No, but the whole game changes to a focus on PVP and the PVE will be secondary. Compare this with the idea to add pvp flagging. It changes the game as well, in a way that many PVP players don't want.
But to be honest, i don't think there will be any full loot pvp in EQNext, i think we will have asset destruction and FFA PVP with smaller death penalty in PVP then PVE.
Which game?
Are you saying it is impossible to have a robust PVE experience in a game where one can loot other players?
The problem is that in a focused PvE game (the game i would to play) you make difficult and long dungeons and raids to get a better equipment, that is supposed to be hard or very hard to get (expecialy in the end game PvE contents) so after hours of efforts you dont want to lose all the items you get in few seconds just because you re ganked by a group of pkers.
In a full loot game, equipment have to be very simple to get but this will erase the motivation to do challening and complex PvE...PERSONALY i like to wear my char. very slowly and i dont want that the best equipment in game will be too easy to get.
Gear drops themselves would be secondary to the best resources that can drop on a raid. I've always hated that gear drops instead of materials. If materials drop during a raid, and you get something valuable then just recall to a place near a bank. EQ2 has a recall to a guild hall, so it wouldn't be hard in that scenario to get a good resource, recall and immediately bank it. There is no reason that good PvE has to suffer because of open world PvP.
I haven't read "all" the posts, but I've read a good 70-80% of them, and not too many people are mentioning full loot PvP; most people are talking about open world or FFA PvP. Just because you have open world PvP, meaning you can attack or be attacked anywhere in the game, doesn't mean you have to have full loot. I love PvP, but I'm still an advocate for backpack and not equipped items loot. After hours of playing any gear that you really want is safe because it would be on your equipped body.
I haven't read "all" the posts, but I've read a good 70-80% of them, and not too many people are mentioning full loot PvP; most people are talking about open world or FFA PvP. Just because you have open world PvP, meaning you can attack or be attacked anywhere in the game, doesn't mean you have to have full loot. I love PvP, but I'm still an advocate for backpack and not equipped items loot. After hours of playing any gear that you really want is safe because it would be on your equipped body.
Another side of that coin where FFA PvP doesn't have to be full loot would be that a full loot game doesn't necessarily have to mean Raid dungeons are open pvp areas.
I personally like the idea of open pvp areas, but as Mos points out -- one has to be honest that just because you hear a phrase describing a system that has been done before in a game, doesn't mean the next game has to implement that system in the exact same way.
Then there is the fact that one system, like full loot/item drop, can exist - and all the other systems interconnected with it can change and leave a game that plays nothing like every other full loot/item drop game you've played.
This is a HORRIBLE idea. Basically what it will mean is nobody will PK ever. period.
So if that is your answer, we have to seriously examine your motivations here.
Why exactly do you want PK in civilized areas to be frequent? I don't walk down the street expecting to be murdered, why's that, well, a mix of justice system and people not being dicks. PK is punished in our world because it's a grave crime. Btw, PK still exists in our world, it's just rare.
Yet you advocate that it should be allowed willy nilly with no proper consequences? What?
Immersion? No, not really, excessive PKing is actually less immersive than a justice system that punishes murderers. It makes no sense that people can waltz around murdering people and there are no consequences, nobody speaks out, nobody complains to the government/local police.
You want to PK, you need to do it smart, so nobody knows, nobody can write down your name and pass it down to the right people. Free-PK should be reserved for areas far away, it should indeed be such a rare occurrence in safe areas that it essentially never happens.
Exactly correct. I provided Holophonist with an example system that could, depending on the specific parameters, provide an actual consequence for the anti-social behavior -- a real-world cash penalty with compensation to the victim. He basically went ballistic. The idea isn't perfect, granted, as this system would be unpopular with the PvP crowd. I originally suggested a cost of $50 as a consequence, with 95% going to the victim. That's a figure that I believe would make PKing a very rare thing. If the price were adjusted down to $0.10, it wouldn't be nearly as effective a deterrent.
My point was that there are ideas that could work to implement effective consequences for in-game activity, but the PvP crowd doesn't seem these as 'consequences', but rather as 'restrictions'. They want the ability to commit an act of unwanted aggression against another, and the ability to simply turn their computer off to avoid any repercussions. Taking the consequences to a real-world level neatly bypasses the off switch.
----------
There's a very significant question here, one that has yet to be tackled in a legal sense. Is non-consensual PvP a form of online bullying? I don't know. Someone, somewhere will eventually take this to court. Anti-social behavior without consequences is in a political bad light, currently. If you think SOE, Blizzard, etc., are horrible at developing games, imagine their products laced with governmental influence and regulations. It's not something I want to think about.
It would never be considered non-consensual PvP; they give their consent to the rules of the game the minute they log in and accept the EULA. If they go into a game knowing that there is PvP and that at any time they "could" be killed, then they are consenting by logging into the game. It's like asking to play football and asking to never get hit.
I would hate any real world consequences for playing an online game. Limits within the game are good enough, because if someone wants to grief you hard enough, they will always find a way. Take a look at can flipping in EvE. A mechanic was put in that was supposed to make it harder to grief miners in hi-sec, yet people found a way to use it to their advantage. Remote repping during Corps wars, yeah that turned out fair for each side.
I don't know if a compromise can truly be reached; so here's for hoping that Smedley is giving the EQ IP an injection in the arm with a good PvP centric game.
Originally posted by DamonVile If a pve player can be killed by a pvp player it's a pvp game. It doesn't matter what mechanic you use.
and they aren't going to like it.....Those of us that jsut want PVE would prefer that they make a different server with PVP rules for those that want it......We dont want PVP on the PVE server no matter what....It jsut doesnt work and cant we have just one good PVE game for once?...Does every single game released have to have some form of PVP in it?
