ProSiebenSat for European rights), at least one on the US east coast and at least one on the US west coast. I also assume that there will be different rule set servers in each of these locations.
I assume it because that seems to be the standard SOE approach and because it makes sense to me. But no evidence for that assumption, none at all, and no evidence for the single server either.
How many people do you expect to fit on that one server?
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
Because there is a technical limitation to how many people you can fix on one server with no instancing. While it's not lime 1999 or even 2005 you cannot fit 25k players on a single server let alone have 25k on at the same time. Remember you guys want no instancing.
Way to go OP, the WAR of words is upon us again!!
Way to stoke the fire!!
This is fail on so many levels ^
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
No more of a technical limitation than if you have multiple 'servers'. Each shard in a modern MMO is running on multiple servers. Whether a game is one massive shard or multiple shards is purely a software design. EVE consistently has over 25k people on its single shard.
they will make pvpers happy cause even as his stupid pole shows, the majority of people want pvp. as for the type, well i have never experience pvp more fun than the early days of EQ, wow of course was much more balanced, but the fun factor was never there.
Lets all be clear, The reason that WOW had so many more subsriptions than any other MMO has nothing to do with it being better or worse than eq, or most other MMO's for that matter. They had a following of millions before day 1 from warcraft, starcraft and diablo.
EQ was never much of a PvP game. They may implement it, but I don't understand why people think you're going to have full loot FFA PvP all of a sudden?
EVE is a poor example because it's mostly a blank game with nothing in it. It has a much easier time aggregating things. It's also relatively small compared to the average MMO.
Regardless of how you do your software, you still have to deal with the potential problem of a huge chunk of the server population ending up in one location, which puts strain both on the server and on the client, as well (see GW2 and having to make characters disappear in large scale WvWvW battles). Even in EVE, large collections in systems actually required them to do some funky time dillation.
What? Eve has over 5000 zones in space and 2500 in wormhole space. It takes hours to travel across the galaxy. It's not in any way small. Yes, a lot of it is 'empty', but that only has to do with how the game was designed on a very low budget with old technology. Though it really isn't empty, as each system has planets. SOE could develop a far more advanced procedural generation technology. I mean, outside of the main areas, it would be nothing but wilderness. Wilderness is really easy to generate.
If they have all the original EQ starting cities, the population is already spread out. A Forgelight zone can hold at least 2,000 people, that's 22,000 people alone. They could divide the number of players up even further. Examples could be anything from starting villages on the outskirts of the cities to having the cities divided up into multiple zones with different classes starting in different locations.
So basically you just agreed with me that there's indeed nothing in it (a lot of it is empty). Why there's nothing in it doesn't concern me much. It's a very barebones game that is basically empty space with generated stuff in it and a few stations. It's not hard to create a hundred of empty spheres. And wilderness is a lot harder to generate than empty space with WH complexes, I assure you, and it is also harder to manage (trees, elevation, mobs, etc.). As far as server issues go, EVE is a very easy game to manage, especially as you may or may not be aware a lot of stuff in EVE actually ceases to exist once you stop seeing it. The fact that an EVE solar system is very large relative to non-warp speed allows the devs to cut a lot of interesting corners. EQN won't be able to generate some terrain and then delete it and regenerate it again later.
You're basically advocating EVE's and also SWG's approach: make the world very, very large so that everyone fits. That works much better for a game like EVE than for games where the stuff you're generating is actual land. There are also no guarantees that players won't aggregate regardless - again, see Jita. I am thinking in terms of rather obscene amounts of players. If it's large enough, enlarging zones won't solve the problem because you'll hit a critical number of players in some trading area.
It's really relative to how popular EQN ends up being. If it's average, it could probably run with an EVE like system. But if it's above average, I am not seeing it.
Imagine the entire population of WoW on one sever for a second... o.O
There are some of us that hate PvP. IF Sony made this a PvP game. I wouldn't even beta test it.
