It should have separate servers PvP and PvE for everyone (I prefer PvP). In the meantime you can build all you want in eqnl and pvp all you want in day z (ooo so real)
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.
EXACTLY! I am in love with Eve's game systems but can't get into the look and feel. In a context with an avatar and action combat I would be all over it and so would an army of people.
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.
I think that you're being way too generous to Eve Online. The success of Day Z (with it's horrible interface) and Star Citizen (lack of "humanistic avatar") seem to show that those things arn't deal breakers.
Eve PVP is great because of the impact it has on politics, the economy, crafting, territory and RolePlay. As gameplay Mechanics go, It has alot of issues that I'm amazed they havn't even bothered trying to fix during the last 10 years.
Rock-paper-scissors balancing, repetitive and skilless gameplay (target > set optimal orbit > activate high slots > activate med slots), drop down menus and double click movement, all combat revolves around gate-camping for hours on end, disposable alts that negate all death penalties, weird combat mechanics based on transversal velocities instead of the better shield/weapon/energy/positioning management systems from star trek or star wars games, bad balance between harshness of death penalties and ease of avoiding combat with hiding in stations and watching TV until threats get bored and go away, log-off exploits, safespots, warp-core stabilisers... And all that is just off the top of my head.
I'm happy that Eve online is there to show how PVP can improve all other facets in a game, but if Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous manage to deliver on half of what they are promising, CCP are going to get a swift kick in the teeth.
I would love to see an EVE or "realistic" approach to PVP and player control of the world. At the same time I"m not holding my breath. Smed can say what he wants, but at the end of the day someone else is fronting the bill and expect results. EVE wasn't/isn't a smash hit. If Sony is willing to let EQN grow and develop into something amazing, we are going to have a great game. If they want X players after Y days, we might be in trouble.
Really don't want to see "just" open world PVP. Yay, I can kill you... There needs to be reason, consequence, and lasting impact from conflict between guilds, cities, players, and whatever factions we create ourselves. No, I hate you because you picked Ogre 5 years ago.
I think the reason so many dislike PVP is because it is generally pointless and only rewards those that want to screw with others. There needs to be incentives and some form of structure beyond simply flipping the PVP switch. FFA is fun for a time, but never works out in the long run. EVE has a nice balance, but it is also a completely different beast. What works in one game has no impact on another.
Hoping Landmark gets some sort of "PVP" system to allow for fun conflict and battle which might hopefully lead into the more PVE crowd getting into it leading into EQN. If we are given a lot of freedom within limits, I think players will create a balance to keep jerks in check, while still allowing healthy conflict and competition between players.
Like I said, not holding my breath, but I am crossing my fingers
Edit: Really want to get away from the whole PVE vs PVP mentality as well. If a game is made well, it should just be everything blended into one experience. A game can cater to almost everyone if done right. When it starts swaying one way or the other, it turns huge numbers of players of way from both sides and gives those like myself that hang out in the middle a crappy experience. I want to enjoy a fully developed PVE world with the ability to battle others "if needed".
PVP players shouldn't have to go off to a special island to fight nor should it be a meaningless death match or capture the flag. PVP shouldn't be only a side game when bored. PVE players shouldn't have to live in fear of being killed when they have no wish to fight. If the situation arises, they shouldn't be in a lose/lose situation. Hopefully SOE can find that balance.
As a nonpvper, i agree with this. I don't have a problem with PVP, i have a problem with people thinking that PVP is the answer to everything. If you attack someone in any game, NPC or PC< it needs to be for something or matter. I'm reminded of a story where two soldiers from opposite sides of a war going to the same bar and having drinks afterwards. Most soldiers won't attack someone becasue they are a different race, which is how most games breed PVP. It's not PVP, it's fantasy racism.
I want a game where if i'm at war with another country, there's are more systems to judge whose winning the war than just who kills more people. I want attrician, supply lines and the ability to put myself into tactically minded PVP and PVE. I want hte ability to simply cold war my opponents into submission. If someone kills someone, i don't just want penalities, there should be mental isues with killing human beings like yourselfves.
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.
EXACTLY! I am in love with Eve's game systems but can't get into the look and feel. In a context with an avatar and action combat I would be all over it and so would an army of people.
So why are you not playing Age Of Wulin? Anyway your prediction about EQNEXT is pretty pathetic considering EQ had open world PVP. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying EQNEXT won't have some form of PVP or open world PVP servers. You seem to be ignoring this and cherry picking which post you want to answer.
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.
EXACTLY! I am in love with Eve's game systems but can't get into the look and feel. In a context with an avatar and action combat I would be all over it and so would an army of people.
