The way land mark seems to be going about things makes me think they took a page right out of firefalls development.
Nobody really seems to have any idea what they really want to build but if enough people ask for it they'll add it in.
I almost feel like they really have nothing designed beyond building tools, idk. Beta starts in 3 weeks though...
Umm......Landmark's primary focus is building. This has priority over pve and pvp. Maybe you are following the wrong game and EQN is the one you should be waiting on. This is their minecraft game. EQN is the one that is focusing on adventuring, parkour and pvp.
Landmark will be a lot more than structure building once it's fully fleshed out, PvE and PvP included. A good way to look at it, and similar has been said by SoE, Landmark will have content developed by players, EQN will have content developed by SoE.
Haha you guys are amazing, you actually WANT to be able to ruin for others? Oh jesus... Well, what if they made one server that this would be possible? A server where someone actually can ruin your whole gameplay.... lets make that and see how many will play on that server... probably not a lot of people.
Landmark will be a lot more than structure building once it's fully fleshed out, PvE and PvP included. A good way to look at it, and similar has been said by SoE, Landmark will have content developed by players, EQN will have content developed by SoE.
One of the ideas they have floated is having continents with different rule sets. Some continents would be "safe" and others would have monsters and a continent that not only has monsters, but has monsters inside player Landmarks.
Seems like they could do the same thing with PvP. It wouldn't make sense for a "safe" continent to have PvP, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be as many continents as there are rule sets. A continent with a PvP rule set, but building is protected and a continent with a PvP rule set and where destruction is possible, but only using siege weapons, and so on.
**
If continent generation is largely procedure, the additional cost for additional continents would be negligible.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Here is the community's problem. They all want it their way and if it isn't they gripe about it instead of moving on to a game that does have what they want in it. This then leads to the problem with developers, they want to try to be everything to everyone instead, of just trying to make a good game that appeals to a subset of people. These two things combined are the downfall of the MMO.
32% want Landmark to not have negative situations such as PvP or having their creations destroyed by other random players, what is wrong with them designing the game to accommodate that at the expense of those seeking mayhem and destruction. For god's sake the game doesn't have to accommodate everyone, rather it just has to accommodate enough to be profitable.
Same goes with PvP vs PvE, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a game that offers zero PvP and there are millions of players that would be perfectly find with a well made 100% PvE game that didn't face situations where PvP balancing screwed up PvE gameplay. Again the game doesn't have to be everything to everyone.
Anyway, the sooner developers start realizing this fundamental truth and start designing games that appeal to specific markets that would generate modest but still highly profitable games rather than trying to be the next WoW, the sooner we will actually have good MMOs again.
Separate continents of varying threats would be great, go when you have that itch to adventure against NPCs on a island with NPC theme threats, or even PVP islands. If they do this I hope the rewards scale based on the difficulty, like there should never be an exclusive material per se but some of the more rare materials/rewards should be gated behind the more dangerous tasks like mining in a pvp zone or exploring that cave with a dragon poking his head out lol.
Especially on PVP zones, if people lay claims there that are able to get torn up by others hopefully the material gathering side is lessened through abundant materials. That and it will still make for a nice day trip for PVP-PVErs who just want to maximize farming mats without fearing a bit of pvp.
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?
I think you really misunderstand things. Where you see freedom I see awful restrictions. Where you see restrictions I see freedom. I'm not happy to live in boxes..that's why I'm glad they don't allow other players to destroy people's creations or non-consensual PvP.
FFA PvP is the biggest restriction for me in a game, that's why I don't like games like that. How annoying it is when another player can stop me doing whatever I like, when he can waste my precious gaming time by forcing me to entertain him....where is my freedom then. I want a game where I can spend my time as I choose to, and that decision doesn't have to depend on the mood of some bullying kid who had a bad day and who wants to let his anger out on me or on my in-game creation. This is exactly the design I want to see in Landmark.
FFA PvP is the biggest restriction for me in a game, that's why I don't like games like that. How annoying it is when another player can stop me doing whatever I like, when he can waste my precious gaming time by forcing me to entertain him....where is my freedom then. I want a game where I can spend my time as I choose to, and that decision doesn't have to depend on the mood of some bullying kid who had a bad day and who wants to let his anger out on me or on my in-game creation. This is exactly the design I want to see in Landmark.
You have a really warped view of PvP. I think the best way for some like you and someone like me to coexist in gaming is to go with the specialty server. We just view gaming in such a completely different fashion.