I haven't read "all" the posts, but I've read a good 70-80% of them, and not too many people are mentioning full loot PvP; most people are talking about open world or FFA PvP. Just because you have open world PvP, meaning you can attack or be attacked anywhere in the game, doesn't mean you have to have full loot. I love PvP, but I'm still an advocate for backpack and not equipped items loot. After hours of playing any gear that you really want is safe because it would be on your equipped body.
Another side of that coin where FFA PvP doesn't have to be full loot would be that a full loot game doesn't necessarily have to mean Raid dungeons are open pvp areas.
I personally like the idea of open pvp areas, but as Mos points out -- one has to be honest that just because you hear a phrase describing a system that has been done before in a game, doesn't mean the next game has to implement that system in the exact same way.
Then there is the fact that one system, like full loot/item drop, can exist - and all the other systems interconnected with it can change and leave a game that plays nothing like every other full loot/item drop game you've played.
This is one compromise I would be willing to make; I hate instances but I would be ok with a few high end dungeons being instanced and off limits for PvP. The game still wouldn't be fun if they didn't have some type of territory control or guild vs guild, but that has nothing to do directly with instanced dungeons.
So if the game could deliver open world PvP, with asset destruction and guild vs guild city building/sieges, while still having 3-5 high end dungeons that were instanced and safe from PvP I would readily play a game like that. Full loot or back pack loot, or any other type of loot rights would fit into the above scenario; just as Rama said there are different sides to the coin.
Originally posted by DamonVile If a pve player can be killed by a pvp player it's a pvp game. It doesn't matter what mechanic you use.
and they aren't going to like it.....Those of us that jsut want PVE would prefer that they make a different server with PVP rules for those that want it......We dont want PVP on the PVE server no matter what....It jsut doesnt work and cant we have just one good PVE game for once?...Does every single game released have to have some form of PVP in it?
They have a lot of games like that with PvP and PvE servers that are separate. But for a moment think how you would react if you find out on 2 Aug that the game is going to be a PvP game. Separate servers is not the issue, and separating servers is not the issue. If the game is built around PvP separate servers would destroy the content of the game on PvE servers, along with destroying the game on the PvP servers because of low population. So....IF the game is a PvP game then separate servers is not the answer.
If the game ends up being a PvE game with PvP tacked on, then yep separate servers is a fine solution. It all comes down to how the game was designed. I'm really hoping that Smed's interest in EvE, his few comments to stir the pot, and the lack of a fantasy PvP RPG in their bag of games is pointing us in the direction of EQN being the persistent open world asset destruction PvP game many of us are wanting.
In other words, will EQ fans play EQN if the game is PvP centric?
Ya we know from a couple teases that there will be some sort of OWPVP in EQN. But it would be foolish to assume that's going to comprise the bulk of the game or that it's going to force it on every single player. It would just kill their potential revenue. Appealing to both crowds is where they're going to take the game.
The part in yellow I refute. Not saying that PVE itself is bad, but I think that they seem pretty confident that they won't take players from EQ and EQ2. The only way I see that not happening is if the play style of EQN is so different, that it would warrant that opinion. That sounds like to me that they are going for non-EQ players with EQN. They could be going after WoW players or other Themepark players from other games, but that doesn't make sense either. Everything they said is about being different and a different approach. I interpret that as going after a different gaming group entirely. Probably one that might not be playing any Themepark MMORPGs. The disagreement for discussion then shifts to whether there's enough people that would be interested in that different of a game to warrant such a big change. And the answer is...we just don't know. No one's tried that yet. All most dev teams have tried to do in recent years is capture some (if not all) of the WoW players.
Right, lots of PVE ways to tap into other player bases.
EQ and EQ2 appeal to people with lower end PCs, who want non-action combat, who want themepark style gameplay, who are attached to their characters, etc etc.
They expect some* people to come over to EQN, but they said they're going to keep EQ and EQ2 going for those who want to stick with those games.
That in no way suggests they would make a 100% pvp forced game.
That in no way suggests they would make a 100% pvp forced game.
Well they haven't denied it either. They're just saying wait and see, wish we could tell you more right now. That being said I don't think it will be FFA Open World PVP. I do think it will be Faction based Open World PVP however. But what do I know, it's just a guess.
As for the EQ/EQ2 player base. We must of read different articles on that subject because based on what I read they said EQN wouldn't compete EQ/EQ2 because it's a different animal. Not because someone can't run it on their 8 year old system.
.It jsut doesnt work and cant we have just one good PVE game for once?
What would be a good PVE game in your mind? Because you say for once, so I'm interested what you think other games have never done for the PVE realm.
I often wonder what PVE folks have in mind when they ask for a good PVE game for once. The type of player that wants permanent gear, gear progression, raids, no pvp at all.
I'm not pointing fingers saying they don't make sense or they're being asinine or anything like that, I am genuinely curious.
Because, from my perspective. That game exists 100 times over in every variation anyone could possibly want. From the open areas with player housing of Vanguard to the endless battleground PVP and limitless dungeon finder fueled action of WOW to the depth of story and sci-fi settings of SWTOR. I feel if I wanted a great PVE game with permanent gear and a lot of raid content I'd have many many years of gaming ahead of me before I ever ran out of stuff to do.
And I fully admit I am naive and ignorant to the wants and needs of these folks. This is a post about that, not an accusation of unreasonableness on anyone.
What are those key features or systems missing from your games? What is it that is so important that we must compromise in order for you to have?
Originally posted by DamonVile If a pve player can be killed by a pvp player it's a pvp game. It doesn't matter what mechanic you use.
and they aren't going to like it.....Those of us that jsut want PVE would prefer that they make a different server with PVP rules for those that want it......We dont want PVP on the PVE server no matter what....It jsut doesnt work and cant we have just one good PVE game for once?...Does every single game released have to have some form of PVP in it?