So why are you not playing Age Of Wulin? Anyway your prediction about EQNEXT is pretty pathetic considering EQ had open world PVP. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying EQNEXT won't have some form of PVP or open world PVP servers. You seem to be ignoring this and cherry picking which post you want to answer.
Let me be clearer then. I'm not just saying there will be an OWPVP server. That is obvious. I think OWPVP will be the default and 'PVE only' will be a specialty server type, if it exists at all. Smedley seems to think that games like Eve are the only real sustainable type of MMO and SOE is headed there. I have my interpretation. You think it's BS because it hasn't been done by SOE before and spits in the face of conventional wisdom about what works in MMOs. But conventional MMOs aren't working anymore. That's his point. Be prepared for anything.
As for why I'm not playing Age of Wulin. I am sticking to console. So EQN is the holy grail of MMOs headed there.
Having your perspective is great and I can see how you would come to your conclusion based upon what was in Smed's blog. I'm wondering if you really think SoE would be honing it's company to support a universal model that appeals to 20-25% of a potential player base? Going further, with the secret "like SWG" MMO and the two new EQs coming out would they want to compete with themselves like that. They already have PS2, though it's an FPS, so I'm not sure why they would make all follow a OWPvP model and thus shrink thier portfolio.
They are making big moves like closing 1/2 thier titles, to support the new games they have coming out. Regardless of liking or not liking PvP it leaves the realm of reality IMO for them to force* PvP to a majority of customers that don't want it, especially since they are F2P across the board. I certainly hope they leave more to do in their games than have PvP as the fun thing to do.
*If content or progression (items included) are behind a requirement to achieve them, players are "forced" to comply. If I want raid gear, I have to raid for example. Locking out areas or giving an advantage to those that PvP forces those that don't want to to engage if they want said advantage. Often the word "encourage" is used but only because it doesn't sounds as bad lol.
Seems to me that there is a degree of misunderstanding here, the first one being that 'Sandbox' = 'Open World PvP' and it really doesn't, they really are two completely different things, you can easily have a sandbox game that does not have any PvP in it of any kind. I don't see SOE changing their formula on servers, the default will be PvE and for every 3 of those you might see an RP and a PvP server, and that really is assuming they have a PvP server in the first place. Its good to see more 'Sandbox' features in a game, but i don't think it really helps to confuse 'Sandbox' with PvP, the one is definitely not dependant on the other.
Originally posted by Phry Seems to me that there is a degree of misunderstanding here, the first one being that 'Sandbox' = 'Open World PvP' and it really doesn't, they really are two completely different things, you can easily have a sandbox game that does not have any PvP in it of any kind. I don't see SOE changing their formula on servers, the default will be PvE and for every 3 of those you might see an RP and a PvP server, and that really is assuming they have a PvP server in the first place. Its good to see more 'Sandbox' features in a game, but i don't think it really helps to confuse 'Sandbox' with PvP, the one is definitely not dependant on the other.
They are not making a themepark.
Think politics, territory control, guild wars, alliances in this fully destructable world.
I agree and looking back at the blog Smed isn't making that a concrete connection either. This is the whole paragraph that was partially quoted here:
"In my opinion the solution is focusing a lot more on letting players make and be content for each other. Battlegrounds are an excellent example of an Evergreen style of content where its the players themselves that actually create the content. Auction houses are another example. So are things like storytelling tools in SWG.. or the brilliant music system in LOTRO. Building systems into the games that let the players interact with each other in new and unique ways gives us the ability to watch as the players do stuff we never anticipated. Well see a lot more creativity in action if the players are at the center of it. Imagine an MMORPG of a massive city.. and the Rogues guild is entirely run by players. Where the city has an entire political system that is populated by players who were elected by the playerbase."
It's not just PvP, it's giving the players an ability to create content. Landmark is starting this already though no mob or quest creation mechanics are in. Does it also mean PvP? Yes and that's a great thing but not only.
SOE is heading in the direction of EVE (And that means open world PVP!)
Hmmm let's hope not. And I doubt it. SOE is a commercial gamecompany. Sure they might have a few niche targetted games but I doubt they ae going to use their biggest IP for niche players.
I think OP's best bet will be Indie/Kickstarter/Early Acces games, just don't count on a commercial game company to create a open world PVP game. Unless it's like a flag system which to me is the only way open world PVP will work for the masses both old school as new players.
Read it and weep. I've been a broken record on this, but the writing on the wall says there's going to be open world PVP in a brilliantly executed system like Eve Online.