Having said that in Landmark itself PvP doesn't make much sense unless it is consensual. In EQN I fully expect to see a PvP server.
FFA PvP is the biggest restriction for me in a game, that's why I don't like games like that. How annoying it is when another player can stop me doing whatever I like, when he can waste my precious gaming time by forcing me to entertain him....where is my freedom then. I want a game where I can spend my time as I choose to, and that decision doesn't have to depend on the mood of some bullying kid who had a bad day and who wants to let his anger out on me or on my in-game creation. This is exactly the design I want to see in Landmark.
You have a really warped view of PvP. I think the best way for some like you and someone like me to coexist in gaming is to go with the specialty server. We just view gaming in such a completely different fashion.
Having said that in Landmark itself PvP doesn't make much sense unless it is consensual. In EQN I fully expect to see a PvP server.
The issue is, even if players had a PvE server (like WoW offers) we're not free of the PvP, nor have options to turn it off, despite being on PvE servers (Shandris-Bronzebeard are PvE connected realms, not PvP).
New content that PvE players pay for, is being used to make content at their expense on those very PvE realms (Timeless Isle even allows same faction players TO KILL THEIR OWN FOR PVP COINS).
Enough of that madness.
Either it is PvE or it isn't. The two play styles are at odds in what their goals are to do in the game. Instance PvP is fine, because it's OFF THE SERVER.
....The two play styles are at odds in what their goals are to do in the game. Instance PvP is fine, because it's OFF THE SERVER.
As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder.
Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that.
That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?
/problem solved
edit - the last time I played WoW pallys were impossible to kill anyways!!!
This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that.
....The two play styles are at odds in what their goals are to do in the game. Instance PvP is fine, because it's OFF THE SERVER.
As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder.
Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that.
That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?
/problem solved
edit - the last time I played WoW pallys were impossible to kill anyways!!!
Play WoW now and see what the World of Stuncraft has done to paladins. It ain't fun.
And "emergent game play" maybe your cup of tea, but when I rolled my toon on a PvE server it was to play on a server where the PvE is the content. That means anything but PvP and it's concepts.
It takes much more resources to make a good PvE game as art assets aren't cheap, but that's PvE, and players who enjoy it roll on PvE realms and pay for that content.
So solving that problem is this: PvE realm = PvE content and PvP realm = PvP content.
....The two play styles are at odds in what their goals are to do in the game. Instance PvP is fine, because it's OFF THE SERVER.
As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder.
Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that.
That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?
/problem solved
So it isn't either, but then you say turn PVP off, implying that it is on by default...
Emergent is just a buzzword like sandbox. It means whatever you want it to mean. There is no one definition or meaning.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just have either PVP or PVE servers (various types of each even) and then provide the tools for players to do what they want within those rule sets? No default anything.
Log in to an empty world. Up to players to do it all.
The only problem is the one you've created. SOE sounds to be doing pretty much what you are suggesting. Again, not sure why the need to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.
Now when it comes to EQN. If they try to make it a PVP or PVE game by default and then tack on one afterwards. That will be an issue. I'm hoping they get that figured out. As the story, lore, AI, quests, world in general can be built completely different depending on the games focus or lack of one.
....The two play styles are at odds in what their goals are to do in the game. Instance PvP is fine, because it's OFF THE SERVER.
As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder.
Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that.
That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?
/problem solved
edit - the last time I played WoW pallys were impossible to kill anyways!!!
Play WoW now and see what the World of Stuncraft has done to paladins. It ain't fun.
And "emergent game play" maybe your cup of tea, but when I rolled my toon on a PvE server it was to play on a server where the PvE is the content. That means anything but PvP and it's concepts.
It takes much more resources to make a good PvE game as art assets aren't cheap, but that's PvE, and players who enjoy it roll on PvE realms and pay for that content.
So solving that problem is this: PvE realm = PvE content and PvP realm = PvP content.
/solved
I hope SOE doesn't provide any content or at least very little. I'd rather have a clean slate and let players build the world.
Only difference would be that PVP would allow for players to attack one anther. Beyond that SOE doesn't have to do anything.
No extra content, resources, balance, etc. It is up to players to decide what goes. Would need various types of servers probably, but takes little effort on their part and puts all the load on us.
EQN is a completely different beast though. That needs a lot of work upfront.
Originally posted by Prhyme This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that.
Sadly that's what the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same.