They have a lot of games like that with PvP and PvE servers that are separate. But for a moment think how you would react if you find out on 2 Aug that the game is going to be a PvP game. Separate servers is not the issue, and separating servers is not the issue. If the game is built around PvP separate servers would destroy the content of the game on PvE servers, along with destroying the game on the PvP servers because of low population. So....IF the game is a PvP game then separate servers is not the answer.
If the game ends up being a PvE game with PvP tacked on, then yep separate servers is a fine solution. It all comes down to how the game was designed. I'm really hoping that Smed's interest in EvE, his few comments to stir the pot, and the lack of a fantasy PvP RPG in their bag of games is pointing us in the direction of EQN being the persistent open world asset destruction PvP game many of us are wanting.
In other words, will EQ fans play EQN if the game is PvP centric?
the Answer to that question would be too ambiguous, i can't forsee what EQ fans wants to play. but i'am almost certain that many of them woulden't want to play an EQ game that was pvp centric, because it would be a different game and not what EQ was about.
to make an EQ pvp centric game, would mean, that they would be willing to go the niche path. it won't be a game for the masses, but for a very specific player group. it could do well but not great. when i think of pvp centric mmo that do ok, i think of Eve online . when i think of huge global massive succesful mmo, i think of wow. it all depends what the devs, and the company wants to achieve.
i think some of the former pvp hardcore players, (including myself) are already burn out of the same, pvp features we've seen over and over in MMO, but somehow they feel lacking and become too predictable, repetitive, and easy to exploit.
i think the MMO genre in general is ready for things totally different. pvp in many cases, has been used as a cheap and easy way to fill the gap, the lack of content and creativity does.
the day that AI become challenging and smart enough to pose a real threat to players. that would be the end of pvp .
Created this account simply to respond to this heh.
First, I love PVE, been playing since EQ1 1999, D&D and MUDS ( we've heard this all before) and played many games since, and tackling well designed pve encounters will always have a soft spot in my heart and is WHY i love adventuring. However, I also like the ability to sometimes let a player who has either wronged me, a friend or simply is the apposing faction know that they should give me a wide berth. Sometimes I just want to test my mettle against another player (even someone slightly higher level than me). In any case I like having both. However rampant griefing is really only good/fun for the griefer, we can almost all agree on that.
I started reading this thread yesterday in the morning and it's grown considerably since then, so forgive me if some of what I'm saying has already been stated, and I'm sure it's been said in countless other threads regarding pve vs pvp in other games, as I only breezed over the last who knows how many pages since...
First the real problem is that there is zero benefit to the person who simply wants to pve and is suddenly smashed by another player. What makes it worse is usually the combat is so one sided for so many different reasons; player is already in combat, distracted by ui or chatting... that it's simply viewed as frustrating.
Here's what I'm hoping for. If the faction system is as robust they state its going to be in EQN then giving the victim some faction boost in relation to the aggressors "hated faction list" would at least ease the frustration a bit (from a RP standpoint you could view it as the player endearing themselves to the locals as being a survivor of some infamous bandit/killer), and do the inverse for the aggressors faction, you may not kill someone repeatedly if you suddenly realize you're tanking your own faction with a group you're working to raise it with by killing someone who is in fact in a role playing sense a hero for those people. Second npc bounty hunters, town guards and player generated bounty systems help with the problem of course, but have never solved the problem entirely. But again no reason to exclude them.
Faction aside make pvp death only spawn points that are somewhat localized to the area that you died (this is assuming there is a bind system like EQ1 where long runs back due to a pvp death could mean 0 real play time for a day). Coupled with this there should be a timer, 5 min... 10 mins hell give it 30 mins that you are now non pvp flagged unless you decide to initiate combat. sure you died, but this would give you more than enough time to likely finish your business and then get the heck out of dodge without being harassed.
And lastly for those that advocate some kind of loot system for pvp. If this is implemented in a game at all I would definitely not advocate full loot, that's just silly. Sure I get it, you want some spoils of war but we're playing a game and shouldn't be out to ruin the experience for someone entirely as community is really what drives a good MMO. However, if SOE decides to have a looting system for PVP and their faction system is as robust as they say, simply make it so that the more infamous of a killer you are the more can be looted for YOUR corpse when you die, even to the point of nodrop items. This would eventually allow the PVE players to band together and clip the wings of someone who is mindlessly slaughtering people with the sole intent of just ruining the fun of others.
Sorry for the wall of text, trying to hammer this out quickly before my GF wakes up and makes me tackle the list of things to do
.It jsut doesnt work and cant we have just one good PVE game for once?
What would be a good PVE game in your mind? Because you say for once, so I'm interested what you think other games have never done for the PVE realm.
I often wonder what PVE folks have in mind when they ask for a good PVE game for once. The type of player that wants permanent gear, gear progression, raids, no pvp at all.
I'm not pointing fingers saying they don't make sense or they're being asinine or anything like that, I am genuinely curious.
Because, from my perspective. That game exists 100 times over in every variation anyone could possibly want. From the open areas with player housing of Vanguard to the endless battleground PVP and limitless dungeon finder fueled action of WOW to the depth of story and sci-fi settings of SWTOR. I feel if I wanted a great PVE game with permanent gear and a lot of raid content I'd have many many years of gaming ahead of me before I ever ran out of stuff to do.
And I fully admit I am naive and ignorant to the wants and needs of these folks. This is a post about that, not an accusation of unreasonableness on anyone.