EQ should keep PvP on PvP servers. The main reason for this is Class Balancing SUCKS.
EQ's staple is that each class has a specific roll. A cleric shouldn't be equal to a Wizard in DPS just to make things "fair"
I can not stand getting nerfed because of the PvP cry babies complaining about how that Rogue owned that Cleric in a one on one battle.
Class balancing basically dumbs the game down to an illusion. Everyone is dead equal, they do the Same dps no matter what class / race you choose, they spells / abilities are all the same but have a different name that gives the illusion that its different than the spell/ability the other class has.
If the game is like EQ1 but allows open PVP at any time, imagine camping a rare spawn like you would in EQ 1.
it spawns, some guy sees it spawn, ganks you soon as you get into combat with the mob and takes what you camped for the last 6 hours.. Talk about a lame game. That would be the worst game design ever.
You couldn't pay me to play EQ Next with open world PVP on every server. I don't even want "flagged" pvp because the pvp players will get classes all nerfed and balanced making class choices basically meaning less because all are equal....
screw that.
Op.... I hate to burst your bubble but all that twitter post states is that whatever system they do go for will be well designed in their mind, if this means PVP and PVE will exist in the same world at the same time or not isn't up for debate yet as this is neither a confirmation or a statement negating it, it is merely a statement to the effect "We are building something we feel is well built." which in the context of what many, many PVP detractors ignorantly state about PVP (IE that sociopaths love it when it is OW PVP and that no game would ever work with non-consensual PVP) is pretty much a neutral statement.
TL;DR: The guy said for people to have faith in the developers, that is all.
Of course it is harder to process terrain than space. EVE is built on 2003 technology on a low budget. There have already been advancements in the procedural rendering technology such as VoxelFarm. The only thing holding companies back from developing an MMORPG with heavy reliance on procedural content is the will, not any technological restrictions.
Procedural environments and dynamic ecology with player created content can create a world that would constantly allow growth. The more the players expand into the wilderness, the more content there is for new players.
I would argue that a design that alienates the huge majority of it's player base can be considered objectively bad design.
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
I will continue pointing to EVE until people get it through their thick opinions that OW PVP can work if done right. Thus if one example of the contrary exists it isn't "objectively bad design" but "subjectively bad design" and as for the huge majority... per the poll in one of the threads on mmorpg.com the people who want PVP in their game in equal part as PVE (not Open World but in equal part which could mean a very well built version of Open World) is about 1.5 times the size of people who just want a PVE experience so the "huge majority" bit of the equation goes out the window as well.
Just stop dreaming, carebears and WoW kids have already ruined this game.
What matters now is to wait for the next promise.
You point to one sci-fi game that managed to get a decent player base and I can point to a half dozen ambitious fantasy titles that tried to be the same as eve and failed horribly.
Also the polls showed that the people who want EQN to be PVE only / only care about PVE we're about 100% bigger in population per poll. Sometimes more.
Huge majority indeed. I might be in the minority camp, but at least I can admit 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
Pulling numbers out of arse and pointing to games made by people who had no idea what they wanted besides OW PVP is a sure fire way to disprove the argument that EVE as a scion of OW PVP works, it isn't a decent playerbase, it is a growing playerbase in a shrinking P2P market where space sims aren't that rare.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/389730/page/1
Add the percentage of sandbox both and sandbox pvp, lets do you a favour and not add in half the people from themepark both whom will jump at the chance of a sandbox both with decent combat.
The problem I have with statements like this is it infers that gamers will be civil. Full on PvP has always degraded into a gankfest to the point where you cant focus on exploring. That may be fun for some but its not fun to me. I agree with separate PvP and PvE servers. If you want to PvP? Get on your own server and gank to your hearts content.
Why do you insist everything but PvP (what you want) at the cost of what other (different playstyle) gamers might want?
Sounds selfish to me, but I could be wrong.