I'm confused. Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game. Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?
Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be. This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene. Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.
Don't get me wrong, I love PvP. But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it. I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay. I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.
Somehow most players equate sandbox with ffa pvp. IDK where it started, but I'm glad SoE doesn't agree. FFA PvP is the lowest form of PvP there is, bacause it usually revolves around griefing no matter how people try to spin it as otherwise.
Originally posted by Prhyme This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that.
Sadly that's what the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same.
You do realize that currently all you can do is gather and build right? Unless you are a builder fan, there is very little to do. Once more systems are incorporated, more diverse fans will be on more. At least speaking for myself.
I'm still under the assumption that you don't even know what you are having an issue with though. This "NO!" situation isn't real.
There is nothing in place to have any level of PVP or more depth to game play as it hasn't been added. At least wait until they start actually adding more things before going all doom and gloom.
I'm confused. Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game. Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?
Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be. This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene. Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.
Don't get me wrong, I love PvP. But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it. I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay. I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.
It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture. I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)
To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.
Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.
Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.
Originally posted by Prhyme This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that.
Sadly that's what the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same.
You do realize that currently all you can do is gather and build right? Unless you are a builder fan, there is very little to do. Once more systems are incorporated, more diverse fans will be on more. At least speaking for myself.
I'm still under the assumption that you don't even know what you are having an issue with though. This "NO!" situation isn't real.
There is nothing in place to have any level of PVP or more depth to game play as it hasn't been added. At least wait until they start actually adding more things before going all doom and gloom.
It's Alpha, I can't think of a better time for a gamer to say "Heeeey!" No one will be able to say "BC you should have said something back in Alpha!"
Plus I do it for the people who are not in, who have the same interest. Who would also have issue with the tone and course of development.
Its good to see BC paying attention to this title. But i think you guys are missing one major point here. EQ Next is still on the way? wont we have our fill of PvP from that title? the separate game? If this is the building sandbox, Landmark holds its effectiveness as a building game, i was under the assumption that "NEXT" was going to be a more full featured MMO?
Another simple solution stands here: Public Claims - Simply allow the creation of Public Claim Flags, when placed the claim is open to the public.
that would seem to allow people that wanted to open a claim up to everyone to do so. And if they made servers like BC is saying then on pvp servers there would be a higher number of public claims, and everyones private claims can still be seen in game that way as well.
I'm confused. Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game. Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?
Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be. This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene. Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.
Don't get me wrong, I love PvP. But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it. I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay. I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.
It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture. I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)
To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.
Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.
Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.
Given that the reason EQN:L exists is so that players can build things and put them into EQN, for a price, I'm not sure why anyone would make the jump to EQN:L needing to be an OW PvP game with the ability to destroy what people are building. That is basically the opposite of the original purpose of the game. The base game will be a building game, like single player Minecraft. Maybe with monsters, maybe not.
That said, the developers have already mentioned different continents or different servers can or will have different rule sets. They are miles away from it right now, but it is something they've mentioned in interviews and such because people want monsters and PvP.
Maybe instead of getting all bent out of shape because a developer doesn't want to build a game for the smallest audience possible, be happy that one of the larger developers is building a game that could accommodate one of the smallest audiences possible within the folds of one of their games*.
**
* Not Kyllien in particular, just the doom and gloom crowd in general.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I suspect they'll have a way to turn pvp on or have zones specifically for pvp. I agree they should have zones/servers for that for people that want it. Normally, I would choose a pvp server, but in Landmark, I really don't see the need for it, since the building part is what I like best about the game. In this particular game I just haven't had the urge to wanna pvp anyone. At the moment I'm really liking the mature community as well, I'm sure that's because it's mostly adults with the money to plop down $60-$100 for the game. Once it goes free to play, there goes the community lol. Hopefully, can get a server going where most of us that are in alpha atm will be going to, to at least have us all in one place...Not sure that will happen, but would be nice.
I'm confused. Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game. Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?
Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be. This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene. Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.
Don't get me wrong, I love PvP. But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it. I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay. I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.
It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture. I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)
To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.
Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.
Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.
EQN:L is not going to be an MMORPG. It is just a toolset/minecraft game to build in. Those items being built could and may be used in EQN to help curtail development costs.
EQN is the game that will have combat, PVP, dungeons, etc....
Here's the thread the actual poll was attached too, from the EQN site. Everyone can post here.
