-.- After reading this entire thread, I still do not understand where BCBully is coming from. All I see is jumping to conclusions, and whining that he can't grief other people. Well guess his forum name suits his personality just fine.
As far as what SOE has said, I am fine with their decision, it makes perfect sense to me. I honestly do not get the people who complain about not being able to bully other people in a game.
This is a portion of my post on the Landmark forums. It's linked to the OP of this thread. Maybe this will help. You seem to have the wrong impression of me. The entire post, and thread are there.
side note - About me, there is no way in the world, would I condone the destruction of the works of art created by these artist. In my opinion, only an heathen would want something like that.
I feel that the people who make these works of art, should have their own server, or game mode, be given the tools they need to create, and protections needed to preserve their art and creativity.
However, I do not believe that the entire scope of development of this "sandbox" should be designed with those restrictions on the entire game. There has to be a better way.
Isn't Landmark about creating things though? I understand they will be adding in fighting and stuff .. but I thought all that was just extra.
Isn't EverQuest Next .. the game you should be more concerned with?
What you are doing is this, just to give an example I will use Kerbal Space Program (KSP).
The main point of the game KSP, is to create a space program and manage it while carrying out missions. It can also be played as a sandbox. Now, let's say the developers decide to add in missiles just to give a little extra for the players to do. Someone comes along and complains that they can't use the missiles to destroy other players and they believe there should be an entire separate server just to cater to the people who want that. When this was never the intention of the developer to begin with.
Keep in mind it's only an example. I don't think SOE ever said they where going to make Landmark into some pvp oriented game. They may have said they would add certain features, but that isn't the same thing.
I think you are focusing way to much on landmark and trying to make it something that it isn't even suppose to be. As I said, this is landmark .. not the main game. If they added everything like this, then what would the point of the main game be? It would be like creating the same game twice.
-.- After reading this entire thread, I still do not understand where BCBully is coming from. All I see is jumping to conclusions, and whining that he can't grief other people. Well guess his forum name suits his personality just fine.
As far as what SOE has said, I am fine with their decision, it makes perfect sense to me. I honestly do not get the people who complain about not being able to bully other people in a game.
This is a portion of my post on the Landmark forums. It's linked to the OP of this thread. Maybe this will help. You seem to have the wrong impression of me. The entire post, and thread are there.
side note - About me, there is no way in the world, would I condone the destruction of the works of art created by these artist. In my opinion, only an heathen would want something like that.
I feel that the people who make these works of art, should have their own server, or game mode, be given the tools they need to create, and protections needed to preserve their art and creativity.
However, I do not believe that the entire scope of development of this "sandbox" should be designed with those restrictions on the entire game. There has to be a better way.
Isn't Landmark about creating things though? I understand they will be adding in fighting and stuff .. but I thought all that was just extra.
Isn't EverQuest Next .. the game you should be more concerned with?
What you are doing is this, just to give an example I will use Kerbal Space Program (KSP).
The main point of the game KSP, is to create a space program and manage it while carrying out missions. It can also be played as a sandbox. Now, let's say the developers decide to add in missiles just to give a little extra for the players to do. Someone comes along and complains that they can't use the missiles to destroy other players and they believe there should be an entire separate server just to cater to the people who want that. When this was never the intention of the developer to begin with.
Keep in mind it's only an example. I don't think SOE ever said they where going to make Landmark into some pvp oriented game. They may have said they would add certain features, but that isn't the same thing.
I think you are focusing way to much on landmark and trying to make it something that it isn't even suppose to be. As I said, this is landmark .. not the main game. If they added everything like this, then what would the point of the main game be? It would be like creating the same game twice.
I'll link you some articles. Read up my friend! Be sure too look at the dates too.
There's plenty more out there. What you see is here is that they are going out of their way to make sure people know "Landmark is not just a building tool".
This is a portion of my post on the Landmark forums. It's linked to the OP of this thread. Maybe this will help. You seem to have the wrong impression of me. The entire post, and thread are there.
side note - About me, there is no way in the world, would I condone the destruction of the works of art created by these artist. In my opinion, only an heathen would want something like that.
I feel that the people who make these works of art, should have their own server, or game mode, be given the tools they need to create, and protections needed to preserve their art and creativity.
However, I do not believe that the entire scope of development of this "sandbox" should be designed with those restrictions on the entire game. There has to be a better way.
Sadly, your opinion doesn't reflect the rest of the world. People love to destroy what others have built. Must be human nature or something. In every mmo that I've ever played, there has been people that have figure out ways to harass others. From the lone individual to huge guilds. Seems SOE is going to do their best to keep this from happening.