Smedley's blog post covers a lot, but here are some of the highlights:
"A lot has been made about how much we’re pushing this concept of “Sandbox” mmos being the future. Not a lot has been said about what that means."
"In my opinion the solution is focusing a lot more on letting players make and be content for each other. Battlegrounds are an excellent example of an Evergreen style of content where it’s the players themselves that actually create the content. ... Building systems into the games that let the players interact with each other in new and unique ways gives us the ability to watch as the players do stuff we never anticipated. We’ll see a lot more creativity in action if the players are at the center of it. Imagine an MMORPG of a massive city.. and the Rogue’s guild is entirely run by players. Where the city has an entire political system that is populated by players who were elected by the playerbase."
"There’s a great example of this today with Eve Online. It’s a brilliantly executed system where the players are pretty much in charge of the entire game. Sure there is a lot of content for players to do, but anything that’s important in the game is done by the players. This is a shining example of how this kind of system can thrive.
Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting."
Is anyone from the other side of the fence ready to admit this is happening?
Edit: Sorry, that was bad form. Here is the blog post:
Read between the lines much. Neither the blog nor the two Twitter post you posted mention anything about OPEN WORLD pvp. The context of the post was more along the lines of freedom of content creation to the players without intervention from the developers. In a nutshell, that does not mean it applies to what you might call "freedom to gank" by players. Go back and ask Smed if he intends to introduce total free form pvp (open world) or not. I bet his answer would be totally different.
What a horrible design decision that would be. Talk about insuring Everquest Next fails . Now having some PvP and allowing PvE players to do their thing in peace is another matter.
Originally posted by flizzer What a horrible design decision that would be. Talk about insuring Everquest Next fails . Now having some PvP and allowing PvE players to do their thing in peace is another matter.
They are not making a themepark. I know that is your only frame of reference, but hang in there you will like what they do
I wonder if those banking on EvErQuest Next will be disappointed if PvP is a server or claim based battleground option? I hope not as I think EQN and Landmark should be enjoyed by as many as possible. An MMO that allows for the players to let thier creativity shine should be the norm. I realize some see a sandbox type game should be like this or like that but to me it's the ability to create and explore. We'll see what SoE does.
Originally posted by Aelious I wonder if those banking on EvErQuest Next will be disappointed if PvP is a server or claim based battleground option? I hope not as I think EQN and Landmark should be enjoyed by as many as possible. An MMO that allows for the players to let thier creativity shine should be the norm. I realize some see a sandbox type game should be like this or like that but to me it's the ability to create and explore. We'll see what SoE does.
I'll be disappointed if OWPVP is a speciality server type. I'm hoping for something designed from the ground up like Eve Online in terms of PVP. With some innovation on the part of SOE to take it to the next level. I would be less disappointed if there was a specialty server type for PVE only. But my interpretation of Smedley's words is that PVE only games are unsustainable, and people will move on after they run out of content. The evergreen content is players - with all of the politics and social interactions that go on between them.
Originally posted by bcbully
Originally posted by flizzer What a horrible design decision that would be. Talk about insuring Everquest Next fails . Now having some PvP and allowing PvE players to do their thing in peace is another matter.
They are not making a themepark. I know that is your only frame of reference, but hang in there you will like what they do
I agree. Isn't it possible in Eve to go years in the safer zones enjoying content without ever facing real risk of PVP? But that risk is there, because there's no playpen preventing you from attacking. Just consequences.
Originally posted by Gruug
Originally posted by Bidwood
Read it and weep. I've been a broken record on this, but the writing on the wall says there's going to be open world PVP in a brilliantly executed system like Eve Online.
Smedley's blog post covers a lot, but here are some of the highlights:
"A lot has been made about how much we’re pushing this concept of “Sandbox” mmos being the future. Not a lot has been said about what that means."
"In my opinion the solution is focusing a lot more on letting players make and be content for each other. Battlegrounds are an excellent example of an Evergreen style of content where it’s the players themselves that actually create the content. ... Building systems into the games that let the players interact with each other in new and unique ways gives us the ability to watch as the players do stuff we never anticipated. We’ll see a lot more creativity in action if the players are at the center of it. Imagine an MMORPG of a massive city.. and the Rogue’s guild is entirely run by players. Where the city has an entire political system that is populated by players who were elected by the playerbase."
"There’s a great example of this today with Eve Online. It’s a brilliantly executed system where the players are pretty much in charge of the entire game. Sure there is a lot of content for players to do, but anything that’s important in the game is done by the players. This is a shining example of how this kind of system can thrive.
Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting."