Well.. it's SOE they never undestood PvP, or made any strong pvp game.. they are by heart a PvE company. So i am not really surprised.. the best one could hope are either pvp(player effecting mechanismn) enabled servers or continents.
Comments
Umm......Landmark's primary focus is building. This has priority over pve and pvp. Maybe you are following the wrong game and EQN is the one you should be waiting on. This is their minecraft game. EQN is the one that is focusing on adventuring, parkour and pvp.
Landmark will be a lot more than structure building once it's fully fleshed out, PvE and PvP included. A good way to look at it, and similar has been said by SoE, Landmark will have content developed by players, EQN will have content developed by SoE.
One of the ideas they have floated is having continents with different rule sets. Some continents would be "safe" and others would have monsters and a continent that not only has monsters, but has monsters inside player Landmarks.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieltack/2013/10/02/everquest-next-landmark-is-much-more-than-a-world-builder/
Seems like they could do the same thing with PvP. It wouldn't make sense for a "safe" continent to have PvP, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be as many continents as there are rule sets. A continent with a PvP rule set, but building is protected and a continent with a PvP rule set and where destruction is possible, but only using siege weapons, and so on.
**
If continent generation is largely procedure, the additional cost for additional continents would be negligible.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Here is the community's problem. They all want it their way and if it isn't they gripe about it instead of moving on to a game that does have what they want in it. This then leads to the problem with developers, they want to try to be everything to everyone instead, of just trying to make a good game that appeals to a subset of people. These two things combined are the downfall of the MMO.
32% want Landmark to not have negative situations such as PvP or having their creations destroyed by other random players, what is wrong with them designing the game to accommodate that at the expense of those seeking mayhem and destruction. For god's sake the game doesn't have to accommodate everyone, rather it just has to accommodate enough to be profitable.
Same goes with PvP vs PvE, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a game that offers zero PvP and there are millions of players that would be perfectly find with a well made 100% PvE game that didn't face situations where PvP balancing screwed up PvE gameplay. Again the game doesn't have to be everything to everyone.
Anyway, the sooner developers start realizing this fundamental truth and start designing games that appeal to specific markets that would generate modest but still highly profitable games rather than trying to be the next WoW, the sooner we will actually have good MMOs again.
Separate continents of varying threats would be great, go when you have that itch to adventure against NPCs on a island with NPC theme threats, or even PVP islands. If they do this I hope the rewards scale based on the difficulty, like there should never be an exclusive material per se but some of the more rare materials/rewards should be gated behind the more dangerous tasks like mining in a pvp zone or exploring that cave with a dragon poking his head out lol.
Especially on PVP zones, if people lay claims there that are able to get torn up by others hopefully the material gathering side is lessened through abundant materials. That and it will still make for a nice day trip for PVP-PVErs who just want to maximize farming mats without fearing a bit of pvp.
I think you really misunderstand things. Where you see freedom I see awful restrictions. Where you see restrictions I see freedom. I'm not happy to live in boxes..that's why I'm glad they don't allow other players to destroy people's creations or non-consensual PvP.
FFA PvP is the biggest restriction for me in a game, that's why I don't like games like that. How annoying it is when another player can stop me doing whatever I like, when he can waste my precious gaming time by forcing me to entertain him....where is my freedom then. I want a game where I can spend my time as I choose to, and that decision doesn't have to depend on the mood of some bullying kid who had a bad day and who wants to let his anger out on me or on my in-game creation. This is exactly the design I want to see in Landmark.
You have a really warped view of PvP. I think the best way for some like you and someone like me to coexist in gaming is to go with the specialty server. We just view gaming in such a completely different fashion.
Having said that in Landmark itself PvP doesn't make much sense unless it is consensual. In EQN I fully expect to see a PvP server.
The issue is, even if players had a PvE server (like WoW offers) we're not free of the PvP, nor have options to turn it off, despite being on PvE servers (Shandris-Bronzebeard are PvE connected realms, not PvP).
New content that PvE players pay for, is being used to make content at their expense on those very PvE realms (Timeless Isle even allows same faction players TO KILL THEIR OWN FOR PVP COINS).
Enough of that madness.
Either it is PvE or it isn't. The two play styles are at odds in what their goals are to do in the game. Instance PvP is fine, because it's OFF THE SERVER.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder.
Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that.
That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?
/problem solved
edit - the last time I played WoW pallys were impossible to kill anyways!!!
Play WoW now and see what the World of Stuncraft has done to paladins. It ain't fun.