What are those key features or systems missing from your games? What is it that is so important that we must compromise in order for you to have?
i can't speak for anyone else, but to me, a good pve sandbox MMO would be something similar to SWG before it was ruined by you know who lol.
tons of things to do, not just fighting. lots of freedom to do basically whatever you like. a world with so many things for you to do, that you won't ever have time to be bored. is a game with a huge replayability value, a game that continues to be fun, even after you get to max level.
raiding, hunting, dungeons, cantina parties, lots of drama lol, pet taming and collecting rare animals, building cities, building houses, exploring dangerous planets , running your own business, and making new costumers, becoming rich while watching your business grow and turn into a profitable and lucrative corporation. going out fishing with your friends, having tons of player, guild ran events. crafting the best weapons, best armor. becoming well known server wise for your skills. etc, etc. when you have a game with a breathing and total inmersive world. fighting becomes one of the many other things you can do. instead of the main core, ultimate objective.
And lastly for those that advocate some kind of loot system for pvp. If this is implemented in a game at all I would definitely not advocate full loot, that's just silly. Sure I get it, you want some spoils of war but we're playing a game and shouldn't be out to ruin the experience for someone entirely as community is really what drives a good MMO.
Welcome to the forums.
This was a good first post!
I'd just like to address one thing though in that many of us who advocate full loot systems do not do so because we want "spoils of war."
Some of us advocate them for many reasons of which that is not even one of them. I for example, would prefer a system that just deletes all of my items when I die over one that allows me to have permanent gear. So it isn't about getting other people's stuff.
I like full loot because I -DETEST- gear grinds, the sort of grind that exists in WOW, SWTOR, Rift, and almost every game i've ever played since Ultima Online.
I LOVE crafting and a robust player driven economy, two things that benefit most from a full loot system. I like character progression, but I prefer it to be endless. If there is a best in slot gear that I can get and own forever there is a definite end to my progression that doesn't exist if there is always a reason to amass more wealth to pad myself from the possibility of future loss.
And with that in mind I like risk/reward and actually having something on the line. The death penalty where i'm simply teleported to another place doesn't hold the same thrill for me. Nor does the loss of some experience that won't really impact my playing or the game as a whole in as meaningful a way.
I could go on, but my only point is for some of us it goes far beyond just wanting to gank people and take their stuff. It is an entire systematic effect on an entire game. And I feel not having full loot for the sake of people thinking it is too harsh comes with a high price. A price I personally do not enjoy paying, while I understand why many do.
And once again, when we start talking compromise on full loot pvp, we start compromising the integrity of the way the system can function with other games systems. None of this is to say any of this -requires- a full loot game. But my preference does not exist for any one single reason.
Fair enough, I can see the merit in what you're saying. And again I've played many games that were primarily pvp games and love it. I suppose it all comes down to what SOE has envisioned for gear in general and in just what way are they going to reward the players who do want to put tons of time into raiding (i love raiding but im not sure i'll even have the time this go around).
Full loot systems (esp when it just means that items are destroyed) could in fact enrich the economy, greatly for the crafting classes if crafted items are worth a damn. but again it really all depends on SOE and just how much they want to reward people with primarily gear. I would hate to see people not rewarded in some way for spending countless hours tackling end game content (provided it's actually difficult content) Simply to have it stripped away with one small misstep. if they can figure that out great.
That in no way suggests they would make a 100% pvp forced game.
Well they haven't denied it either. They're just saying wait and see, wish we could tell you more right now. That being said I don't think it will be FFA Open World PVP. I do think it will be Faction based Open World PVP however. But what do I know, it's just a guess.
As for the EQ/EQ2 player base. We must of read different articles on that subject because based on what I read they said EQN wouldn't compete EQ/EQ2 because it's a different animal. Not because someone can't run it on their 8 year old system.
Like I said, they can go with a lot of PVE features and game mechanics that would have nothing to do with PVP and still appeal to a wider/different audience and not tap into the "EQ" audience.
As for FFA vs Team pvp, doesn't matter. There will be PVE servers for those who want it.
There will be PVP servers for those who want it.
Or PVP will be segregated from the PVE areas (Like GW2).
In either case, PVP isn't going to be forced on those who don't want it.
I would hate to see people not rewarded in some way for spending countless hours tackling end game content (provided it's actually difficult content) Simply to have it stripped away with one small misstep. if they can figure that out great.
On this we can both agree!
I too enjoy the occasional round of dungeon progression with my friends and would hate for days or hours of gameplay to be for nothing.
I do hope EQN has some form of great pvp. And as you alluded to in your other post I hope they get creative with it. Something a little beyond the knee-jerk same old "me too" systems so many people want to just throw out as acceptable. Which in my opinion is a source of why compromise on these systems is so hard, we invariably keep talking about systems that we have always used that have proven to be incompatible.
But I don't expect a full loot system. I maintain it could work, and I think SOE has some creative people. But i would be VERY impressed if they managed to appease my style of play AND the more adamant PVE crowd. I do not expect to be "VERY impressed".
There is no balance you can do to make everyone happy. You do FFA PvP and even the FFA PvPers would not all be happy for what ever reasons. Pure PvEers will get upset even if they are never forced to PvP as class balance and design happens with PvP in mind. You can talk about skills having a PvP side to them that balances things for you but that only helps a little. How do you balance a class like an Enchanter thats all about control with removing its core design? You cant and in a team an Enchanter would be over powered or gimped to the level no one would play one on a PvP server.
Fact is this, SoE is going to have to pick what market they want. PvP game thats for the PvP fans and alienate then pure PvEers or do the same to the PvPers. Or make a game thats balanced for PvP and PvE and target a larger market but will alienate the pure hard core PvPers and PvEers. I think the best option is a sandbox PvE game with a themepark PvP area like DAoC or AA. Just my two cents.