Is anyone from the other side of the fence ready to admit this is happening?
Edit: Sorry, that was bad form. Here is the blog post:
Read between the lines much. Neither the blog nor the two Twitter post you posted mention anything about OPEN WORLD pvp. The context of the post was more along the lines of freedom of content creation to the players without intervention from the developers. In a nutshell, that does not mean it applies to what you might call "freedom to gank" by players. Go back and ask Smed if he intends to introduce total free form pvp (open world) or not. I bet his answer would be totally different.
What I took from this is that they're heading in the direction of Eve Online for PVP. My interpretation is that it will be OWPVP with varying levels of safety in different zones. How would you interpret that?
Originally posted by Aelious Bidwood
Having your perspective is great and I can see how you would come to your conclusion based upon what was in Smed's blog. I'm wondering if you really think SoE would be honing it's company to support a universal model that appeals to 20-25% of a potential player base? Going further, with the secret "like SWG" MMO and the two new EQs coming out would they want to compete with themselves like that. They already have PS2, though it's an FPS, so I'm not sure why they would make all follow a OWPvP model and thus shrink thier portfolio.
They are making big moves like closing 1/2 thier titles, to support the new games they have coming out. Regardless of liking or not liking PvP it leaves the realm of reality IMO for them to force* PvP to a majority of customers that don't want it, especially since they are F2P across the board. I certainly hope they leave more to do in their games than have PvP as the fun thing to do.
*If content or progression (items included) are behind a requirement to achieve them, players are "forced" to comply. If I want raid gear, I have to raid for example. Locking out areas or giving an advantage to those that PvP forces those that don't want to to engage if they want said advantage. Often the word "encourage" is used but only because it doesn't sounds as bad lol.
I think the people who would enjoy the Eve Online model of OWPVP is a sizeable audience. All we need now is some innovation on the dev side to come up with a model that makes this work and makes it profitable. I think the key is the "life of consequence" theme. If they can really build meaningful consequences into the game somehow, people will have to be selective about where and how they attack.
Regarding the "forced" comment.. you would essentially be forced into a state of greater risk of PVP (but not necessarily PVP) to access all of the game's content/rewards. (In the same way that I'm "forced" to PVE In order to do x, y, z.)
I don't see why there can't be both, good PvP built in from the start but not have it as a requirement to play the game. If SoE did that it wouldn't matter which was the "normal" server and which is the specialty one.
To me the only difference between PvE and PvP is who you engage in combat with. Sandbox =/= PvP and PvE =/= themepark unless other parameters are taken into consideration. In fact, IMO themeparks are better suited for PvP because not only are people in more condensed locations, but because PvP is great to have when other content is absent.
The AI that SoE talks about seems to take a lot of the benefits of PvP, life of consequences was talked about by Georgeson at Live, and offer it to those who prefer PvE. Hopefully this will allow SoE to build PvP that PvPers really want while offering what PvEers want at the same time.
I am not sure how Smed is going to have anything other then player attacking player for PVP when the game is being designed to eventually move to the PS4. How exactly are you as a player going to create any content on the PS4?
All this talk about OWPvP reminds me of the problems in EQ1. While I did not flag myself as PvP it was really annoying and so not fun when a couple high level players came in and started killing all the NPCs in town. You know the NPCs you needed to get new quests and complete quests and sell you junk too. And kill the guards you ran too when you got in over your head. That was certainly fun for me when the orcs overwhelmed me and then killed me a the base of the lift because someone was bored and thought it would be fun to mess with the newbes by killing all the guards.
I'll be disappointed if OWPVP is a speciality server type. I'm hoping for something designed from the ground up like Eve Online in terms of PVP. With some innovation on the part of SOE to take it to the next level. I would be less disappointed if there was a specialty server type for PVE only. But my interpretation of Smedley's words is that PVE only games are unsustainable, and people will move on after they run out of content. The evergreen content is players - with all of the politics and social interactions that go on between them.
They've gone on and on about fun, fun filters, fun factor, everyone doing whatever is fun for them, yadda yadda yadda, I'm highly doubting they are making a game that is going to not be fun for a huge number of people. They are trying to cater to everyone possible.
Smedly is also not developing EQN. He is the boss. Several of his statements have basically said that he would prefer EQN going in a different direction, but it's not his call. I'm assuming he doesn't give the devs a list of his "must haves" and they have to include them. I've said before that I doubt he even plays any mmorpgs and probably sticks to more PVP oriented FPS type games which EVE isn't too far away from. Instead of a human avatar you can a ship to shoot people with...Compare his attention to PS2 to all other SOE projects combined, he plays favorites.