This is the default game mode from the sound of it. Works of "art" you mean everything and anything in Landmark? How do you determine what is art and what is free to destroy? What you want would be the "have their own server" type of deal.
At the same time, this is pretty much what they seem to have planned. Nice peaceful places for those that want it, while allowing others to opt-in to destroy one another in harmony.
Again, where have they said THE ENTIRE GAME will be the same? The better way is the way that you apparently are hearing as a whooshing sound going over your head. You are talking about a problem that doesn't exist...
There's plenty more out there. What you see is here is that they are going out of their way to make sure people know "Landmark is not just a building tool".
You are very right that it is more than a "tool" but you might want to re-read those articles. You shouldn't need this thread afterwards.
This is a portion of my post on the Landmark forums. It's linked to the OP of this thread. Maybe this will help. You seem to have the wrong impression of me. The entire post, and thread are there.
side note - About me, there is no way in the world, would I condone the destruction of the works of art created by these artist. In my opinion, only an heathen would want something like that.
I feel that the people who make these works of art, should have their own server, or game mode, be given the tools they need to create, and protections needed to preserve their art and creativity.
However, I do not believe that the entire scope of development of this "sandbox" should be designed with those restrictions on the entire game. There has to be a better way.
Sadly, your opinion doesn't reflect the rest of the world. People love to destroy what others have built. Must be human nature or something. In every mmo that I've ever played, there has been people that have figure out ways to harass others. From the lone individual to huge guilds. Seems SOE is going to do their best to keep this from happening.
They didn't in EQ.
They didn't in EQ2.
They didn't in SWG.
They didn't in PotBS.
They didn't in PS1/PS2.
So how in the world are people to believe it now, again?
Sadly, your opinion doesn't reflect the rest of the world. People love to destroy what others have built. Must be human nature or something. In every mmo that I've ever played, there has been people that have figure out ways to harass others. From the lone individual to huge guilds. Seems SOE is going to do their best to keep this from happening.
They didn't in EQ.
They didn't in EQ2.
They didn't in SWG.
They didn't in PotBS.
They didn't in PS1/PS2.
So how in the world are people to believe it now, again?
They have openly said that they screwed up in other games and looking back would of done it differently. Even with the F2P model of EQ/EQ2, they've said they are trying to improve it in those games, while doing it different in EQN & LM, as they are in PS2.
It is impossible to stop all griefing/harassment. There are just too many jerks with too much free time to stop them all. Doesn't mean they can't do their best, as I said. Trying > doing nothing. Stopping completely =/= possible.
You might consider someone looking at you in game as griefing, not much they can do about that I guess. I played EQ for a while, EQ2/SWG/PS1 briefing, and play PS2 now and then. I've never felt bothered in any of them beyond chat spammers and people training mobs in EQ, but it was entertaining half the time, so not sure what you experienced. Everyone's mileage varies.
But they can try to limit the amount of power people have over one another that is unwelcome. Be it within an individual's claim or in the game world in general. Landmark has a huge range of possibilities, as well as limits.
I don't remember them having a lot of open discussions, video responses, polls, and players in development for those games either. So I guess they get people to believe with the whole actions speak louder then words.
I don't remember them having a lot of open discussions, video responses, polls, and players in development for those games either. So I guess they get people to believe with the whole actions speak louder then words.
It'll take action, and more than banning players from the game itself. -_-
Robbing people of their $$ over creative differences causes b-a-d enemies. That's the legacy SoE has to remedy, as it has hurt them for 11 years now.
I loved EQ2 the game itself, but that top/down hierarchy in the game with turds on the top -- as a major barrier to any real progression -- is a reason why I play WoW now than EQ2. When I checked out PS2...that crappy hierarchy is still there (e.g., the zerg mechanics feels every bit like it -- no room there for counter attacks when faced with 20+ vehicles aimed at a spawn area).
Yeah, actions definitely speaks louder than words.
-.- After reading this entire thread, I still do not understand where BCBully is coming from. All I see is jumping to conclusions, and whining that he can't grief other people. Well guess his forum name suits his personality just fine.
As far as what SOE has said, I am fine with their decision, it makes perfect sense to me. I honestly do not get the people who complain about not being able to bully other people in a game.
This is a portion of my post on the Landmark forums. It's linked to the OP of this thread. Maybe this will help. You seem to have the wrong impression of me. The entire post, and thread are there.
side note - About me, there is no way in the world, would I condone the destruction of the works of art created by these artist. In my opinion, only an heathen would want something like that.
