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....
That is the reason they started building EQN:L, but that's not where they are stopping with it. People will be building things for EQN, but there is enough interest in an unscripted game world that they are adding additional game elements.
If you think this is a money saving venture on the part of SOE, you have obviously not built a software system using two separate code paths with shared libraries. It may not be as expensive as two completely different applications, but it's not cheaper than just writing one application. They are doing this because they believe that enough people will play EQN:L as a game to make it worth their time. Maybe they think it will push people into EQN. What they are not thinking is that it will be cheaper to write EQN and EQN:L versus just writing EQN.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That is the reason they started building EQN:L, but that's not where they are stopping with it. People will be building things for EQN, but there is enough interest in an unscripted game world that they are adding additional game elements.
If you think this is a money saving venture on the part of SOE, you have obviously not built a software system using two separate code paths with shared libraries. It may not be as expensive as two completely different applications, but it's not cheaper than just writing one application. They are doing this because they believe that enough people will play EQN:L as a game to make it worth their time. Maybe they think it will push people into EQN. What they are not thinking is that it will be cheaper to write EQN and EQN:L versus just writing EQN.
Who said anything about writing EQN. EQN:L allows people to model structure and items. SOE will take those said assest and use them in EQN, thus saving time and artist/model pay.
EQN:L is being used as a cost saving measure for EQN. Yes, they are adding things to EQN to attract people to spend money on it because SOE wants to turn a profit on stuff they produce.
EQN:L is still going to be a sole source controlled Minecraft experience. It will not be the "MMORPG" that is controlled by the players that was quoted a few posts up.
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.
Planetside 2 and it's 6 million players beg to differ. SOE and the Forgelight engine are capable of create revolutionary pvp. EQ:L is made from the same engine. Heck the worlds look exactly the same.
But yes, different sever types seems to be the answer.
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....
That is the reason they started building EQN:L, but that's not where they are stopping with it. People will be building things for EQN, but there is enough interest in an unscripted game world that they are adding additional game elements.
If you think this is a money saving venture on the part of SOE, you have obviously not built a software system using two separate code paths with shared libraries. It may not be as expensive as two completely different applications, but it's not cheaper than just writing one application. They are doing this because they believe that enough people will play EQN:L as a game to make it worth their time. Maybe they think it will push people into EQN. What they are not thinking is that it will be cheaper to write EQN and EQN:L versus just writing EQN.
Who said anything about writing EQN. EQN:L allows people to model structure and items. SOE will take those said assest and use them in EQN, thus saving time and artist/model pay.
EQN:L is being used as a cost saving measure for EQN. Yes, they are adding things to EQN to attract people to spend money on it because SOE wants to turn a profit on stuff they produce.
EQN:L is still going to be a sole source controlled Minecraft experience. It will not be the "MMORPG" that is controlled by the players that was quoted a few posts up.
I quoted your post back in because this is going to make more sense with your post in there rather than snipped out.
You are saying that EQN:L is going to be a cost saving measure. It's not. It might generate more money, but it's not going to be cheaper to produce and run two separate games than to run one game. Especially given the amount of man power it's going to take to vet all the content from EQN:L that will eventually end up in EQN. Never mind that even if they run on the same engine there will be a separation of code between the two games. No cost saving is going to happen. They think they will make more money.
Here's an interview with a developer, talking about the goal of EQN:L being a full blown MMORPG.
Additional to what Lizard is saying Landmark isn't just about building structures for EQN. SoE plans to have the same tools in Landmark for the players to create content as the SoE developers have to make EQN. This means not only free roaming mobs placed by SoE in public areas but mobs/quest content on player claims. In the end Landmark will indeed be a full featured MMO, created by players. All islands/servers are freely travelled and at 50 islands a server... There will be a lot of content to play.
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.
As someone who has loved PvP for 25 years now dating back to doing in MUDs, EQ was one of the better PvP games to be made. Newer games are the ones that don't understand PvP. I want to have organic fights over content that matters, not just trade objectives all day.