Although his words about the genre is spot on. But you have to account for most games being vertical themeparks. To me he is saying EQN and future games are going more towards the sandbox horizontal approach (obviously) which have a lot more player impact and lasting power. Be it PVP oriented or not.
EQN could easily have some sort of SWG type flag system with EVE political-economical-pvp elements.
There would be no real harm if Joe gamer wants to build a house in peace or killing Orcs all day. He would be missing out on venturing into "PVP" land and participating in guild warfare and other fun things, but it should be a choice.
Politicians, crafters, economic-traders, etc usually aren't in the middle of battles. They are safe at home. EQN could actually mimic real life in some ways. Farmers, crafters, and trades people could run the economy, PVE people could go out and kill dragons bringing back loot-resources for gear, that PVP people could purchase to kill each other with. An actual virtual world could happen. Instead of "I see you, now you must die because your name is red" type game with meaningless PVP.
I hope EQN isn't a PVE or PVP game. Titles are so limiting. They have the chance to go way outside the box and try new ideas. Hopefully everyone gets to enjoy them without having to sacrifice they preferences.
1. PvP like it is on WoW PvP servers is the minimum I'm willing to accept. If there are more restrictions than on a WoW PvP server, I'm not gonna touch this game.
2. I really do not understand most of the gaming companies. It is SO EASY to implement different server types in order to satisfy most of the potential audience. Just give us servers where we can kill anyone (maybe even those of the own faction) without restrictions, at any time, at any place, for any reason.
Unrestricted PvP is the only element in MMOs that can create the feeling of real threat. It's also the only element in games that can show true viciousness! Mobs are predictable, have absolutely no initiative and no creativity and they are just there to die, never leaving their assigned zone.
I'm also pretty bored by the numerous attempts to create structured, consensual PvP. It's good to have it, yes, but NOT as a replacement for unrestricted open world PvP!
2. I really do not understand most of the gaming companies. It is SO EASY to implement different server types in order to satisfy most of the potential audience.
No, it's not. Good PvP requires the entire game to tie back into it. PvP and PvE have to influence and help one another, or you end up with a shallow PvP experience.
1. PvP like it is on WoW PvP servers is the minimum I'm willing to accept. If there are more restrictions than on a WoW PvP server, I'm not gonna touch this game.
2. I really do not understand most of the gaming companies. It is SO EASY to implement different server types in order to satisfy most of the potential audience. Just give us servers where we can kill anyone (maybe even those of the own faction) without restrictions, at any time, at any place, for any reason.
Unrestricted PvP is the only element in MMOs that can create the feeling of real threat. It's also the only element in games that can show true viciousness! Mobs are predictable, have absolutely no initiative and no creativity and they are just there to die, never leaving their assigned zone.
I'm also pretty bored by the numerous attempts to create structured, consensual PvP. It's good to have it, yes, but NOT as a replacement for unrestricted open world PvP!
In all honestly for a lot of people that is not enough.
I am really sick of the cheap "turn pvp flag on" pvp type games. It is more or less that much of a cheap pvp as to add some battlegrounds or arenas. If that is all pvp what a MMO has to offer i will more likely play any other pvp game.
PvP have to have meaning, it have to have consequences, and it have to be massive, or at least have massive effects on the world.. The minimum pvp i am willingly to accept is some kind of territorial controll(the simpliest would be DAoC or ESO), but i would also like it with more economical impact, with more meaning and consequences as those two games in brackets... because they don't have a lot of consequences or a lot of meaning.. and almost no economical impact.
I don't care if they make a speciality server, as long as they are willingly to make it a real pvp game(and with that i mean not just pvp in combat,, but economy, dipomatic and more).. or if they restrict it on a few continents with the neccessary impact, or if it is like EvE. But pls, no more just pvp flag on MMOs, or just some simple battlegrounds or arenas.
And yes.. i demand a lot. Because to just make a few servers with pvp flag on requests almost zero development time and not really a lot of money.. what i demand will require development time, will require resources..
I'm also pretty bored by the numerous attempts to create structured, consensual PvP. It's good to have it, yes, but NOT as a replacement for unrestricted open world PvP!
If you mean FFA PVP, I've yet to play a game with OW PVP that has any success or lasting power.
I believe that while many people love PVP and killing one another, most can't handle OW FFA type systems. Even EVE which is used as "the" PVP example by many, has restrictions.