I feel that the people who make these works of art, should have their own server, or game mode, be given the tools they need to create, and protections needed to preserve their art and creativity.
However, I do not believe that the entire scope of development of this "sandbox" should be designed with those restrictions on the entire game. There has to be a better way.
Isn't Landmark about creating things though? I understand they will be adding in fighting and stuff .. but I thought all that was just extra.
Isn't EverQuest Next .. the game you should be more concerned with?
What you are doing is this, just to give an example I will use Kerbal Space Program (KSP).
The main point of the game KSP, is to create a space program and manage it while carrying out missions. It can also be played as a sandbox. Now, let's say the developers decide to add in missiles just to give a little extra for the players to do. Someone comes along and complains that they can't use the missiles to destroy other players and they believe there should be an entire separate server just to cater to the people who want that. When this was never the intention of the developer to begin with.
Keep in mind it's only an example. I don't think SOE ever said they where going to make Landmark into some pvp oriented game. They may have said they would add certain features, but that isn't the same thing.
I think you are focusing way to much on landmark and trying to make it something that it isn't even suppose to be. As I said, this is landmark .. not the main game. If they added everything like this, then what would the point of the main game be? It would be like creating the same game twice.
I'll link you some articles. Read up my friend! Be sure too look at the dates too.
There's plenty more out there. What you see is here is that they are going out of their way to make sure people know "Landmark is not just a building tool".
You thin kyou are so smart cause you link articles as if it really changes anything I said. In reality it only proves my point. Yes, it's more then just a building tool. However .. what is it's main focus? BUILDING
Do you really not understand that? It has all these extra things doesn't mean they have to focus on those extra things they are putting in.
I don't know if you are ... not very bright .. or just plainly trying to ignore what you don't want to hear. But seriously, you don't seem to get it.
I even gave you an example with KSP .. and it went right over your head -.-
Just because they start adding certain feature doesn't mean it's main focus has to change.
Outside of being a PVE building tool the point of EQN Landmark still seems to be up in the air. I don't know how I feel about this turn because I am still not truly sure what it is on its own merits outside of functioning as a an add on for EQN itself. The game looks like a fancy add on to the main game right now, a tool for housing, guild halls, and making things to sale to others for their use rather than a full fledged game. As such removing kill sources makes sense on paper, in the same way taking precautions with tools in your home wood working shop to protect the kids do.
Landmark is not going to be anything more than a prettier mincraft survival mode.... This saddens me very much so much wasted potential.
Hopefully Next will have the building aspect mixed in with the story and the pvp.
They have stated that they only about 60% done with the game at this point. They have also said that the remaining 40% is where all the magic is going to happen.
Right now Landmark is about explore/gather/build but the final iteration is supposed to be radically different. In about six weeks basic combat will be in along with armor/weapon/potions and mobs. Later more refined combat will come, reportedly where equipped weapon will determine combat abilities, sounds like pre ARR FF14. From there the "end game" for Landmark developemnt wise will be giving players the same in game tools the devs use to develop EQN content, including mobs (placement, pathing, behavior, etc.) and questing on player claims. The PC Gamer article featured Georgeson taking about players being DMs and Butler saying they want no seperation between the tools the players have in Landmark and SoE devs have in EQN.
Since Landmark servers and islands are freely traversable this could eventually mean a ton of content to play, depending on players creativity. Just in alpha there are about 100-200 claims per island, now 50 islands per server and five US/EU servers.
Regardless of Landmark being more than a building game it makes no sense to leve in features players can use to detriment other players. Even if the roles were reversed, with 25% wanting griefing amnesty, SoE would be foolish to subject that portion of thier community to something they don't want.
I'm glad SoE is stepping up and doing the right thing regarding sandbox gameplay.
They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.
When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.
Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.
15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.
I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?
They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.
When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.
Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.
15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.
I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?
It's more than that, people don't seem to want to "compete" anymore in MMO's, outside of controlled combat situations or PVE scenarios.
Not only do they wish to avoid non-consensual PVP, they aren't interested in competing for resource nodes, learning to form the best relationships in game for mutual benefit, won't spend the time to create the best, most unique gear, they want it dropped or they want to be able to craft everything themselves with no reliance on others.
These titles are largely about going through the motions for the most part, and everyone wants total control of everything, what they do, what others do to them, what they spend their time on, and they will brook no interference from anyone, be it player, game design or anything else that might spoil their "fun."