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.
You are correct, this is the best type to bring up such topics, but currently, they are planning pretty much what you want, unless I'm totally missing something?
They want PVE, PVP, players creating worlds to play in, etc. Just no griefing. Obviously we all have different ideas of these terms, but to me, there is no griefing in PVP unless it is exploiting a flaw or bug in the game, not the actual interactions themselves.
The tone and course of development is the exact same since the reveal. Latest video wasn't "We love Carebears!". It was "we don't like griefers."
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.
You are correct, this is the best type to bring up such topics, but currently, they are planning pretty much what you want, unless I'm totally missing something?
They want PVE, PVP, players creating worlds to play in, etc. Just no griefing. Obviously we all have different ideas of these terms, but to me, there is no griefing in PVP unless it is exploiting a flaw or bug in the game, not the actual interactions themselves.
The tone and course of development is the exact same since the reveal. Latest video wasn't "We love Carebears!". It was "we don't like griefers."
This was exactly my thoguhts on the matter. To me it does not sound like they are catering to the carebears. It simply sounded like they don't want players taking advantage of some features to screw with other players and griefing them.
I don't know about you, but the math looks pretty clear that 51% of people want controlled or no death experience where as 49% want complete mayhem. The type of people that play these games are not huge PvP'ers so it would be ignorant for SOE to make it that impactful.
With regards to the refund, get one. Please. Just means less people like yourself voting in these polls.
I don't know about you, but the math looks pretty clear that 51% of people want controlled or no death experience where as 49% want complete mayhem. The type of people that play these games are not huge PvP'ers so it would be ignorant for SOE to make it that impactful.
With regards to the refund, get one. Please. Just means less people like yourself voting in these polls.
Landmark will fail with 50% of anything.
I don't think you understand, there are 250 or so islands right now. The entire population of the game that is currently playing could fit on 1 island.
It's not that these islands are empty, the are abandoned. They are covered with the abandoned claims of people who a)bought, b) began to play, c)stopped completely within the 1st month of access.
I believe the heavy handed restrictions on building, and the current stance on future gameplay, born out the fear of griefing, is too high a price, for this title to pay and still be successful.
I don't think having players build only on claims and future counter measures to griefing are why some aren't playing. First, only SoE knows metrics on how many people play and second the two reasons above are highly subjective. I think you are reflecting your own bias here.
If I had to guess at the reasons for partial retention it wild be that not all features are in and are buggy and the performance is not great, especially for those that have weaker CPUs. In recent times only GPU updates have been needed to play newer games. In Landmark alpha, that is not optimized, you need a nice CPU to play well. I'd say that's a more reasonable explanation than because SoE wants to remove player griefing.
Finally, it's about 25% of people that want what you're proposing, not 50%. I hope SoE has many islands that have OWPvP but removing universal ways to mess with people, such as enlarging trees and rotating them to cover another players claim. That must be done to keep immature people from affecting others gameplay, that is done on a finite amount of playtime.
I don't think having players build only on claims and future counter measures to griefing are why some aren't playing. First, only SoE knows metrics on how many people play and second the two reasons above are highly subjective. I think you are reflecting your own bias here.
If I had to guess at the reasons for partial retention it wild be that not all features are in and are buggy and the performance is not great, especially for those that have weaker CPUs. In recent times only GPU updates have been needed to play newer games. In Landmark alpha, that is not optimized, you need a nice CPU to play well. I'd say that's a more reasonable explanation than because SoE wants to remove player griefing.
Finally, it's about 25% of people that want what you're proposing, not 50%. I hope SoE has many islands that have OWPvP but removing universal ways to mess with people, such as enlarging trees and rotating them to cover another players claim. That must be done to keep immature people from affecting others gameplay, that is done on a finite amount of playtime.
I agree 100%, with the highlighted. You are completely right. The game being boring doesn't help either though.
Landmark makes Hello Kitty look wild and dangerous (think about this), and Minecraft like the god of anarchy. There needs to be some semblance of balance in this tools eeer "sandbox" development.