Without some form of structure and consequence, it is just mindless killing that gets old real fast. Unless it is a FPS/MOBA type game and player progress isn't really important, only the scoreboard. DAoC FFA was one of my most enjoyable mmo experiences, yet even in a game centered in PVP/RVR, when it was totally FFA, most couldn't handle it or got bored. There has to be more to it.
If a game can provide OW PVP with some form of consequence and impact where players can't just mindlessly kill anyone without some thought, they would have a hit. PVP needs to impact the entire game and community, not just a mini-game. I think a lot of the issues with gankers and problems PVE people have would solve themselves if devs put a few safe guards in place from the start and allowed players to take control. UO did okay and so have a few others, but none have really gotten it right where they had both a growing population and long term success.
Comments
people wanted the sandbox, now they get it?
let's see if they can handle it in all it's glory, including the gankfest :>
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Ryoshi1 as Rikimaru
EXACTLY! I am in love with Eve's game systems but can't get into the look and feel. In a context with an avatar and action combat I would be all over it and so would an army of people.
I think that you're being way too generous to Eve Online. The success of Day Z (with it's horrible interface) and Star Citizen (lack of "humanistic avatar") seem to show that those things arn't deal breakers.
Eve PVP is great because of the impact it has on politics, the economy, crafting, territory and RolePlay. As gameplay Mechanics go, It has alot of issues that I'm amazed they havn't even bothered trying to fix during the last 10 years.
Rock-paper-scissors balancing, repetitive and skilless gameplay (target > set optimal orbit > activate high slots > activate med slots), drop down menus and double click movement, all combat revolves around gate-camping for hours on end, disposable alts that negate all death penalties, weird combat mechanics based on transversal velocities instead of the better shield/weapon/energy/positioning management systems from star trek or star wars games, bad balance between harshness of death penalties and ease of avoiding combat with hiding in stations and watching TV until threats get bored and go away, log-off exploits, safespots, warp-core stabilisers... And all that is just off the top of my head.
I'm happy that Eve online is there to show how PVP can improve all other facets in a game, but if Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous manage to deliver on half of what they are promising, CCP are going to get a swift kick in the teeth.
As a nonpvper, i agree with this. I don't have a problem with PVP, i have a problem with people thinking that PVP is the answer to everything. If you attack someone in any game, NPC or PC< it needs to be for something or matter. I'm reminded of a story where two soldiers from opposite sides of a war going to the same bar and having drinks afterwards. Most soldiers won't attack someone becasue they are a different race, which is how most games breed PVP. It's not PVP, it's fantasy racism.
I want a game where if i'm at war with another country, there's are more systems to judge whose winning the war than just who kills more people. I want attrician, supply lines and the ability to put myself into tactically minded PVP and PVE. I want hte ability to simply cold war my opponents into submission. If someone kills someone, i don't just want penalities, there should be mental isues with killing human beings like yourselfves.
So why are you not playing Age Of Wulin? Anyway your prediction about EQNEXT is pretty pathetic considering EQ had open world PVP. I don't think anyone in this thread is saying EQNEXT won't have some form of PVP or open world PVP servers. You seem to be ignoring this and cherry picking which post you want to answer.
Let me be clearer then. I'm not just saying there will be an OWPVP server. That is obvious. I think OWPVP will be the default and 'PVE only' will be a specialty server type, if it exists at all. Smedley seems to think that games like Eve are the only real sustainable type of MMO and SOE is headed there. I have my interpretation. You think it's BS because it hasn't been done by SOE before and spits in the face of conventional wisdom about what works in MMOs. But conventional MMOs aren't working anymore. That's his point. Be prepared for anything.
As for why I'm not playing Age of Wulin. I am sticking to console. So EQN is the holy grail of MMOs headed there.
Having your perspective is great and I can see how you would come to your conclusion based upon what was in Smed's blog. I'm wondering if you really think SoE would be honing it's company to support a universal model that appeals to 20-25% of a potential player base? Going further, with the secret "like SWG" MMO and the two new EQs coming out would they want to compete with themselves like that. They already have PS2, though it's an FPS, so I'm not sure why they would make all follow a OWPvP model and thus shrink thier portfolio.
They are making big moves like closing 1/2 thier titles, to support the new games they have coming out. Regardless of liking or not liking PvP it leaves the realm of reality IMO for them to force* PvP to a majority of customers that don't want it, especially since they are F2P across the board. I certainly hope they leave more to do in their games than have PvP as the fun thing to do.
*If content or progression (items included) are behind a requirement to achieve them, players are "forced" to comply. If I want raid gear, I have to raid for example. Locking out areas or giving an advantage to those that PvP forces those that don't want to to engage if they want said advantage. Often the word "encourage" is used but only because it doesn't sounds as bad lol.
