I'll go out on a limb here and say SoE will not be making all their MMOs OWPvP. Will they allow for it via special ruleset servers? Sure, why wouldn't they?
Will they at some point make an MMO that is OWPvP? I'm sure they will. PS2 is of course. EQN will not be an OWPvP MMO on all servers, neither will Landmark. If one wants the option I'm sure SoE will have a place for it.
It's not a lack of denial because people see the "proof" of SoE forcing PvP on all their players. It's that arguing it is pointless because it won't happen.
Originally posted by Aelious I'll go out on a limb here and say SoE will not be making all their MMOs OWPvP. Will they allow for it via special ruleset servers? Sure, why wouldn't they?
Will they at some point make an MMO that is OWPvP? I'm sure they will. PS2 is of course. EQN will not be an OWPvP MMO on all servers, neither will Landmark. If one wants the option I'm sure SoE will have a place for it.
It's not a lack of denial because people see the "proof" of SoE forcing PvP on all their players. It's that arguing it is pointless because it won't happen.
I would very much enjoy a pvp system with faction oriented pvp myself.
Basically if you can attack any npc races or factions or players of that race or faction and start losing points with that faction and gaining with others.
So at the start of the game nobody is killed on site by anyone except chaotic evil monsters and predators. There are uneasy alliances. Basically every faction and race will have a slider of how they like or dislike others from the start, but not to the point they will fight unless provoked. As players interact in the world they will actually set the faction changes in motion making whole races and factions opinions shift to the tipping points of positive and negative. Wars can be started. The concept obviously stretches from there.
There should also maybe be one chaotic group hated by all other factions that a player could side with if said player killed to many of his own faction from the start.
Players would also be marked for other players to see the faction they are in comparison due to whatever deeds have been done before. In this way you may have players that were originally of the same faction, now battling it out in open combat within the city walls of a city that may have npcs that neither player has offended so there is no npc involvement.
Or perhaps a guild that has been killing a specific faction decides to raid that faction's main npc city. Horns sound and guards quickly swarm to the main gates as the first npc or player is attacked and killed. Soon various level named npc's come from deeper in the city and all players in the city at the time are also getting into it. There are arrows flying by, casters throwing down flame walls and shooting lightning everywhere. The clashing of large weapons and metal to metal. Obviously this would be epic and a great story to tell after the battle with youtube video to share. Memories are made of this sort of conflict. It all starts with the player and ends with the player. The NPCs are there to fulfill the extra epic narrative. Sign me up.
Well, that settles it. The only thing left to do now is come up with a general consensus on what that actually means.
Sure, tell me what a pure themepark means...I bet you people can't agree on that either, it isn't a sandbox thing, it is a human thing. People can't agree on anything.
Well, that settles it. The only thing left to do now is come up with a general consensus on what that actually means.
Sure, tell me what a pure themepark means...I bet you people can't agree on that either, it isn't a sandbox thing, it is a human thing. People can't agree on anything.
We can surely agree to disagree, that always works.
Regardless of what we think "sandbox" means, Smedley has clearly pointed to what SOE thinks it is in his blog: Eve Online.
I would personally view Landmark as more sandbox, and Next as more hybrid, depending on the final product (that no one knows what it will really look like). Landmark can have quests/dungeons and maybe even raids once players make things, but that will all be player created, where as Next will be developer created, and they said you were going to be able to pull up a menu in a area and see what all quests you are eligible for, instead of having to go npc to npc....So could be kind of quest hubish?
Regardless of what we think "sandbox" means, Smedley has clearly pointed to what SOE thinks it is in his blog: Eve Online.
Eve's appeal is much smaller than what it appears on the surface. You see the number of active subscriptions. But, think about this.What do you suppose the actual population of EVE would be if most players only had a single account? Eve's appeal is very small in the MMORPG world. In truth its a much smaller number. Eve's success is that while it is a niche game, it caters exceedingly well to that particular niche to the point where that niche is happy to spend very very large amounts of real money to play it.
Basically, Eve in a different way, is like WoW. Good luck replicating it's success.
Hey OP, the first SoE (before it was even known as SoE) game back in 1999 had open world PvP. It even had multiple rule sets for it. EQ2 has open world PvP. Of course EQN will have open world PvP.
Sandbox and PvP are two words which have absolutely no correlation between them. Saying a game is a sandbox tells you nothing about having PvP of any kind, and saying a game has open world PvP doesnt hint that its a sandbox.