The needs of the many are definitely overlooked to cater to the needs of the one.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Both of you seem to be missing the point. It's not that x amount of people don't want to compete or like being "inside a box" it's that they want the CHOICE to do so. Like it or not people bring their real life tendencies and attitudes into game worlds. For some it's the drive to be the very best, often to egotistical proportions (like the need to insist that those of opposite opinion are less than or in need of help).
Most people want to work with other players, not against them. Isn't this mantra cited over and over? Why is this surprising?
Have your opinion but most people lose nothing by living in a virtual world devoid of the ability to attack or negetively effect others. It's still a virtual world, not a box. The exact proportions of "real life" stipulations will most likely never be applied to a virtual world. Not the to extent that a PvP fan can claim it should be for everyone.
They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.
When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.
Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.
15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.
I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?
Griefers haven't won anything. You are missing it I think.
SOE will provide space for those that don't want to participate in PVP or other similar things. Living in the box as you call it, although, the box could be an entire server.
They will most likely also provide the complete opposite with servers that allow for all types of rules and player controlled/governed/maintained things.
It doesn't have to be black and white. Grey is where the magic happens.
UO, heck I can go back before that to MUDs and griefers in text based worlds lol. Griefing is just part of things. It isn't 100% avoidable or preventable. Doesn't mean the ENTIRE GAME has to be some FFA crap storm.
Griefing only exists (to me), if a game was not designed a certain way and players are exploiting that.
DAoC FFA servers for example, the rules were "handle it yourself." Sure people could complain about griefing, but really it didn't exist. The entire point was to kill and harass one another and that is accepted on day 1 of making a character. There was also a PVE only server, where I'm assuming people would do stupid things and try to hassle one another, and this is where griefing exists. If you want to screw with others, play with like minded people.
Why you would want to play with "the box people" is beyond me. You play on you server, they play on theirs, and I'll play on something completely different, we all win. Sticking everyone on the same piece of land and going "do what you want" doesn't work because none of us want the same thing.
Personally, I plan on playing EQN unless LM offers a lot more with the help of creative players. I'm not a builder or too creative on my own, but would love to play in an environment or world mainly built by players with PVP and all that. Until something like that is under full swing, I'll stick to a PVP server (if it is done well) in EQN.
As a PVPer I always find these discussions amusing. I've seen my fair share of PVP/FFA/OW games go down in a ball of flames. If the system allows, I will camp your corpse all day long until you log off or bring some friends. Then I'll bring mine, and we have some real fun. It always sounds good when it is assumed you'll be the top dog, not so fun when you can't play THE WAY YOU WANT, because someone is stomping on your face.
One thing I've learned in ~19 years or so of online gaming, the loudest most "hardcore" players are usually the first to call "hacks", "cheater", "OP build", or just rage right out of the game. Be careful what you wish for. Some of us will be there waiting with axes and fireballs in hand
Edit: Nope, neither does SOE, so stop asking questions that are pointless.
Why would you have or allow griefing in EQNL? We are not talking about EQN and of course you can't destroy peoples hard earned claims. This is right in everyway as far as a game goes. I don't know what world people are living on but Landmark isn't EQN!
Originally posted by Tygranir Refund for what? You got everything you paid for.
Seems to me he is complaining because he can't gank other players. Good, ganking other players is freaking weak and contrary to what the PvPers would try and have you believe, involves zero skill, just a willingness to wait for someone to come along and engage a monster.
I like PvP, I cannot STAND chump gankers.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
the number one complaint in 7 days to die which is a voxel based similar game is how if you have a open server morons come in destroy your bases an grief you then leave. Key being the word morons here. People can rationalize bad behavior all they wish but being able to build projects that take numbers of days and hours to complete only to have some net nerd come in and destroy it for the shits and giggles should not be rewarded and removed. There can be reasonable pvp in games but to allow people to destroy what you built by griefing and nonsense destroys games in the long term. Go look at where shadowbane is and go look at crappy darkfall. Hell I remember the 4am raids on towns while everyone is sleeping in shadowbane and you log in to find whatever buildings were not protected by your tree of life completely destroyed and it took sometimes upward of a week to build. That mess got old really fast and I know I never want to see that garbage in a video game again. People who enjoy doing that shit got some serious mental issues for real....
Originally posted by Thorbrand Why would you have or allow griefing in EQNL? We are not talking about EQN and of course you can't destroy peoples hard earned claims. This is right in everyway as far as a game goes. I don't know what world people are living on but Landmark isn't EQN!
Read the links in OP, and/or this thread. You will see no one wants all those works of art/creations/visions to be destroyed.