Originally posted by DamonVile If a pve player can be killed by a pvp player it's a pvp game. It doesn't matter what mechanic you use.
and they aren't going to like it.....Those of us that jsut want PVE would prefer that they make a different server with PVP rules for those that want it......We dont want PVP on the PVE server no matter what....It jsut doesnt work and cant we have just one good PVE game for once?...Does every single game released have to have some form of PVP in it?
They have a lot of games like that with PvP and PvE servers that are separate. But for a moment think how you would react if you find out on 2 Aug that the game is going to be a PvP game. Separate servers is not the issue, and separating servers is not the issue. If the game is built around PvP separate servers would destroy the content of the game on PvE servers, along with destroying the game on the PvP servers because of low population. So....IF the game is a PvP game then separate servers is not the answer.
If the game ends up being a PvE game with PvP tacked on, then yep separate servers is a fine solution. It all comes down to how the game was designed. I'm really hoping that Smed's interest in EvE, his few comments to stir the pot, and the lack of a fantasy PvP RPG in their bag of games is pointing us in the direction of EQN being the persistent open world asset destruction PvP game many of us are wanting.
In other words, will EQ fans play EQN if the game is PvP centric?
the Answer to that question would be too ambiguous, i can't forsee what EQ fans wants to play. but i'am almost certain that many of them woulden't want to play an EQ game that was pvp centric, because it would be a different game and not what EQ was about.
to make an EQ pvp centric game, would mean, that they would be willing to go the niche path. it won't be a game for the masses, but for a very specific player group. it could do well but not great. when i think of pvp centric mmo that do ok, i think of Eve online . when i think of huge global massive succesful mmo, i think of wow. it all depends what the devs, and the company wants to achieve.
i think some of the former pvp hardcore players, (including myself) are already burn out of the same, pvp features we've seen over and over in MMO, but somehow they feel lacking and become too predictable, repetitive, and easy to exploit.
i think the MMO genre in general is ready for things totally different. pvp in many cases, has been used as a cheap and easy way to fill the gap, the lack of content and creativity does.
the day that AI become challenging and smart enough to pose a real threat to players. that would be the end of pvp .
This is really where I think the big surprise is going; they are not marketing for the big audience, but they are marketing for a smaller niche audience. The games that have failed lately in the mmoRPG market have been games trying to go head to head with WoW. Blizzard has the gear progression market so tied up no one will ever big bigger than WoW. What I think that Smedley is doing is looking at a game like EvE and seeing that a 500k sub game can be profitable.
When you take all of SOE's games, they might be breaking into the WoW category, and that is where I see SOE going; grabbing up niche markets over several game styles and being profitable.
This is how I interpret the like EQ1/2 but different; it will still be a traditional mmoRPG, not a FPS. So as a mmoRPG what type of game do they need to fill out their portfolio, they need a PvP game. Sure I may be wrong and I accept that. But this is how I see them rolling out EQN. So the big compromise is going to be how to incorporate good PvE into a PvP centric game.
Why does a game like EvE keep going? Really it's because of the player politics. That's what's missing from a persistent mmoRPG. Player politics and PvP in a fanstasy mmoRPG would be a great add to the games today. The actual combat may not be different, but the scale and depth of the gameplay would change from day to day, and the game world (territory control) would be different year to year. I don't need action combat to have a good time, I prefer tab targeting; what I'm really after is building virtual worlds through the building of player cities and fighting over those cities week in and week out.
I would hate to see people not rewarded in some way for spending countless hours tackling end game content (provided it's actually difficult content) Simply to have it stripped away with one small misstep. if they can figure that out great.
But I don't expect a full loot system. I maintain it could work, and I think SOE has some creative people. But i would be VERY impressed if they managed to appease my style of play AND the more adamant PVE crowd. I do not expect to be "VERY impressed".
Agreed, I suppose all we can hope for is at least some sort of innovation that is a blend of both play styles and keeps it fun for everyone, well perhaps not everyone... that just opens the door for a game that tries to hard to do everything and fails across the board. Compromise and baby steps is probably what we'll see, regardless of all the talk of something entirely new across the board.
So long as it's movement in the right direction and fun I'm all for whatever they throw at us.
There will be no happy middle ground. Friday we will have this forum explode with happy and upset people. Even if the game has PvP, there will be a buch of PvPers that are upset because it didnt fit the PvP they wanted. The hype rating will go up because of the news and the flip outs. It will be full on PvForum. My bet the mods will be looking forward to the next 2 weeks =-)
Originally posted by Nanfoodle There will be no happy middle ground. Friday we will have this forum explode with happy and upset people. Even if the game has PvP, there will be a buch of PvPers that are upset because it didnt fit the PvP they wanted. The hype rating will go up because of the news and the flip outs. It will be full on PvForum. My bet the mods will be looking forward to the next 2 weeks =-)
The really clever mods already have vacation scheduled for the next 3 weeks.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle There will be no happy middle ground. Friday we will have this forum explode with happy and upset people. Even if the game has PvP, there will be a buch of PvPers that are upset because it didnt fit the PvP they wanted. The hype rating will go up because of the news and the flip outs. It will be full on PvForum. My bet the mods will be looking forward to the next 2 weeks =-)
The really clever mods already have vacation scheduled for the next 3 weeks.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle There will be no happy middle ground. Friday we will have this forum explode with happy and upset people. Even if the game has PvP, there will be a buch of PvPers that are upset because it didnt fit the PvP they wanted. The hype rating will go up because of the news and the flip outs. It will be full on PvForum. My bet the mods will be looking forward to the next 2 weeks =-)
The really clever mods already have vacation scheduled for the next 3 weeks.
Any mod reading this now is laughing or crying.