Regardless of what we think "sandbox" means, Smedley has clearly pointed to what SOE thinks it is in his blog: Eve Online.
And yet no word about being one big server like EVE or separate servers with different rule sets.
I think you need to calm down. Half information is always dangerous and have tendency to blow up in your face later on. The appeal of EVE is in its one big world i doubt that is going to happen in EQN.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
I'm also expecting a "hybrid" world in the sense that some areas are "safer" than others. Like Eve with high-security zones where attacking and killing another player is suicide - but possible.
And zones on the 'frontier' which are totally unprotected. The best resources are there. And the only way to make
Forcing people to play a game exactly the way you want them to play is apparently very important to you.
That's exactly it though, Knytta... There is no forcing anybody to do anything in a sandbox, open pvp or not. All options are available in one package. You can pvp if you'd like or you can stick to PvE / crafting or just hanging out with friends and never have to worry about being attacked by another player.
Placing the best resources in game in PVP areas and then waxing poetically about all the things the PVE players have to do to get there is NOT forcing them to play the game as you want them to? Of course they can choose not to go there, or choose not to play the game at all.
There are more PVE players than PVP players, targeting a game to the smaller customer base is bad business and is not going to happen. The best you can hope for is flagging like SWG.
Smedley likes PVP and writes about what he likes, that does not mean that EQN will be that way.
I'm also expecting a "hybrid" world in the sense that some areas are "safer" than others. Like Eve with high-security zones where attacking and killing another player is suicide - but possible.
And zones on the 'frontier' which are totally unprotected. The best resources are there. And the only way to make
Forcing people to play a game exactly the way you want them to play is apparently very important to you.
That's exactly it though, Knytta... There is no forcing anybody to do anything in a sandbox, open pvp or not. All options are available in one package. You can pvp if you'd like or you can stick to PvE / crafting or just hanging out with friends and never have to worry about being attacked by another player.
Placing the best resources in game in PVP areas and then waxing poetically about all the things the PVE players have to do to get there is NOT forcing them to play the game as you want them to? Of course they can choose not to go there, or choose not to play the game at all.
There are more PVE players than PVP players, targeting a game to the smaller customer base is bad business and is not going to happen. The best you can hope for is flagging like SWG.
Smedley likes PVP and writes about what he likes, that does not mean that EQN will be that way.
Smedley wasn't just writing about what he likes. He explicitly stated "Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting." right after talking about Eve Online and how it's a brilliantly executed system.
Smedley wasn't just writing about what he likes. He explicitly stated "Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting." right after talking about Eve Online and how it's a brilliantly executed system.
No one is ever going to take you seriously when you spout bullshit like this. You either know you are spouting bullshit (thus trolling), or you are very poor at analyzing things. You'll notice in the paragraph where he was talking about player driven content, he was talking about things like auction houses, storytelling tools, and player elections. The only PvP thing he mentioned was battlegrounds.
In fact, the blog makes open world PvP seem less likely than before because he specifically mentioned battlegrounds. Yes, he mentioned EvE, but EvE is more than open world PvP.
I'm also expecting a "hybrid" world in the sense that some areas are "safer" than others. Like Eve with high-security zones where attacking and killing another player is suicide - but possible.
And zones on the 'frontier' which are totally unprotected. The best resources are there. And the only way to make
Forcing people to play a game exactly the way you want them to play is apparently very important to you.
That's exactly it though, Knytta... There is no forcing anybody to do anything in a sandbox, open pvp or not. All options are available in one package. You can pvp if you'd like or you can stick to PvE / crafting or just hanging out with friends and never have to worry about being attacked by another player.
Placing the best resources in game in PVP areas and then waxing poetically about all the things the PVE players have to do to get there is NOT forcing them to play the game as you want them to? Of course they can choose not to go there, or choose not to play the game at all.
There are more PVE players than PVP players, targeting a game to the smaller customer base is bad business and is not going to happen. The best you can hope for is flagging like SWG.
Smedley likes PVP and writes about what he likes, that does not mean that EQN will be that way.
Smedley wasn't just writing about what he likes. He explicitly stated "Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting." right after talking about Eve Online and how it's a brilliantly executed system.
I have to ask why is it that you are looking at EQN for your pvp needs when CU is exactly what all of you pvpers are looking for? Why are you not instead putting your interests behind Camelot Unchained? The game is PVP only which means they will HAVE to have a FFA ruleset because there will be no non PVP rulesets to concern themselves with
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
Sandbox and PvP are two words which have absolutely no correlation between them. Saying a game is a sandbox tells you nothing about having PvP of any kind, and saying a game has open world PvP doesnt hint that its a sandbox.