As for the last don't put words in my mouth, it's not polite. I'm proposing nothing more, or nothing less than what I have written in these pages, and the pages on the Landmark forums.
To my understanding, you can still play EQL without worrying about death. EQN is where death comes into context. And the way SOE is presenting death in EQN, it seems like WoW. Whoops I died, guess I get unlimited tries.
That's only for alpha, there will be fall damage and damage from fire, volcanic, drowning, mobs, etc. when they put it in. It's just not in yet because, well .. it's alpha.
P.S. If anyone's not happy with Landmark, they can get a refund, no reason to complain they wasted $60-$100 if you can get a refund, and it's kinda funny to take your ball and go home because you can't get your way in a game they clearly already have laid out and planned. Don't like it? Don't play it, no one's forcing you to.
To my understanding, you can still play EQL without worrying about death. EQN is where death comes into context. And the way SOE is presenting death in EQN, it seems like WoW. Whoops I died, guess I get unlimited tries.
That's only for alpha, there will be fall damage and damage from fire, volcanic, drowning, mobs, etc. when they put it in. It's just not in yet because, well .. it's alpha.
supposedly a death penalty too.
"Death Penalty: Yes, death will have teeth. Try not to die."
To my understanding, you can still play EQL without worrying about death. EQN is where death comes into context. And the way SOE is presenting death in EQN, it seems like WoW. Whoops I died, guess I get unlimited tries.
That's only for alpha, there will be fall damage and damage from fire, volcanic, drowning, mobs, etc. when they put it in. It's just not in yet because, well .. it's alpha.
supposedly a death penalty too.
"Death Penalty: Yes, death will have teeth. Try not to die."
Woo didn't catch that part about the death penalty, ty Bcbully
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm confused at what "50% want more means." The point of this thread was to speak out against SoE taking out non consensual ways to make another player die, right? If not then my apologies, that's why you seemed to be taking about.
That's why I said that 25% of players want that, at the most (lumping all PvP fans into the group that want to effect others by death). That percentage is very generous as there are many PvPers that want to PvP with other PvPers, not demanding others follow suit.
I know this isn't just about PvP but my question would be whether those that want to be able to kill other players by non direct PvP would be higher than those who just want to PvP. I can't see how and certainly not a 25-50% jump.
The deal here is "opt in." mayhem, like Darren said. I like mayhem and I'll probably be on PvP islands far more than PvE but the idea is that a player is able to choose to do that. Taking out non consensual methods of killing or seriously harassing other players makes that system work.
So 50% servers catering to PVE and 50% to PVP will be a failure if people play on both?
I don't think you understand, there are 250 or so islands right now. The entire population of the game that is currently playing could fit on 1 island.
Have you been playing from launch? People have wanted more land, more claims, more room to grow, not stacked on top of one another. FYI the entire human population could fit in Texas, doesn't mean that would be a smart idea.
It's not that these islands are empty, the are abandoned. They are covered with the abandoned claims of people who a)bought, b) began to play, c)stopped completely within the 1st month of access.
How do you know this? You travel to all 250 and do a head count and progress check? You sure can't see what I'm doing unless you find my "hidden" entrance into my mountain build. Upkeep will also get rid of this issue in the long run. I spend a lot of time roaming around and new stuff to see everyday. It is Alpha after all, I'm assuming many aren't devoting every waking hour for builds that will get wiped and have little impact on the future.
I believe the heavy handed restrictions on building, and the current stance on future gameplay, born out the fear of griefing, is too high a price, for this title to pay and still be successful.
What restrictions? You can't screw with other people that don't want to be screwed with? You want griefing? Do you have any examples of things you want possible that aren't or won't be?
Originally posted by bcbully
The game being boring doesn't help either though.
What is boring about it considering the current develop stage? If you don't like building, uh ya a building game probably isn't for you. Not that it won't be more down the line, but that is current stage.
Landmark makes Hello Kitty look wild and dangerous (think about this), and Minecraft like the god of anarchy. There needs to be some semblance of balance in this tools eeer "sandbox" development.