Those things, or the people who want more freedoms need their own servers. This was never a pvp/pve debate I love them both. Some people are carrying years of baggage though, and that's all they can see...
This is a freedom vs restriction and course of development discussion.
I just can't see a game where people toil over creating structures to the best of their ability, farming materials over days, weeks, months, or even years would want to play a game where those labors of love can just be taken away in a fraction of the time they took to make it lol.
I think beach bullies comes to my mind, people want to build
and the non-consensual pvpers (Griefers imo in this kind of game) want to
Again though, I would not mind a PVP server, PVP island, or event setting to flag your claim at all...I am just not on board with forcing others (Like my wife who does not like PVP) to deal with your preferred gameplay that directly ruins their gameplay.
I would really even love to see and play with Guild claims that can go to war and attempt to invade each others castles or other structures with traps and other cool things to defeat intruders...just not as the base gameplay for everyone.
Originally posted by Thorbrand Why would you have or allow griefing in EQNL? We are not talking about EQN and of course you can't destroy peoples hard earned claims. This is right in everyway as far as a game goes. I don't know what world people are living on but Landmark isn't EQN!
Read the links in OP, and/or this thread. You will see no one wants all those works of art/creations/visions.
Those things, or the people who want more freedoms need their own servers. This was never a pvp/pve debate I love them both. Some people are carrying years of baggage though, and that's all they can see...
This is a freedom vs restriction and course of development discussion.
What does that even mean?
Freedom to play the way you want, even if that means doing things that others don't like? Or freedom to do what you want with others that want the same thing?
Again, you say it isn't a pvp/pve debate, then what are you talking about. SOE is going to allow for multiple types of systems. There isn't one system to rule them all.
They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.
When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.
Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.
15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.
I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?
It's more than that, people don't seem to want to "compete" anymore in MMO's, outside of controlled combat situations or PVE scenarios.
Not only do they wish to avoid non-consensual PVP, they aren't interested in competing for resource nodes, learning to form the best relationships in game for mutual benefit, won't spend the time to create the best, most unique gear, they want it dropped or they want to be able to craft everything themselves with no reliance on others.
These titles are largely about going through the motions for the most part, and everyone wants total control of everything, what they do, what others do to them, what they spend their time on, and they will brook no interference from anyone, be it player, game design or anything else that might spoil their "fun."
The needs of the many are definitely overlooked to cater to the needs of the one.
Because after over 10 years of it, it became older than dirt.
Call it for what it really is: burnout of the same resource "threats".
Call it for what it really is: sick of FFA PvP in the nth MMO.
Call it for what it really is: not worth the time or money to waste on griefers.
I want to build a shiny new cathedral in a very pretty locale. I don't want to build it where heathens can defile it because they're heathens, and doing it because they're bored heathens, like they do in the nth MMO.
The only danger I seek is that God will be angry if it's not done, not the wrath of fellow humans snorting cocaine and bragging they can in chat.
Until people can play like human beings in an anonymous social scene, PvP needs to stay in it's own corner.
I just can't see a game where people toil over creating structures to the best of their ability, farming materials over days, weeks, months, or even years would want to play a game where those labors of love can just be taken away in a fraction of the time they took to make it lol.
I think beach bullies comes to my mind, people want to build
and the non-consensual pvpers (Griefers imo in this kind of game) want to
Again though, I would not mind a PVP server, PVP island, or event setting to flag your claim at all...I am just not on board with forcing others (Like my wife who does not like PVP) to deal with your preferred gameplay that directly ruins their gameplay.
I would really even love to see and play with Guild claims that can go to war and attempt to invade each others castles or other structures with traps and other cool things to defeat intruders...just not as the base gameplay for everyone.
I keep coming back to Minecraft as an example of what might or might not work. Playing on Minecraft servers where players have unfettered freedom results in a couple of things that I've seen. One is the world is just a mess. It's nearly impossible to even run through populated areas, much less build anything. Two is that the players who have been there longer tend to farm the weaker players, especially the new players. Three is that players don't actually build anything visible, and nothing that isn't 100% functional. Think an obsidian box with a hidden water drop exit and possibly a bed the player can /home to if it's allowed on the server.
"Freedom" results in a lot of negatives when applied to the general gamer population.
A server that implements some restrictions on player behavior results in a very different experience. If players can claim chunks that give both build and PvP protections, then they build things worth seeing. Alliances with other players become meaningful and having a space to build and to be safe doesn't require being the largest single group on the server. Another side effect of build restrictions combined with allowing OW PvP outside of safe zones is that the world doesn't turn into swiss cheese, and new players are both careful, but not farmed.