Not entirely true. There is, in practice, a strong correlation between 'sandbox' and 'pvp' in online games. There's no reason why it has to be that way, but there is a history of precedent demonstrating that it usually is - and that's all that 'correlation' means.
However, 'usually' is not 'always.' You can have 'sandbox' without 'pvp.' Not common, but possible.
I'm also expecting a "hybrid" world in the sense that some areas are "safer" than others. Like Eve with high-security zones where attacking and killing another player is suicide - but possible.
And zones on the 'frontier' which are totally unprotected. The best resources are there. And the only way to make
Forcing people to play a game exactly the way you want them to play is apparently very important to you.
That's exactly it though, Knytta... There is no forcing anybody to do anything in a sandbox, open pvp or not. All options are available in one package. You can pvp if you'd like or you can stick to PvE / crafting or just hanging out with friends and never have to worry about being attacked by another player.
Placing the best resources in game in PVP areas and then waxing poetically about all the things the PVE players have to do to get there is NOT forcing them to play the game as you want them to? Of course they can choose not to go there, or choose not to play the game at all.
There are more PVE players than PVP players, targeting a game to the smaller customer base is bad business and is not going to happen. The best you can hope for is flagging like SWG.
Not always true. There are quite often times when targetting the smaller customer base is better business - for example, when the larger customer base is already so heavily targetted that any piece of that pie you'll manage to grab is going to be smaller than what you'd get going for a different audience.
Sandbox and PvP are two words which have absolutely no correlation between them. Saying a game is a sandbox tells you nothing about having PvP of any kind, and saying a game has open world PvP doesnt hint that its a sandbox.
Not entirely true. There is, in practice, a strong correlation between 'sandbox' and 'pvp' in online games. There's no reason why it has to be that way, but there is a history of precedent demonstrating that it usually is - and that's all that 'correlation' means.
However, 'usually' is not 'always.' You can have 'sandbox' without 'pvp.' Not common, but possible.
I can't think of any pve only sandbox, or pve centric sandbox for that matter.
Sandbox and PvP are two words which have absolutely no correlation between them. Saying a game is a sandbox tells you nothing about having PvP of any kind, and saying a game has open world PvP doesnt hint that its a sandbox.
Not entirely true. There is, in practice, a strong correlation between 'sandbox' and 'pvp' in online games. There's no reason why it has to be that way, but there is a history of precedent demonstrating that it usually is - and that's all that 'correlation' means.
However, 'usually' is not 'always.' You can have 'sandbox' without 'pvp.' Not common, but possible.
I can't think of any pve only sandbox, or pve centric sandbox for that matter.
A Tale in the desert. There is no combat at all in that game.
Point of note is that EVE does in fact have open world pvp but it is far from forced. It is your choice to venture into those dangerous systems of the universe where you could be attacked. If you don't want to get attacked with ease, stick to the areas.
EVE also has real consequences for pvp actions in those systems that are under police protection. If you attack someone in a protected area of space the NPC cops will be on you fast and destroy your ship.
I like the way you think.
I think the issue many have is that people like you come off aggressively for no reason "read it and weep." Using OW PVP as a weapon or taunt. You are doing nothing but annoy and anger people, when it would be wiser showing them the way to the promise land.
OW PVP doesn't mean anything. EVE isn't a FFA OW PVP no consequence game. There are consequences not only by other players, but by the game itself. Obviously there are holes in any system for for the most part EVE does have some sort of structure to PVP.
I'm not sure how EQN could mimic EVE's system. Find it hard to believe they would cut the world up into PVP or Safe zones that have any meaningful content. Like Freeport is Safe and Lavastorm is PVP. Not a smart move.
EVE isn't a fantasy rpg and takes place in space. Huge difference in the environment and how things can or can't be cut up to please everyone.
Even if it was Tier 1-2 is safe, 3-5 is PVP or something like that, a huge amount of unique content would be cut off from too many.
I see Smedly talking more about how players have more impact on the game in EVE compared to EQ, instead of EQN = EVE. The overall idea or vision and not the literal details.
Could could as easily talked about SWG and how it's PVP system worked and player impact on the game. It is actually a realistic comparison of how EQN could work. Just because Smedly likes EVE, doesn't mean that he forcing devs to borrow elements from it.
Some people haven't realized that you have to take anything Smedley says, and just ignore it. That dude says whatever he thinks is most popular at the time, and it has absolutely no basis in any form of reality.