As for the last don't put words in my mouth, it's not polite. I'm proposing nothing more, or nothing less than what I have written in these pages, and the pages on the Landmark forums.
50% want more.
What I've gathered from all this is that you expect Landmark to be feature complete today. With every future planned system in place and ready for you to play with. Since they are not available and YOU can't do what YOU want to do, the game is heading for failure or some disaster.
You seem to be proposing what SOE is planning. You can't skip to the end. It's like showing up to a construction site and looking at pile of supplies going "This house sucks, there isn't even any walls." Who cares if the contractor told you it wouldn't be ready for a few months, you are there now.
If this isn't what you are talking about, then I'm lost. Landmark will be whatever we make it. Except griefers aren't invited to the party. They haven't said anything that would have me believe that players won't have a good amount of control over the world, just not on others that do not want it.
So 50% servers catering to PVE and 50% to PVP will be a failure if people play on both?
I don't think you understand, there are 250 or so islands right now. The entire population of the game that is currently playing could fit on 1 island.
Have you been playing from launch? People have wanted more land, more claims, more room to grow, not stacked on top of one another. FYI the entire human population could fit in Texas, doesn't mean that would be a smart idea.
It's not that these islands are empty, the are abandoned. They are covered with the abandoned claims of people who a)bought, b) began to play, c)stopped completely within the 1st month of access.
How do you know this? You travel to all 250 and do a head count and progress check? You sure can't see what I'm doing unless you find my "hidden" entrance into my mountain build. Upkeep will also get rid of this issue in the long run. I spend a lot of time roaming around and new stuff to see everyday. It is Alpha after all, I'm assuming many aren't devoting every waking hour for builds that will get wiped and have little impact on the future.
I believe the heavy handed restrictions on building, and the current stance on future gameplay, born out the fear of griefing, is too high a price, for this title to pay and still be successful.
What restrictions? You can't screw with other people that don't want to be screwed with? You want griefing? Do you have any examples of things you want possible that aren't or won't be?
Originally posted by bcbully
The game being boring doesn't help either though.
What is boring about it considering the current develop stage? If you don't like building, uh ya a building game probably isn't for you. Not that it won't be more down the line, but that is current stage.
Landmark makes Hello Kitty look wild and dangerous (think about this), and Minecraft like the god of anarchy. There needs to be some semblance of balance in this tools eeer "sandbox" development.
As for the last don't put words in my mouth, it's not polite. I'm proposing nothing more, or nothing less than what I have written in these pages, and the pages on the Landmark forums.
50% want more.
What I've gathered from all this is that you expect Landmark to be feature complete today. With every future planned system in place and ready for you to play with. Since they are not available and YOU can't do what YOU want to do, the game is heading for failure or some disaster.
You seem to be proposing what SOE is planning. You can't skip to the end. It's like showing up to a construction site and looking at pile of supplies going "This house sucks, there isn't even any walls." Who cares if the contractor told you it wouldn't be ready for a few months, you are there now.
If this isn't what you are talking about, then I'm lost. Landmark will be whatever we make it. Except griefers aren't invited to the party. They haven't said anything that would have me believe that players won't have a good amount of control over the world, just not on others that do not want it.
I hope things do get better. I don't have much faith in vision of this team though. There's no balance. Grief = Building blocks around someone. PvP = mining the same node - "...Right now, when you harvest, it’s a race for those resources against other people. It’s almost a PvP-ish kind of feeling. We don’t want that." The kicker with this statement is, there's no rush of people, there aren't miners everywhere going at it. Seeing another person close to you is the exception, not the norm.
They are adding MOBS and death. Guess what guys? Every mmorpg ever has had MOBS and death. How will Omeed and Darrin implement these mobs? If grief is having blocks built around you, what do you think a death penalty will be?
There is a very conservative team building on the wildest platform the industry has seen. Landmark should not be your standard mmo with a housing feature.