Or both. And I'm not sure which PVPers you're talking about. PVE is more prone to the freakout if you ask me. Based on the history of the franchise and people's inability to deal with change.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle There will be no happy middle ground. Friday we will have this forum explode with happy and upset people. Even if the game has PvP, there will be a buch of PvPers that are upset because it didnt fit the PvP they wanted. The hype rating will go up because of the news and the flip outs. It will be full on PvForum. My bet the mods will be looking forward to the next 2 weeks =-)
The really clever mods already have vacation scheduled for the next 3 weeks.
Any mod reading this now is laughing or crying.
Or both. And I'm not sure which PVPers you're talking about. PVE is more prone to the freakout if you ask me. Based on the history of the franchise and people's inability to deal with change.
There is a few types of PvPers. FFA fans, team based FFA (cant kill people from your faction) Battleground/arena PvPers (like WoW) DAoC PvPers themepark PvP with objectives (but like to keep PvP and PvP in its own box) Each PvPers has their own idea on what makes PvP awesome or fail and none of them agree on whats better =-) I think the PvP and PvE groups both can get equally loud when they dont get what they like.
Comments
Gear drops themselves would be secondary to the best resources that can drop on a raid. I've always hated that gear drops instead of materials. If materials drop during a raid, and you get something valuable then just recall to a place near a bank. EQ2 has a recall to a guild hall, so it wouldn't be hard in that scenario to get a good resource, recall and immediately bank it. There is no reason that good PvE has to suffer because of open world PvP.
I haven't read "all" the posts, but I've read a good 70-80% of them, and not too many people are mentioning full loot PvP; most people are talking about open world or FFA PvP. Just because you have open world PvP, meaning you can attack or be attacked anywhere in the game, doesn't mean you have to have full loot. I love PvP, but I'm still an advocate for backpack and not equipped items loot. After hours of playing any gear that you really want is safe because it would be on your equipped body.
Another side of that coin where FFA PvP doesn't have to be full loot would be that a full loot game doesn't necessarily have to mean Raid dungeons are open pvp areas.
I personally like the idea of open pvp areas, but as Mos points out -- one has to be honest that just because you hear a phrase describing a system that has been done before in a game, doesn't mean the next game has to implement that system in the exact same way.
Then there is the fact that one system, like full loot/item drop, can exist - and all the other systems interconnected with it can change and leave a game that plays nothing like every other full loot/item drop game you've played.
It would never be considered non-consensual PvP; they give their consent to the rules of the game the minute they log in and accept the EULA. If they go into a game knowing that there is PvP and that at any time they "could" be killed, then they are consenting by logging into the game. It's like asking to play football and asking to never get hit.
I would hate any real world consequences for playing an online game. Limits within the game are good enough, because if someone wants to grief you hard enough, they will always find a way. Take a look at can flipping in EvE. A mechanic was put in that was supposed to make it harder to grief miners in hi-sec, yet people found a way to use it to their advantage. Remote repping during Corps wars, yeah that turned out fair for each side.
I don't know if a compromise can truly be reached; so here's for hoping that Smedley is giving the EQ IP an injection in the arm with a good PvP centric game.
and they aren't going to like it.....Those of us that jsut want PVE would prefer that they make a different server with PVP rules for those that want it......We dont want PVP on the PVE server no matter what....It jsut doesnt work and cant we have just one good PVE game for once?...Does every single game released have to have some form of PVP in it?
This is one compromise I would be willing to make; I hate instances but I would be ok with a few high end dungeons being instanced and off limits for PvP. The game still wouldn't be fun if they didn't have some type of territory control or guild vs guild, but that has nothing to do directly with instanced dungeons.
So if the game could deliver open world PvP, with asset destruction and guild vs guild city building/sieges, while still having 3-5 high end dungeons that were instanced and safe from PvP I would readily play a game like that. Full loot or back pack loot, or any other type of loot rights would fit into the above scenario; just as Rama said there are different sides to the coin.
They have a lot of games like that with PvP and PvE servers that are separate. But for a moment think how you would react if you find out on 2 Aug that the game is going to be a PvP game. Separate servers is not the issue, and separating servers is not the issue. If the game is built around PvP separate servers would destroy the content of the game on PvE servers, along with destroying the game on the PvP servers because of low population. So....IF the game is a PvP game then separate servers is not the answer.
If the game ends up being a PvE game with PvP tacked on, then yep separate servers is a fine solution. It all comes down to how the game was designed. I'm really hoping that Smed's interest in EvE, his few comments to stir the pot, and the lack of a fantasy PvP RPG in their bag of games is pointing us in the direction of EQN being the persistent open world asset destruction PvP game many of us are wanting.
In other words, will EQ fans play EQN if the game is PvP centric?
Right, lots of PVE ways to tap into other player bases.
EQ and EQ2 appeal to people with lower end PCs, who want non-action combat, who want themepark style gameplay, who are attached to their characters, etc etc.
They expect some* people to come over to EQN, but they said they're going to keep EQ and EQ2 going for those who want to stick with those games.
That in no way suggests they would make a 100% pvp forced game.
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
What would be a good PVE game in your mind? Because you say for once, so I'm interested what you think other games have never done for the PVE realm.
Well they haven't denied it either. They're just saying wait and see, wish we could tell you more right now. That being said I don't think it will be FFA Open World PVP. I do think it will be Faction based Open World PVP however. But what do I know, it's just a guess.
As for the EQ/EQ2 player base. We must of read different articles on that subject because based on what I read they said EQN wouldn't compete EQ/EQ2 because it's a different animal. Not because someone can't run it on their 8 year old system.
I often wonder what PVE folks have in mind when they ask for a good PVE game for once. The type of player that wants permanent gear, gear progression, raids, no pvp at all.
I'm not pointing fingers saying they don't make sense or they're being asinine or anything like that, I am genuinely curious.