Maybe it will be open world PvP, maybe it won't - but I wouldn't believe the sky is blue if Smedley said so until I saw it for myself.
Smedley wasn't just writing about what he likes. He explicitly stated "Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting." right after talking about Eve Online and how it's a brilliantly executed system.
No one is ever going to take you seriously when you spout bullshit like this. You either know you are spouting bullshit (thus trolling), or you are very poor at analyzing things. You'll notice in the paragraph where he was talking about player driven content, he was talking about things like auction houses, storytelling tools, and player elections. The only PvP thing he mentioned was battlegrounds.
In fact, the blog makes open world PvP seem less likely than before because he specifically mentioned battlegrounds. Yes, he mentioned EvE, but EvE is more than open world PvP.
I don't really know the history of this entire conversation, and I'm not commenting on that. But I wanted to point something out:
EVE Online doesn't really have much outside of open world PvP. I mean, it does... but the game has PvP at its heart. Whatever it does have that is PvE, is there for no other reason than to help you obtain some kind of a resource: money, materials, prestige, etc. The PvE story of the game is pretty much inconsequential to the prospect of allowing Player Interaction, however that may occur. Every single element of the game is built around the idea that it provides something for the PvP aspect. The thing about it is, EVE Online takes the idea of what PvP actually means to a whole new level.
In a standard MMO, PvP generally means when two people engage in combat. In EVE Online... it's that... plus a whole lot of stuff. Working the economy is the foundation of the entire game - and it is very much a PvP ordeal. Gaining territory is a huge deal in that game. Again, player interaction and PvP. Placing jobs on the market for others to take. That's another layer of Player Interaction that develops content on its own - which is what PvP actually means. Fail to meet that order or somehow screw someone over by not paying, you now have a bounty on your head. This is again always funneling back to PvP. No one writes stories about the PvE content, because in comparison... it doesn't even matter. People write stories about the player interaction, and that's what intrigues people to read about it. I've read several, and each one is unique and totally inspiring.
EVE Online is so dramatic and so emotionally invested in by its players because of that foundation that they're not just competing against a computer code. The risk of doing everything is so high, because everything about the game has you in some way or another dealing with another player. That allows the player to give out a more honest contextual output. This is why people play the game, and why currently.... no other MMO really offers a similar experience.
I think EVE Online hasn't grown because people are turned off by a lot of the interface mechanics of the game. I think people are genuinely interested in the experience they might have with EVE, but they would rather have that experience with an actual humanistic avatar. That and the fact that it's a pretty deep and somewhat messy interface with a lot of spreadsheet like stuff going on.
To be honest - I sincerely believe that those are the only things about EVE Online that keeps it from being the ultimate MMO right now. And I say that believing it to be the most PvP focused game in every respect of its current incarnation.
If they allowed you to play an actual character, and run around doing this stuff with a gun and armor or whatever, and then cleaned up the interface a bit... I promise you that it wouldn't be considered a niche game. The fact that you're in a cockpit of a starship for 95% of the game is the biggest reason why more people don't play EVE Online. And by more people, I'm talking millions. It's hard to get attached to something that doesn't have a noticeable personality on it's own.
Originally posted by Bidwood not going to ignore Smedley. I love him. he is going to do amazing things to the genre.
And then two years into it, he's going to change his mind and gut the game to make it completely different because what people want is whatever Blizzard is doing in their game.
Comments
Will they at some point make an MMO that is OWPvP? I'm sure they will. PS2 is of course. EQN will not be an OWPvP MMO on all servers, neither will Landmark. If one wants the option I'm sure SoE will have a place for it.
It's not a lack of denial because people see the "proof" of SoE forcing PvP on all their players. It's that arguing it is pointless because it won't happen.
Again with the word "force."
Who is forcing what exactly?
I would very much enjoy a pvp system with faction oriented pvp myself.
Basically if you can attack any npc races or factions or players of that race or faction and start losing points with that faction and gaining with others.
So at the start of the game nobody is killed on site by anyone except chaotic evil monsters and predators. There are uneasy alliances. Basically every faction and race will have a slider of how they like or dislike others from the start, but not to the point they will fight unless provoked. As players interact in the world they will actually set the faction changes in motion making whole races and factions opinions shift to the tipping points of positive and negative. Wars can be started. The concept obviously stretches from there.
There should also maybe be one chaotic group hated by all other factions that a player could side with if said player killed to many of his own faction from the start.