They are not making a themepark.
Think politics, territory control, guild wars, alliances in this fully destructable world.
I agree and looking back at the blog Smed isn't making that a concrete connection either. This is the whole paragraph that was partially quoted here:
"In my opinion the solution is focusing a lot more on letting players make and be content for each other. Battlegrounds are an excellent example of an Evergreen style of content where its the players themselves that actually create the content. Auction houses are another example. So are things like storytelling tools in SWG.. or the brilliant music system in LOTRO. Building systems into the games that let the players interact with each other in new and unique ways gives us the ability to watch as the players do stuff we never anticipated. Well see a lot more creativity in action if the players are at the center of it. Imagine an MMORPG of a massive city.. and the Rogues guild is entirely run by players. Where the city has an entire political system that is populated by players who were elected by the playerbase."
It's not just PvP, it's giving the players an ability to create content. Landmark is starting this already though no mob or quest creation mechanics are in. Does it also mean PvP? Yes and that's a great thing but not only.
SOE is heading in the direction of EVE (And that means open world PVP!)
Hmmm let's hope not. And I doubt it. SOE is a commercial gamecompany. Sure they might have a few niche targetted games but I doubt they ae going to use their biggest IP for niche players.
I think OP's best bet will be Indie/Kickstarter/Early Acces games, just don't count on a commercial game company to create a open world PVP game. Unless it's like a flag system which to me is the only way open world PVP will work for the masses both old school as new players.
Read between the lines much. Neither the blog nor the two Twitter post you posted mention anything about OPEN WORLD pvp. The context of the post was more along the lines of freedom of content creation to the players without intervention from the developers. In a nutshell, that does not mean it applies to what you might call "freedom to gank" by players. Go back and ask Smed if he intends to introduce total free form pvp (open world) or not. I bet his answer would be totally different.
Let's party like it is 1863!
They are not making a themepark. I know that is your only frame of reference, but hang in there you will like what they do
I'll be disappointed if OWPVP is a speciality server type. I'm hoping for something designed from the ground up like Eve Online in terms of PVP. With some innovation on the part of SOE to take it to the next level. I would be less disappointed if there was a specialty server type for PVE only. But my interpretation of Smedley's words is that PVE only games are unsustainable, and people will move on after they run out of content. The evergreen content is players - with all of the politics and social interactions that go on between them.
I agree. Isn't it possible in Eve to go years in the safer zones enjoying content without ever facing real risk of PVP? But that risk is there, because there's no playpen preventing you from attacking. Just consequences.
What I took from this is that they're heading in the direction of Eve Online for PVP. My interpretation is that it will be OWPVP with varying levels of safety in different zones. How would you interpret that?
I think the people who would enjoy the Eve Online model of OWPVP is a sizeable audience. All we need now is some innovation on the dev side to come up with a model that makes this work and makes it profitable. I think the key is the "life of consequence" theme. If they can really build meaningful consequences into the game somehow, people will have to be selective about where and how they attack.
Regarding the "forced" comment.. you would essentially be forced into a state of greater risk of PVP (but not necessarily PVP) to access all of the game's content/rewards. (In the same way that I'm "forced" to PVE In order to do x, y, z.)
To me the only difference between PvE and PvP is who you engage in combat with. Sandbox =/= PvP and PvE =/= themepark unless other parameters are taken into consideration. In fact, IMO themeparks are better suited for PvP because not only are people in more condensed locations, but because PvP is great to have when other content is absent.
The AI that SoE talks about seems to take a lot of the benefits of PvP, life of consequences was talked about by Georgeson at Live, and offer it to those who prefer PvE. Hopefully this will allow SoE to build PvP that PvPers really want while offering what PvEers want at the same time.
I am not sure how Smed is going to have anything other then player attacking player for PVP when the game is being designed to eventually move to the PS4. How exactly are you as a player going to create any content on the PS4?
All this talk about OWPvP reminds me of the problems in EQ1. While I did not flag myself as PvP it was really annoying and so not fun when a couple high level players came in and started killing all the NPCs in town. You know the NPCs you needed to get new quests and complete quests and sell you junk too. And kill the guards you ran too when you got in over your head. That was certainly fun for me when the orcs overwhelmed me and then killed me a the base of the lift because someone was bored and thought it would be fun to mess with the newbes by killing all the guards.
They've gone on and on about fun, fun filters, fun factor, everyone doing whatever is fun for them, yadda yadda yadda, I'm highly doubting they are making a game that is going to not be fun for a huge number of people. They are trying to cater to everyone possible.