Is SOE going too far into the "protective" side of things? Maybe, but probably not. Most Minecraft players aren't on PvP servers, and if they are, most of them are playing with friends, not the general public. A great many players are playing the single player version of the game. SOE has probably read this one correctly. Players who can have their constructions destroyed probably aren't going to build anything worth putting in EQN, which is why EQN:L exists. I'm not sure why people thought EQN:L was going to be a better Darkfall or Mortal Online.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Isn't Landmark about creating things though? I understand they will be adding in fighting and stuff .. but I thought all that was just extra.
Isn't EverQuest Next .. the game you should be more concerned with?
What you are doing is this, just to give an example I will use Kerbal Space Program (KSP).
The main point of the game KSP, is to create a space program and manage it while carrying out missions. It can also be played as a sandbox. Now, let's say the developers decide to add in missiles just to give a little extra for the players to do. Someone comes along and complains that they can't use the missiles to destroy other players and they believe there should be an entire separate server just to cater to the people who want that. When this was never the intention of the developer to begin with.
Keep in mind it's only an example. I don't think SOE ever said they where going to make Landmark into some pvp oriented game. They may have said they would add certain features, but that isn't the same thing.
I think you are focusing way to much on landmark and trying to make it something that it isn't even suppose to be. As I said, this is landmark .. not the main game. If they added everything like this, then what would the point of the main game be? It would be like creating the same game twice.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieltack/2013/10/02/everquest-next-landmark-is-much-more-than-a-world-builder/
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/11/11/everquest-next-landmark-is-gurps-for-mmos/
http://www.eqnextfans.com/tag/news
There's plenty more out there. What you see is here is that they are going out of their way to make sure people know "Landmark is not just a building tool".
Sadly, your opinion doesn't reflect the rest of the world. People love to destroy what others have built. Must be human nature or something. In every mmo that I've ever played, there has been people that have figure out ways to harass others. From the lone individual to huge guilds. Seems SOE is going to do their best to keep this from happening.
This is the default game mode from the sound of it. Works of "art" you mean everything and anything in Landmark? How do you determine what is art and what is free to destroy? What you want would be the "have their own server" type of deal.
At the same time, this is pretty much what they seem to have planned. Nice peaceful places for those that want it, while allowing others to opt-in to destroy one another in harmony.
Again, where have they said THE ENTIRE GAME will be the same? The better way is the way that you apparently are hearing as a whooshing sound going over your head. You are talking about a problem that doesn't exist...
You are very right that it is more than a "tool" but you might want to re-read those articles. You shouldn't need this thread afterwards.
They didn't in EQ.
They didn't in EQ2.
They didn't in SWG.
They didn't in PotBS.
They didn't in PS1/PS2.
So how in the world are people to believe it now, again?
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
They have openly said that they screwed up in other games and looking back would of done it differently. Even with the F2P model of EQ/EQ2, they've said they are trying to improve it in those games, while doing it different in EQN & LM, as they are in PS2.
It is impossible to stop all griefing/harassment. There are just too many jerks with too much free time to stop them all. Doesn't mean they can't do their best, as I said. Trying > doing nothing. Stopping completely =/= possible.
You might consider someone looking at you in game as griefing, not much they can do about that I guess. I played EQ for a while, EQ2/SWG/PS1 briefing, and play PS2 now and then. I've never felt bothered in any of them beyond chat spammers and people training mobs in EQ, but it was entertaining half the time, so not sure what you experienced. Everyone's mileage varies.
But they can try to limit the amount of power people have over one another that is unwelcome. Be it within an individual's claim or in the game world in general. Landmark has a huge range of possibilities, as well as limits.
I don't remember them having a lot of open discussions, video responses, polls, and players in development for those games either. So I guess they get people to believe with the whole actions speak louder then words.
It'll take action, and more than banning players from the game itself. -_-
Robbing people of their $$ over creative differences causes b-a-d enemies. That's the legacy SoE has to remedy, as it has hurt them for 11 years now.
I loved EQ2 the game itself, but that top/down hierarchy in the game with turds on the top -- as a major barrier to any real progression -- is a reason why I play WoW now than EQ2. When I checked out PS2...that crappy hierarchy is still there (e.g., the zerg mechanics feels every bit like it -- no room there for counter attacks when faced with 20+ vehicles aimed at a spawn area).