Players would also be marked for other players to see the faction they are in comparison due to whatever deeds have been done before. In this way you may have players that were originally of the same faction, now battling it out in open combat within the city walls of a city that may have npcs that neither player has offended so there is no npc involvement.
Or perhaps a guild that has been killing a specific faction decides to raid that faction's main npc city. Horns sound and guards quickly swarm to the main gates as the first npc or player is attacked and killed. Soon various level named npc's come from deeper in the city and all players in the city at the time are also getting into it. There are arrows flying by, casters throwing down flame walls and shooting lightning everywhere. The clashing of large weapons and metal to metal. Obviously this would be epic and a great story to tell after the battle with youtube video to share. Memories are made of this sort of conflict. It all starts with the player and ends with the player. The NPCs are there to fulfill the extra epic narrative. Sign me up.
Sure, tell me what a pure themepark means...I bet you people can't agree on that either, it isn't a sandbox thing, it is a human thing. People can't agree on anything.
What are we agreeing to disagree about?
Regardless of what we think "sandbox" means, Smedley has clearly pointed to what SOE thinks it is in his blog: Eve Online.
I would personally view Landmark as more sandbox, and Next as more hybrid, depending on the final product (that no one knows what it will really look like). Landmark can have quests/dungeons and maybe even raids once players make things, but that will all be player created, where as Next will be developer created, and they said you were going to be able to pull up a menu in a area and see what all quests you are eligible for, instead of having to go npc to npc....So could be kind of quest hubish?
Eve's appeal is much smaller than what it appears on the surface. You see the number of active subscriptions. But, think about this.What do you suppose the actual population of EVE would be if most players only had a single account? Eve's appeal is very small in the MMORPG world. In truth its a much smaller number. Eve's success is that while it is a niche game, it caters exceedingly well to that particular niche to the point where that niche is happy to spend very very large amounts of real money to play it.
Basically, Eve in a different way, is like WoW. Good luck replicating it's success.
Hey OP, the first SoE (before it was even known as SoE) game back in 1999 had open world PvP. It even had multiple rule sets for it. EQ2 has open world PvP. Of course EQN will have open world PvP.
On its own servers.
This is what everyone has known since day 1.
I don't even know what the point of this post is.
Sandbox and PvP are two words which have absolutely no correlation between them. Saying a game is a sandbox tells you nothing about having PvP of any kind, and saying a game has open world PvP doesnt hint that its a sandbox.
And yet no word about being one big server like EVE or separate servers with different rule sets.
I think you need to calm down. Half information is always dangerous and have tendency to blow up in your face later on. The appeal of EVE is in its one big world i doubt that is going to happen in EQN.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
Placing the best resources in game in PVP areas and then waxing poetically about all the things the PVE players have to do to get there is NOT forcing them to play the game as you want them to? Of course they can choose not to go there, or choose not to play the game at all.
There are more PVE players than PVP players, targeting a game to the smaller customer base is bad business and is not going to happen. The best you can hope for is flagging like SWG.
Smedley likes PVP and writes about what he likes, that does not mean that EQN will be that way.
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
Smedley wasn't just writing about what he likes. He explicitly stated "Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting." right after talking about Eve Online and how it's a brilliantly executed system.
No one is ever going to take you seriously when you spout bullshit like this. You either know you are spouting bullshit (thus trolling), or you are very poor at analyzing things. You'll notice in the paragraph where he was talking about player driven content, he was talking about things like auction houses, storytelling tools, and player elections. The only PvP thing he mentioned was battlegrounds.
In fact, the blog makes open world PvP seem less likely than before because he specifically mentioned battlegrounds. Yes, he mentioned EvE, but EvE is more than open world PvP.
I have to ask why is it that you are looking at EQN for your pvp needs when CU is exactly what all of you pvpers are looking for? Why are you not instead putting your interests behind Camelot Unchained? The game is PVP only which means they will HAVE to have a FFA ruleset because there will be no non PVP rulesets to concern themselves with
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
Not entirely true. There is, in practice, a strong correlation between 'sandbox' and 'pvp' in online games. There's no reason why it has to be that way, but there is a history of precedent demonstrating that it usually is - and that's all that 'correlation' means.
However, 'usually' is not 'always.' You can have 'sandbox' without 'pvp.' Not common, but possible.
Not always true. There are quite often times when targetting the smaller customer base is better business - for example, when the larger customer base is already so heavily targetted that any piece of that pie you'll manage to grab is going to be smaller than what you'd get going for a different audience.I can't think of any pve only sandbox, or pve centric sandbox for that matter.