There is no way I am spending hours harvesting and collecting and building and then some clown comes and destroys it in like a minute. No way will I support such a game especially because of the sheer amount of time my work cost me and the other person puts nothing in except to destroy and grief me. I will vehemently support any suggestion to curtail any such negative behaviour.
I feel the same way. Although why not a Peace and War server ruleset or a Peace Territory and War Territory (of appropriate size for number of players) so that the PvPers can have their game, too?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I hope things do get better. I don't have much faith in vision of this team though. There's no balance. Grief = Building blocks around someone. PvP = mining the same node - "...Right now, when you harvest, it’s a race for those resources against other people. It’s almost a PvP-ish kind of feeling. We don’t want that." The kicker with this statement is, there's no rush of people, there aren't miners everywhere going at it. Seeing another person close to you is the exception, not the norm.
They are adding MOBS and death. Guess what guys? Every mmorpg ever has had MOBS and death. How will Omeed and Darrin implement these mobs? If grief is having blocks built around you, what do you think a death penalty will be?
There is a very conservative team building on the wildest platform the industry has seen. Landmark should not be your standard mmo with a housing feature.
They mention a couple time not wanting players to "overly negatively effect players...or experience"
If I die in PVP, I'm not happy, but I'm not being "negatively impacted" I'm playing the game. That is a lot different then someone digging deep holes around a starting area where people can fall to their death without any idea what is going on.
"Hacking down same tree..those things are going to happen" or in other words it is fine. Your quote seems to be going down the team work approach and having ways for players to work together instead of fighting over basic things.
"it's a destruction game"
"opt-in mayhem (PVP)"
While I really hope that there is a PVP server that has player conflict on and off claims, currently they are planning PVP on claims at least. With the intention of making single or group claims into large areas.
Do you have any examples of what you would like to see? Be it something that is default or on specific rule set servers? You call them conservative, you are expecting DayZ in Norrath?
I am starting to think that we may all be missing the concept with Landmark. Think about it, with the sever population being as they are now where exactly will you be making your own EverQuest game? How would create that epic hunt the dragon quest on a plot of land no bigger then 5 X 5 (plus up and down)? I saw one hint from a quote that I can't find anymore where Georgesson indicated that part of the Landmark Quest/NPC/World building will involve instances. The instance would be used as a space multiplier (sort of like the Tardis).
Claim content may be phased in order to make it available for selling via the marketplace, though that hasn't been confirmed and is still up to the creator. As regards to how big of a space you have to build... one claim may not seem big but as someone who is trying to build out content on three claims (base claim plus two addon) it can get big quick lol. They haven't set a limit to addons but the original "halos" were one or two rows out from base claim.
Then there is cooperative building which is already happening by synching placements. I'm looking forward to more info though. I wouldn't be suprised if boss mobs were placed by SoE though, we know they are adding indigenous mobs.
Comments
That is the reason they started building EQN:L, but that's not where they are stopping with it. People will be building things for EQN, but there is enough interest in an unscripted game world that they are adding additional game elements.
If you think this is a money saving venture on the part of SOE, you have obviously not built a software system using two separate code paths with shared libraries. It may not be as expensive as two completely different applications, but it's not cheaper than just writing one application. They are doing this because they believe that enough people will play EQN:L as a game to make it worth their time. Maybe they think it will push people into EQN. What they are not thinking is that it will be cheaper to write EQN and EQN:L versus just writing EQN.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Who said anything about writing EQN. EQN:L allows people to model structure and items. SOE will take those said assest and use them in EQN, thus saving time and artist/model pay.
EQN:L is being used as a cost saving measure for EQN. Yes, they are adding things to EQN to attract people to spend money on it because SOE wants to turn a profit on stuff they produce.
EQN:L is still going to be a sole source controlled Minecraft experience. It will not be the "MMORPG" that is controlled by the players that was quoted a few posts up.
Planetside 2 and it's 6 million players beg to differ. SOE and the Forgelight engine are capable of create revolutionary pvp. EQ:L is made from the same engine. Heck the worlds look exactly the same.