Because, from my perspective. That game exists 100 times over in every variation anyone could possibly want. From the open areas with player housing of Vanguard to the endless battleground PVP and limitless dungeon finder fueled action of WOW to the depth of story and sci-fi settings of SWTOR. I feel if I wanted a great PVE game with permanent gear and a lot of raid content I'd have many many years of gaming ahead of me before I ever ran out of stuff to do.
And I fully admit I am naive and ignorant to the wants and needs of these folks. This is a post about that, not an accusation of unreasonableness on anyone.
What are those key features or systems missing from your games? What is it that is so important that we must compromise in order for you to have?
the Answer to that question would be too ambiguous, i can't forsee what EQ fans wants to play. but i'am almost certain that many of them woulden't want to play an EQ game that was pvp centric, because it would be a different game and not what EQ was about.
to make an EQ pvp centric game, would mean, that they would be willing to go the niche path. it won't be a game for the masses, but for a very specific player group. it could do well but not great. when i think of pvp centric mmo that do ok, i think of Eve online . when i think of huge global massive succesful mmo, i think of wow. it all depends what the devs, and the company wants to achieve.
i think some of the former pvp hardcore players, (including myself) are already burn out of the same, pvp features we've seen over and over in MMO, but somehow they feel lacking and become too predictable, repetitive, and easy to exploit.
i think the MMO genre in general is ready for things totally different. pvp in many cases, has been used as a cheap and easy way to fill the gap, the lack of content and creativity does.
the day that AI become challenging and smart enough to pose a real threat to players. that would be the end of pvp .
Created this account simply to respond to this heh.
First, I love PVE, been playing since EQ1 1999, D&D and MUDS ( we've heard this all before) and played many games since, and tackling well designed pve encounters will always have a soft spot in my heart and is WHY i love adventuring. However, I also like the ability to sometimes let a player who has either wronged me, a friend or simply is the apposing faction know that they should give me a wide berth. Sometimes I just want to test my mettle against another player (even someone slightly higher level than me). In any case I like having both. However rampant griefing is really only good/fun for the griefer, we can almost all agree on that.
I started reading this thread yesterday in the morning and it's grown considerably since then, so forgive me if some of what I'm saying has already been stated, and I'm sure it's been said in countless other threads regarding pve vs pvp in other games, as I only breezed over the last who knows how many pages since...
First the real problem is that there is zero benefit to the person who simply wants to pve and is suddenly smashed by another player. What makes it worse is usually the combat is so one sided for so many different reasons; player is already in combat, distracted by ui or chatting... that it's simply viewed as frustrating.
Here's what I'm hoping for. If the faction system is as robust they state its going to be in EQN then giving the victim some faction boost in relation to the aggressors "hated faction list" would at least ease the frustration a bit (from a RP standpoint you could view it as the player endearing themselves to the locals as being a survivor of some infamous bandit/killer), and do the inverse for the aggressors faction, you may not kill someone repeatedly if you suddenly realize you're tanking your own faction with a group you're working to raise it with by killing someone who is in fact in a role playing sense a hero for those people. Second npc bounty hunters, town guards and player generated bounty systems help with the problem of course, but have never solved the problem entirely. But again no reason to exclude them.
Faction aside make pvp death only spawn points that are somewhat localized to the area that you died (this is assuming there is a bind system like EQ1 where long runs back due to a pvp death could mean 0 real play time for a day). Coupled with this there should be a timer, 5 min... 10 mins hell give it 30 mins that you are now non pvp flagged unless you decide to initiate combat. sure you died, but this would give you more than enough time to likely finish your business and then get the heck out of dodge without being harassed.
And lastly for those that advocate some kind of loot system for pvp. If this is implemented in a game at all I would definitely not advocate full loot, that's just silly. Sure I get it, you want some spoils of war but we're playing a game and shouldn't be out to ruin the experience for someone entirely as community is really what drives a good MMO. However, if SOE decides to have a looting system for PVP and their faction system is as robust as they say, simply make it so that the more infamous of a killer you are the more can be looted for YOUR corpse when you die, even to the point of nodrop items. This would eventually allow the PVE players to band together and clip the wings of someone who is mindlessly slaughtering people with the sole intent of just ruining the fun of others.
Sorry for the wall of text, trying to hammer this out quickly before my GF wakes up and makes me tackle the list of things to do
i can't speak for anyone else, but to me, a good pve sandbox MMO would be something similar to SWG before it was ruined by you know who lol.
tons of things to do, not just fighting. lots of freedom to do basically whatever you like. a world with so many things for you to do, that you won't ever have time to be bored. is a game with a huge replayability value, a game that continues to be fun, even after you get to max level.
raiding, hunting, dungeons, cantina parties, lots of drama lol, pet taming and collecting rare animals, building cities, building houses, exploring dangerous planets , running your own business, and making new costumers, becoming rich while watching your business grow and turn into a profitable and lucrative corporation. going out fishing with your friends, having tons of player, guild ran events. crafting the best weapons, best armor. becoming well known server wise for your skills. etc, etc. when you have a game with a breathing and total inmersive world. fighting becomes one of the many other things you can do. instead of the main core, ultimate objective.
Welcome to the forums.
This was a good first post!
I'd just like to address one thing though in that many of us who advocate full loot systems do not do so because we want "spoils of war."
Some of us advocate them for many reasons of which that is not even one of them. I for example, would prefer a system that just deletes all of my items when I die over one that allows me to have permanent gear. So it isn't about getting other people's stuff.
I like full loot because I -DETEST- gear grinds, the sort of grind that exists in WOW, SWTOR, Rift, and almost every game i've ever played since Ultima Online.