Smedly is also not developing EQN. He is the boss. Several of his statements have basically said that he would prefer EQN going in a different direction, but it's not his call. I'm assuming he doesn't give the devs a list of his "must haves" and they have to include them. I've said before that I doubt he even plays any mmorpgs and probably sticks to more PVP oriented FPS type games which EVE isn't too far away from. Instead of a human avatar you can a ship to shoot people with...Compare his attention to PS2 to all other SOE projects combined, he plays favorites.
Although his words about the genre is spot on. But you have to account for most games being vertical themeparks. To me he is saying EQN and future games are going more towards the sandbox horizontal approach (obviously) which have a lot more player impact and lasting power. Be it PVP oriented or not.
EQN could easily have some sort of SWG type flag system with EVE political-economical-pvp elements.
There would be no real harm if Joe gamer wants to build a house in peace or killing Orcs all day. He would be missing out on venturing into "PVP" land and participating in guild warfare and other fun things, but it should be a choice.
Politicians, crafters, economic-traders, etc usually aren't in the middle of battles. They are safe at home. EQN could actually mimic real life in some ways. Farmers, crafters, and trades people could run the economy, PVE people could go out and kill dragons bringing back loot-resources for gear, that PVP people could purchase to kill each other with. An actual virtual world could happen. Instead of "I see you, now you must die because your name is red" type game with meaningless PVP.
I hope EQN isn't a PVE or PVP game. Titles are so limiting. They have the chance to go way outside the box and try new ideas. Hopefully everyone gets to enjoy them without having to sacrifice they preferences.
1. PvP like it is on WoW PvP servers is the minimum I'm willing to accept. If there are more restrictions than on a WoW PvP server, I'm not gonna touch this game.
2. I really do not understand most of the gaming companies. It is SO EASY to implement different server types in order to satisfy most of the potential audience. Just give us servers where we can kill anyone (maybe even those of the own faction) without restrictions, at any time, at any place, for any reason.
Unrestricted PvP is the only element in MMOs that can create the feeling of real threat. It's also the only element in games that can show true viciousness! Mobs are predictable, have absolutely no initiative and no creativity and they are just there to die, never leaving their assigned zone.
I'm also pretty bored by the numerous attempts to create structured, consensual PvP. It's good to have it, yes, but NOT as a replacement for unrestricted open world PvP!
No, it's not. Good PvP requires the entire game to tie back into it. PvP and PvE have to influence and help one another, or you end up with a shallow PvP experience.
In all honestly for a lot of people that is not enough.
I am really sick of the cheap "turn pvp flag on" pvp type games. It is more or less that much of a cheap pvp as to add some battlegrounds or arenas. If that is all pvp what a MMO has to offer i will more likely play any other pvp game.
PvP have to have meaning, it have to have consequences, and it have to be massive, or at least have massive effects on the world.. The minimum pvp i am willingly to accept is some kind of territorial controll(the simpliest would be DAoC or ESO), but i would also like it with more economical impact, with more meaning and consequences as those two games in brackets... because they don't have a lot of consequences or a lot of meaning.. and almost no economical impact.
I don't care if they make a speciality server, as long as they are willingly to make it a real pvp game(and with that i mean not just pvp in combat,, but economy, dipomatic and more).. or if they restrict it on a few continents with the neccessary impact, or if it is like EvE. But pls, no more just pvp flag on MMOs, or just some simple battlegrounds or arenas.
And yes.. i demand a lot. Because to just make a few servers with pvp flag on requests almost zero development time and not really a lot of money.. what i demand will require development time, will require resources..
If you mean FFA PVP, I've yet to play a game with OW PVP that has any success or lasting power.
I believe that while many people love PVP and killing one another, most can't handle OW FFA type systems. Even EVE which is used as "the" PVP example by many, has restrictions.
Without some form of structure and consequence, it is just mindless killing that gets old real fast. Unless it is a FPS/MOBA type game and player progress isn't really important, only the scoreboard. DAoC FFA was one of my most enjoyable mmo experiences, yet even in a game centered in PVP/RVR, when it was totally FFA, most couldn't handle it or got bored. There has to be more to it.
If a game can provide OW PVP with some form of consequence and impact where players can't just mindlessly kill anyone without some thought, they would have a hit. PVP needs to impact the entire game and community, not just a mini-game. I think a lot of the issues with gankers and problems PVE people have would solve themselves if devs put a few safe guards in place from the start and allowed players to take control. UO did okay and so have a few others, but none have really gotten it right where they had both a growing population and long term success.