But yes, different sever types seems to be the answer.
I quoted your post back in because this is going to make more sense with your post in there rather than snipped out.
You are saying that EQN:L is going to be a cost saving measure. It's not. It might generate more money, but it's not going to be cheaper to produce and run two separate games than to run one game. Especially given the amount of man power it's going to take to vet all the content from EQN:L that will eventually end up in EQN. Never mind that even if they run on the same engine there will be a separation of code between the two games. No cost saving is going to happen. They think they will make more money.
Here's an interview with a developer, talking about the goal of EQN:L being a full blown MMORPG.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieltack/2013/10/02/everquest-next-landmark-is-much-more-than-a-world-builder/
Unless you have information that actually refutes what the people developing the game are saying, you are wrong.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Additional to what Lizard is saying Landmark isn't just about building structures for EQN. SoE plans to have the same tools in Landmark for the players to create content as the SoE developers have to make EQN. This means not only free roaming mobs placed by SoE in public areas but mobs/quest content on player claims. In the end Landmark will indeed be a full featured MMO, created by players. All islands/servers are freely travelled and at 50 islands a server... There will be a lot of content to play.
As someone who has loved PvP for 25 years now dating back to doing in MUDs, EQ was one of the better PvP games to be made. Newer games are the ones that don't understand PvP. I want to have organic fights over content that matters, not just trade objectives all day.
You are correct, this is the best type to bring up such topics, but currently, they are planning pretty much what you want, unless I'm totally missing something?
They want PVE, PVP, players creating worlds to play in, etc. Just no griefing. Obviously we all have different ideas of these terms, but to me, there is no griefing in PVP unless it is exploiting a flaw or bug in the game, not the actual interactions themselves.
The tone and course of development is the exact same since the reveal. Latest video wasn't "We love Carebears!". It was "we don't like griefers."
This was exactly my thoguhts on the matter. To me it does not sound like they are catering to the carebears. It simply sounded like they don't want players taking advantage of some features to screw with other players and griefing them.
I don't know about you, but the math looks pretty clear that 51% of people want controlled or no death experience where as 49% want complete mayhem. The type of people that play these games are not huge PvP'ers so it would be ignorant for SOE to make it that impactful.
With regards to the refund, get one. Please. Just means less people like yourself voting in these polls.
Landmark will fail with 50% of anything.
I don't think you understand, there are 250 or so islands right now. The entire population of the game that is currently playing could fit on 1 island.
It's not that these islands are empty, the are abandoned. They are covered with the abandoned claims of people who a)bought, b) began to play, c)stopped completely within the 1st month of access.
I believe the heavy handed restrictions on building, and the current stance on future gameplay, born out the fear of griefing, is too high a price, for this title to pay and still be successful.
"Vote" on that.
I don't think having players build only on claims and future counter measures to griefing are why some aren't playing. First, only SoE knows metrics on how many people play and second the two reasons above are highly subjective. I think you are reflecting your own bias here.
If I had to guess at the reasons for partial retention it wild be that not all features are in and are buggy and the performance is not great, especially for those that have weaker CPUs. In recent times only GPU updates have been needed to play newer games. In Landmark alpha, that is not optimized, you need a nice CPU to play well. I'd say that's a more reasonable explanation than because SoE wants to remove player griefing.
Finally, it's about 25% of people that want what you're proposing, not 50%. I hope SoE has many islands that have OWPvP but removing universal ways to mess with people, such as enlarging trees and rotating them to cover another players claim. That must be done to keep immature people from affecting others gameplay, that is done on a finite amount of playtime.
I agree 100%, with the highlighted. You are completely right. The game being boring doesn't help either though.
Landmark makes Hello Kitty look wild and dangerous (think about this), and Minecraft like the god of anarchy. There needs to be some semblance of balance in this tools eeer "sandbox" development.
As for the last don't put words in my mouth, it's not polite. I'm proposing nothing more, or nothing less than what I have written in these pages, and the pages on the Landmark forums.