Yeah, actions definitely speaks louder than words.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
You thin kyou are so smart cause you link articles as if it really changes anything I said. In reality it only proves my point. Yes, it's more then just a building tool. However .. what is it's main focus? BUILDING
Do you really not understand that? It has all these extra things doesn't mean they have to focus on those extra things they are putting in.
I don't know if you are ... not very bright .. or just plainly trying to ignore what you don't want to hear. But seriously, you don't seem to get it.
I even gave you an example with KSP .. and it went right over your head -.-
Just because they start adding certain feature doesn't mean it's main focus has to change.
Outside of being a PVE building tool the point of EQN Landmark still seems to be up in the air. I don't know how I feel about this turn because I am still not truly sure what it is on its own merits outside of functioning as a an add on for EQN itself. The game looks like a fancy add on to the main game right now, a tool for housing, guild halls, and making things to sale to others for their use rather than a full fledged game. As such removing kill sources makes sense on paper, in the same way taking precautions with tools in your home wood working shop to protect the kids do.
In other words, even more casual than minecraft? yay!
...
They have stated that they only about 60% done with the game at this point. They have also said that the remaining 40% is where all the magic is going to happen.
Go watch the What is Everquest Next: Landmark Official Video. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA
Edit: Link to EQNL Forum Roadmap https://forums.station.sony.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/eqnl-roadmap.18810/
Steam: Neph
Right now Landmark is about explore/gather/build but the final iteration is supposed to be radically different. In about six weeks basic combat will be in along with armor/weapon/potions and mobs. Later more refined combat will come, reportedly where equipped weapon will determine combat abilities, sounds like pre ARR FF14. From there the "end game" for Landmark developemnt wise will be giving players the same in game tools the devs use to develop EQN content, including mobs (placement, pathing, behavior, etc.) and questing on player claims. The PC Gamer article featured Georgeson taking about players being DMs and Butler saying they want no seperation between the tools the players have in Landmark and SoE devs have in EQN.
Since Landmark servers and islands are freely traversable this could eventually mean a ton of content to play, depending on players creativity. Just in alpha there are about 100-200 claims per island, now 50 islands per server and five US/EU servers.
Regardless of Landmark being more than a building game it makes no sense to leve in features players can use to detriment other players. Even if the roles were reversed, with 25% wanting griefing amnesty, SoE would be foolish to subject that portion of thier community to something they don't want.
I'm glad SoE is stepping up and doing the right thing regarding sandbox gameplay.
The griefers have already won.
They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.
When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.
Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.
15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.
I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?
It's more than that, people don't seem to want to "compete" anymore in MMO's, outside of controlled combat situations or PVE scenarios.
Not only do they wish to avoid non-consensual PVP, they aren't interested in competing for resource nodes, learning to form the best relationships in game for mutual benefit, won't spend the time to create the best, most unique gear, they want it dropped or they want to be able to craft everything themselves with no reliance on others.
These titles are largely about going through the motions for the most part, and everyone wants total control of everything, what they do, what others do to them, what they spend their time on, and they will brook no interference from anyone, be it player, game design or anything else that might spoil their "fun."
The needs of the many are definitely overlooked to cater to the needs of the one.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Most people want to work with other players, not against them. Isn't this mantra cited over and over? Why is this surprising?
Have your opinion but most people lose nothing by living in a virtual world devoid of the ability to attack or negetively effect others. It's still a virtual world, not a box. The exact proportions of "real life" stipulations will most likely never be applied to a virtual world. Not the to extent that a PvP fan can claim it should be for everyone.
Griefers haven't won anything. You are missing it I think.
SOE will provide space for those that don't want to participate in PVP or other similar things. Living in the box as you call it, although, the box could be an entire server.
They will most likely also provide the complete opposite with servers that allow for all types of rules and player controlled/governed/maintained things.
It doesn't have to be black and white. Grey is where the magic happens.
UO, heck I can go back before that to MUDs and griefers in text based worlds lol. Griefing is just part of things. It isn't 100% avoidable or preventable. Doesn't mean the ENTIRE GAME has to be some FFA crap storm.
Griefing only exists (to me), if a game was not designed a certain way and players are exploiting that.
DAoC FFA servers for example, the rules were "handle it yourself." Sure people could complain about griefing, but really it didn't exist. The entire point was to kill and harass one another and that is accepted on day 1 of making a character. There was also a PVE only server, where I'm assuming people would do stupid things and try to hassle one another, and this is where griefing exists. If you want to screw with others, play with like minded people.
Why you would want to play with "the box people" is beyond me. You play on you server, they play on theirs, and I'll play on something completely different, we all win. Sticking everyone on the same piece of land and going "do what you want" doesn't work because none of us want the same thing.