I LOVE crafting and a robust player driven economy, two things that benefit most from a full loot system. I like character progression, but I prefer it to be endless. If there is a best in slot gear that I can get and own forever there is a definite end to my progression that doesn't exist if there is always a reason to amass more wealth to pad myself from the possibility of future loss.
And with that in mind I like risk/reward and actually having something on the line. The death penalty where i'm simply teleported to another place doesn't hold the same thrill for me. Nor does the loss of some experience that won't really impact my playing or the game as a whole in as meaningful a way.
I could go on, but my only point is for some of us it goes far beyond just wanting to gank people and take their stuff. It is an entire systematic effect on an entire game. And I feel not having full loot for the sake of people thinking it is too harsh comes with a high price. A price I personally do not enjoy paying, while I understand why many do.
And once again, when we start talking compromise on full loot pvp, we start compromising the integrity of the way the system can function with other games systems. None of this is to say any of this -requires- a full loot game. But my preference does not exist for any one single reason.
Fair enough, I can see the merit in what you're saying. And again I've played many games that were primarily pvp games and love it. I suppose it all comes down to what SOE has envisioned for gear in general and in just what way are they going to reward the players who do want to put tons of time into raiding (i love raiding but im not sure i'll even have the time this go around).
Full loot systems (esp when it just means that items are destroyed) could in fact enrich the economy, greatly for the crafting classes if crafted items are worth a damn. but again it really all depends on SOE and just how much they want to reward people with primarily gear. I would hate to see people not rewarded in some way for spending countless hours tackling end game content (provided it's actually difficult content) Simply to have it stripped away with one small misstep. if they can figure that out great.
Like I said, they can go with a lot of PVE features and game mechanics that would have nothing to do with PVP and still appeal to a wider/different audience and not tap into the "EQ" audience.
As for FFA vs Team pvp, doesn't matter. There will be PVE servers for those who want it.
There will be PVP servers for those who want it.
Or PVP will be segregated from the PVE areas (Like GW2).
In either case, PVP isn't going to be forced on those who don't want 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
On this we can both agree!
I too enjoy the occasional round of dungeon progression with my friends and would hate for days or hours of gameplay to be for nothing.
I do hope EQN has some form of great pvp. And as you alluded to in your other post I hope they get creative with it. Something a little beyond the knee-jerk same old "me too" systems so many people want to just throw out as acceptable. Which in my opinion is a source of why compromise on these systems is so hard, we invariably keep talking about systems that we have always used that have proven to be incompatible.
But I don't expect a full loot system. I maintain it could work, and I think SOE has some creative people. But i would be VERY impressed if they managed to appease my style of play AND the more adamant PVE crowd. I do not expect to be "VERY impressed".
There is no balance you can do to make everyone happy. You do FFA PvP and even the FFA PvPers would not all be happy for what ever reasons. Pure PvEers will get upset even if they are never forced to PvP as class balance and design happens with PvP in mind. You can talk about skills having a PvP side to them that balances things for you but that only helps a little. How do you balance a class like an Enchanter thats all about control with removing its core design? You cant and in a team an Enchanter would be over powered or gimped to the level no one would play one on a PvP server.
Fact is this, SoE is going to have to pick what market they want. PvP game thats for the PvP fans and alienate then pure PvEers or do the same to the PvPers. Or make a game thats balanced for PvP and PvE and target a larger market but will alienate the pure hard core PvPers and PvEers. I think the best option is a sandbox PvE game with a themepark PvP area like DAoC or AA. Just my two cents.
This is really where I think the big surprise is going; they are not marketing for the big audience, but they are marketing for a smaller niche audience. The games that have failed lately in the mmoRPG market have been games trying to go head to head with WoW. Blizzard has the gear progression market so tied up no one will ever big bigger than WoW. What I think that Smedley is doing is looking at a game like EvE and seeing that a 500k sub game can be profitable.
When you take all of SOE's games, they might be breaking into the WoW category, and that is where I see SOE going; grabbing up niche markets over several game styles and being profitable.
This is how I interpret the like EQ1/2 but different; it will still be a traditional mmoRPG, not a FPS. So as a mmoRPG what type of game do they need to fill out their portfolio, they need a PvP game. Sure I may be wrong and I accept that. But this is how I see them rolling out EQN. So the big compromise is going to be how to incorporate good PvE into a PvP centric game.
Why does a game like EvE keep going? Really it's because of the player politics. That's what's missing from a persistent mmoRPG. Player politics and PvP in a fanstasy mmoRPG would be a great add to the games today. The actual combat may not be different, but the scale and depth of the gameplay would change from day to day, and the game world (territory control) would be different year to year. I don't need action combat to have a good time, I prefer tab targeting; what I'm really after is building virtual worlds through the building of player cities and fighting over those cities week in and week out.
Agreed, I suppose all we can hope for is at least some sort of innovation that is a blend of both play styles and keeps it fun for everyone, well perhaps not everyone... that just opens the door for a game that tries to hard to do everything and fails across the board. Compromise and baby steps is probably what we'll see, regardless of all the talk of something entirely new across the board.
So long as it's movement in the right direction and fun I'm all for whatever they throw at us.
The really clever mods already have vacation scheduled for the next 3 weeks.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Any mod reading this now is laughing or crying.
Or both. And I'm not sure which PVPers you're talking about. PVE is more prone to the freakout if you ask me. Based on the history of the franchise and people's inability to deal with change.
There is a few types of PvPers. FFA fans, team based FFA (cant kill people from your faction) Battleground/arena PvPers (like WoW) DAoC PvPers themepark PvP with objectives (but like to keep PvP and PvP in its own box) Each PvPers has their own idea on what makes PvP awesome or fail and none of them agree on whats better =-) I think the PvP and PvE groups both can get equally loud when they dont get what they like.