50% want more.
That's only for alpha, there will be fall damage and damage from fire, volcanic, drowning, mobs, etc. when they put it in. It's just not in yet because, well .. it's alpha.
P.S. If anyone's not happy with Landmark, they can get a refund, no reason to complain they wasted $60-$100 if you can get a refund, and it's kinda funny to take your ball and go home because you can't get your way in a game they clearly already have laid out and planned. Don't like it? Don't play it, no one's forcing you to.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
supposedly a death penalty too.
Woo didn't catch that part about the death penalty, ty Bcbully
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm confused at what "50% want more means." The point of this thread was to speak out against SoE taking out non consensual ways to make another player die, right? If not then my apologies, that's why you seemed to be taking about.
That's why I said that 25% of players want that, at the most (lumping all PvP fans into the group that want to effect others by death). That percentage is very generous as there are many PvPers that want to PvP with other PvPers, not demanding others follow suit.
I know this isn't just about PvP but my question would be whether those that want to be able to kill other players by non direct PvP would be higher than those who just want to PvP. I can't see how and certainly not a 25-50% jump.
What I've gathered from all this is that you expect Landmark to be feature complete today. With every future planned system in place and ready for you to play with. Since they are not available and YOU can't do what YOU want to do, the game is heading for failure or some disaster.
You seem to be proposing what SOE is planning. You can't skip to the end. It's like showing up to a construction site and looking at pile of supplies going "This house sucks, there isn't even any walls." Who cares if the contractor told you it wouldn't be ready for a few months, you are there now.
If this isn't what you are talking about, then I'm lost. Landmark will be whatever we make it. Except griefers aren't invited to the party. They haven't said anything that would have me believe that players won't have a good amount of control over the world, just not on others that do not want it.
Very good, well thought post
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
I hope things do get better. I don't have much faith in vision of this team though. There's no balance. Grief = Building blocks around someone. PvP = mining the same node - "...Right now, when you harvest, it’s a race for those resources against other people. It’s almost a PvP-ish kind of feeling. We don’t want that." The kicker with this statement is, there's no rush of people, there aren't miners everywhere going at it. Seeing another person close to you is the exception, not the norm.
They are adding MOBS and death. Guess what guys? Every mmorpg ever has had MOBS and death. How will Omeed and Darrin implement these mobs? If grief is having blocks built around you, what do you think a death penalty will be?
There is a very conservative team building on the wildest platform the industry has seen. Landmark should not be your standard mmo with a housing feature.
I feel the same way. Although why not a Peace and War server ruleset or a Peace Territory and War Territory (of appropriate size for number of players) so that the PvPers can have their game, too?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Have you watched this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmneLjMHd_I
They mention a couple time not wanting players to "overly negatively effect players...or experience"
If I die in PVP, I'm not happy, but I'm not being "negatively impacted" I'm playing the game. That is a lot different then someone digging deep holes around a starting area where people can fall to their death without any idea what is going on.
"Hacking down same tree..those things are going to happen" or in other words it is fine. Your quote seems to be going down the team work approach and having ways for players to work together instead of fighting over basic things.
"it's a destruction game"
"opt-in mayhem (PVP)"
While I really hope that there is a PVP server that has player conflict on and off claims, currently they are planning PVP on claims at least. With the intention of making single or group claims into large areas.
Do you have any examples of what you would like to see? Be it something that is default or on specific rule set servers? You call them conservative, you are expecting DayZ in Norrath?
Claim content may be phased in order to make it available for selling via the marketplace, though that hasn't been confirmed and is still up to the creator. As regards to how big of a space you have to build... one claim may not seem big but as someone who is trying to build out content on three claims (base claim plus two addon) it can get big quick lol. They haven't set a limit to addons but the original "halos" were one or two rows out from base claim.
Then there is cooperative building which is already happening by synching placements. I'm looking forward to more info though. I wouldn't be suprised if boss mobs were placed by SoE though, we know they are adding indigenous mobs.