Personally, I plan on playing EQN unless LM offers a lot more with the help of creative players. I'm not a builder or too creative on my own, but would love to play in an environment or world mainly built by players with PVP and all that. Until something like that is under full swing, I'll stick to a PVP server (if it is done well) in EQN.
As a PVPer I always find these discussions amusing. I've seen my fair share of PVP/FFA/OW games go down in a ball of flames. If the system allows, I will camp your corpse all day long until you log off or bring some friends. Then I'll bring mine, and we have some real fun. It always sounds good when it is assumed you'll be the top dog, not so fun when you can't play THE WAY YOU WANT, because someone is stomping on your face.
One thing I've learned in ~19 years or so of online gaming, the loudest most "hardcore" players are usually the first to call "hacks", "cheater", "OP build", or just rage right out of the game. Be careful what you wish for. Some of us will be there waiting with axes and fireballs in hand
Edit: Nope, neither does SOE, so stop asking questions that are pointless.
Seems to me he is complaining because he can't gank other players. Good, ganking other players is freaking weak and contrary to what the PvPers would try and have you believe, involves zero skill, just a willingness to wait for someone to come along and engage a monster.
I like PvP, I cannot STAND chump gankers.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Read the links in OP, and/or this thread. You will see no one wants all those works of art/creations/visions to be destroyed.
Those things, or the people who want more freedoms need their own servers. This was never a pvp/pve debate I love them both. Some people are carrying years of baggage though, and that's all they can see...
This is a freedom vs restriction and course of development discussion.
I just can't see a game where people toil over creating structures to the best of their ability, farming materials over days, weeks, months, or even years would want to play a game where those labors of love can just be taken away in a fraction of the time they took to make it lol.
I think beach bullies comes to my mind, people want to build
and the non-consensual pvpers (Griefers imo in this kind of game) want to
Again though, I would not mind a PVP server, PVP island, or event setting to flag your claim at all...I am just not on board with forcing others (Like my wife who does not like PVP) to deal with your preferred gameplay that directly ruins their gameplay.
I would really even love to see and play with Guild claims that can go to war and attempt to invade each others castles or other structures with traps and other cool things to defeat intruders...just not as the base gameplay for everyone.
What does that even mean?
Freedom to play the way you want, even if that means doing things that others don't like? Or freedom to do what you want with others that want the same thing?
Again, you say it isn't a pvp/pve debate, then what are you talking about. SOE is going to allow for multiple types of systems. There isn't one system to rule them all.
Because after over 10 years of it, it became older than dirt.
Call it for what it really is: burnout of the same resource "threats".
Call it for what it really is: sick of FFA PvP in the nth MMO.
Call it for what it really is: not worth the time or money to waste on griefers.
I want to build a shiny new cathedral in a very pretty locale. I don't want to build it where heathens can defile it because they're heathens, and doing it because they're bored heathens, like they do in the nth MMO.
The only danger I seek is that God will be angry if it's not done, not the wrath of fellow humans snorting cocaine and bragging they can in chat.
Until people can play like human beings in an anonymous social scene, PvP needs to stay in it's own corner.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I keep coming back to Minecraft as an example of what might or might not work. Playing on Minecraft servers where players have unfettered freedom results in a couple of things that I've seen. One is the world is just a mess. It's nearly impossible to even run through populated areas, much less build anything. Two is that the players who have been there longer tend to farm the weaker players, especially the new players. Three is that players don't actually build anything visible, and nothing that isn't 100% functional. Think an obsidian box with a hidden water drop exit and possibly a bed the player can /home to if it's allowed on the server.
"Freedom" results in a lot of negatives when applied to the general gamer population.
A server that implements some restrictions on player behavior results in a very different experience. If players can claim chunks that give both build and PvP protections, then they build things worth seeing. Alliances with other players become meaningful and having a space to build and to be safe doesn't require being the largest single group on the server. Another side effect of build restrictions combined with allowing OW PvP outside of safe zones is that the world doesn't turn into swiss cheese, and new players are both careful, but not farmed.
Is SOE going too far into the "protective" side of things? Maybe, but probably not. Most Minecraft players aren't on PvP servers, and if they are, most of them are playing with friends, not the general public. A great many players are playing the single player version of the game. SOE has probably read this one correctly. Players who can have their constructions destroyed probably aren't going to build anything worth putting in EQN, which is why EQN:L exists. I'm not sure why people thought EQN:L was going to be a better Darkfall or Mortal Online.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.