A Tale in the desert. There is no combat at all in that game.
I think the issue many have is that people like you come off aggressively for no reason "read it and weep." Using OW PVP as a weapon or taunt. You are doing nothing but annoy and anger people, when it would be wiser showing them the way to the promise land.
OW PVP doesn't mean anything. EVE isn't a FFA OW PVP no consequence game. There are consequences not only by other players, but by the game itself. Obviously there are holes in any system for for the most part EVE does have some sort of structure to PVP.
I'm not sure how EQN could mimic EVE's system. Find it hard to believe they would cut the world up into PVP or Safe zones that have any meaningful content. Like Freeport is Safe and Lavastorm is PVP. Not a smart move.
EVE isn't a fantasy rpg and takes place in space. Huge difference in the environment and how things can or can't be cut up to please everyone.
Even if it was Tier 1-2 is safe, 3-5 is PVP or something like that, a huge amount of unique content would be cut off from too many.
I see Smedly talking more about how players have more impact on the game in EVE compared to EQ, instead of EQN = EVE. The overall idea or vision and not the literal details.
Could could as easily talked about SWG and how it's PVP system worked and player impact on the game. It is actually a realistic comparison of how EQN could work. Just because Smedly likes EVE, doesn't mean that he forcing devs to borrow elements from it.
I can't think of any sandbox games...
Awesome how we all have our own definitions of everything, yet still try to argue and come to conclusions without any agreement from the start.
I've seen EQ called a sandbox, it was PVE only for the most part. Then again, I don't consider it a sandbox so the fun continues.
Some people haven't realized that you have to take anything Smedley says, and just ignore it. That dude says whatever he thinks is most popular at the time, and it has absolutely no basis in any form of reality.
Maybe it will be open world PvP, maybe it won't - but I wouldn't believe the sky is blue if Smedley said so until I saw it for myself.
I don't really know the history of this entire conversation, and I'm not commenting on that. But I wanted to point something out:
EVE Online doesn't really have much outside of open world PvP. I mean, it does... but the game has PvP at its heart. Whatever it does have that is PvE, is there for no other reason than to help you obtain some kind of a resource: money, materials, prestige, etc. The PvE story of the game is pretty much inconsequential to the prospect of allowing Player Interaction, however that may occur. Every single element of the game is built around the idea that it provides something for the PvP aspect. The thing about it is, EVE Online takes the idea of what PvP actually means to a whole new level.
In a standard MMO, PvP generally means when two people engage in combat. In EVE Online... it's that... plus a whole lot of stuff. Working the economy is the foundation of the entire game - and it is very much a PvP ordeal. Gaining territory is a huge deal in that game. Again, player interaction and PvP. Placing jobs on the market for others to take. That's another layer of Player Interaction that develops content on its own - which is what PvP actually means. Fail to meet that order or somehow screw someone over by not paying, you now have a bounty on your head. This is again always funneling back to PvP. No one writes stories about the PvE content, because in comparison... it doesn't even matter. People write stories about the player interaction, and that's what intrigues people to read about it. I've read several, and each one is unique and totally inspiring.
EVE Online is so dramatic and so emotionally invested in by its players because of that foundation that they're not just competing against a computer code. The risk of doing everything is so high, because everything about the game has you in some way or another dealing with another player. That allows the player to give out a more honest contextual output. This is why people play the game, and why currently.... no other MMO really offers a similar experience.
I think EVE Online hasn't grown because people are turned off by a lot of the interface mechanics of the game. I think people are genuinely interested in the experience they might have with EVE, but they would rather have that experience with an actual humanistic avatar. That and the fact that it's a pretty deep and somewhat messy interface with a lot of spreadsheet like stuff going on.
To be honest - I sincerely believe that those are the only things about EVE Online that keeps it from being the ultimate MMO right now. And I say that believing it to be the most PvP focused game in every respect of its current incarnation.
If they allowed you to play an actual character, and run around doing this stuff with a gun and armor or whatever, and then cleaned up the interface a bit... I promise you that it wouldn't be considered a niche game. The fact that you're in a cockpit of a starship for 95% of the game is the biggest reason why more people don't play EVE Online. And by more people, I'm talking millions. It's hard to get attached to something that doesn't have a noticeable personality on it's own.
And then two years into it, he's going to change his mind and gut the game to make it completely different because what people want is whatever Blizzard is doing in their game.