And "emergent game play" maybe your cup of tea, but when I rolled my toon on a PvE server it was to play on a server where the PvE is the content. That means anything but PvP and it's concepts.
It takes much more resources to make a good PvE game as art assets aren't cheap, but that's PvE, and players who enjoy it roll on PvE realms and pay for that content.
So solving that problem is this: PvE realm = PvE content and PvP realm = PvP content.
/solved
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
So it isn't either, but then you say turn PVP off, implying that it is on by default...
Emergent is just a buzzword like sandbox. It means whatever you want it to mean. There is no one definition or meaning.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just have either PVP or PVE servers (various types of each even) and then provide the tools for players to do what they want within those rule sets? No default anything.
Log in to an empty world. Up to players to do it all.
The only problem is the one you've created. SOE sounds to be doing pretty much what you are suggesting. Again, not sure why the need to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.
Now when it comes to EQN. If they try to make it a PVP or PVE game by default and then tack on one afterwards. That will be an issue. I'm hoping they get that figured out. As the story, lore, AI, quests, world in general can be built completely different depending on the games focus or lack of one.
I hope SOE doesn't provide any content or at least very little. I'd rather have a clean slate and let players build the world.
Only difference would be that PVP would allow for players to attack one anther. Beyond that SOE doesn't have to do anything.
No extra content, resources, balance, etc. It is up to players to decide what goes. Would need various types of servers probably, but takes little effort on their part and puts all the load on us.
EQN is a completely different beast though. That needs a lot of work upfront.
Sadly that's what the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same.
Everquest Next: Landmark is for a doozer community:
Why the hell would you invite a fraggle to the party?
You know what they eat right?
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Somehow most players equate sandbox with ffa pvp. IDK where it started, but I'm glad SoE doesn't agree. FFA PvP is the lowest form of PvP there is, bacause it usually revolves around griefing no matter how people try to spin it as otherwise.
You do realize that currently all you can do is gather and build right? Unless you are a builder fan, there is very little to do. Once more systems are incorporated, more diverse fans will be on more. At least speaking for myself.
I'm still under the assumption that you don't even know what you are having an issue with though. This "NO!" situation isn't real.
There is nothing in place to have any level of PVP or more depth to game play as it hasn't been added. At least wait until they start actually adding more things before going all doom and gloom.
It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture. I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)
To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.
Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.
Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.
It's Alpha, I can't think of a better time for a gamer to say "Heeeey!" No one will be able to say "BC you should have said something back in Alpha!"
Plus I do it for the people who are not in, who have the same interest. Who would also have issue with the tone and course of development.
Its good to see BC paying attention to this title. But i think you guys are missing one major point here. EQ Next is still on the way? wont we have our fill of PvP from that title? the separate game? If this is the building sandbox, Landmark holds its effectiveness as a building game, i was under the assumption that "NEXT" was going to be a more full featured MMO?
Another simple solution stands here: Public Claims - Simply allow the creation of Public Claim Flags, when placed the claim is open to the public.
that would seem to allow people that wanted to open a claim up to everyone to do so. And if they made servers like BC is saying then on pvp servers there would be a higher number of public claims, and everyones private claims can still be seen in game that way as well.
Given that the reason EQN:L exists is so that players can build things and put them into EQN, for a price, I'm not sure why anyone would make the jump to EQN:L needing to be an OW PvP game with the ability to destroy what people are building. That is basically the opposite of the original purpose of the game. The base game will be a building game, like single player Minecraft. Maybe with monsters, maybe not.
That said, the developers have already mentioned different continents or different servers can or will have different rule sets. They are miles away from it right now, but it is something they've mentioned in interviews and such because people want monsters and PvP.
Maybe instead of getting all bent out of shape because a developer doesn't want to build a game for the smallest audience possible, be happy that one of the larger developers is building a game that could accommodate one of the smallest audiences possible within the folds of one of their games*.
**
* Not Kyllien in particular, just the doom and gloom crowd in general.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
EQN:L is not going to be an MMORPG. It is just a toolset/minecraft game to build in. Those items being built could and may be used in EQN to help curtail development costs.
EQN is the game that will have combat, PVP, dungeons, etc....
Well.. it's SOE they never undestood PvP, or made any strong pvp game.. they are by heart a PvE company. So i am not really surprised.. the best one could hope are either pvp(player effecting mechanismn) enabled servers or continents.