I tried out Landmark, it was fun up until you run into all the limitations and unreliable building tools. I did some pretty cool things but I had no desire to complete my projects because it was an annoying experience. The tools are bad. I refuse to believe we're using the same as the devs as stated. All the servers are on "low" now and I think people have hit a wall with Landmark Alpha as well. I know it's "Alpha" but I have a bad feeling that the things that are wrong are going to stay wrong.
Also the game runs terribly on decent rigs. Even if you put the game on lowest settings. Them adding mobs to this current mess cares me let alone PVP.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
It depends in what you are trying to do with the tools. Even though the tools are early in process the structures that have been built thus far show great potential. Plus they have made improvements on both the smooth tool and now a tweaking feature. Performance is in the same boat. The distinction that needs to be made is the "hitching" has nothing to do with GPU, it's CPU and how the voxel "scale down" is being handled from distance. The performance aspect is very different that most GPU based games.
Yeah, that video was a little painful to watch when the topic turned to griefing/destruction
This "opt-in" mayhem (with the button to restore everything back to how it was) seems to be this idealized idea of what a dedicated PvEer thinks motivates a PvPer. This guy just doesn't seem to understand it.
For a PvP model to be even functional, it requires 2 things.
1. Tangible or Emotional gain.
2. Tangible or Emotional loss.
In modern RTSes, you win/lose, you have a Tangible gain in the form of Rating. In modern MMOs, you have tangible gains in currency (like Honor/Conquest/Rating in WoW). In FPSes, it's all about emotional gains. You blow 10x as many heads off as you get blown, you top your team and feel awesome. You blow 1 for every 10 times you die, you look like a chump and get flak for bringing your team down. Games like LoL and DOTA basically live by that model - you don't wanna be the guy who sucks. Speaking from experience, you REALLY don't. lol
This "opt-in" mayhem provides none of these. There is no tangible or emotional loss. Guy comes back, clicks a button, his masterpiece is back. Knowing that, how can there be any tangible gains? The player who gets his jollys off destroying buildings that won't be missed might as well just save pictures off Google Image... open up MS Paint... and scribble on them. It's the same thing.
I think the correct answer was: "Landmark is a PvE game and we really have no intention of incorperating meaningful PvP into it. Everquest Next is going to have the PvP elements."
Yeah, that video was a little painful to watch when the topic turned to griefing/destruction
This "opt-in" mayhem (with the button to restore everything back to how it was) seems to be this idealized idea of what a dedicated PvEer thinks motivates a PvPer. This guy just doesn't seem to understand it.
For a PvP model to be even functional, it requires 2 things.
1. Tangible or Emotional gain.
2. Tangible or Emotional loss.
In modern RTSes, you win/lose, you have a Tangible gain in the form of Rating. In modern MMOs, you have tangible gains in currency (like Honor/Conquest/Rating in WoW). In FPSes, it's all about emotional gains. You blow 10x as many heads off as you get blown, you top your team and feel awesome. You blow 1 for every 10 times you die, you look like a chump and get flak for bringing your team down. Games like LoL and DOTA basically live by that model - you don't wanna be the guy who sucks. Speaking from experience, you REALLY don't. lol
This "opt-in" mayhem provides none of these. There is no tangible or emotional loss. Guy comes back, clicks a button, his masterpiece is back. Knowing that, how can there be any tangible gains? The player who gets his jollys off destroying buildings that won't be missed might as well just save pictures off Google Image... open up MS Paint... and scribble on them. It's the same thing.
I think the correct answer was: "Landmark is a PvE game and we really have no intention of incorperating meaningful PvP into it. Everquest Next is going to have the PvP elements."
What is meaningful PVP and what games have it? What is or would be the point of PVP in Landmark to begin with?
I think PVP in most games is pretty pointless with no real impact on the game or others in the long run. Landmark isn't a PVE or PVP game, it is the foundation for players to do what they want (to a point).
If someone wants to "go to war" with someone else, they could easily make their claim open to attack and if it is destroyed, simply not hit the reset button. Or bet with claim flags (pink slips for racers out there). Or any number of competitive things.
I think any sort of "real" PVP like FFA OW would be a failure. Why? Because everyone would be out looking to kill/destroy and nothing would exist to even destroy. Or people would get on in the middle of the night and blow everything up (ninja raids!). There is just too much room for griefing, exploiting, and overall "non-fun" actions where people will use overwhelming numbers or some other advantage to win no matter what. Rarely is there an even "fair" fight in an open PVP system. That's why MOBA, FPS, RTS, arenas/battlegrounds are so popular, they enforce some degree of fairness.
PVP has worked decently in other games like DAoC because everything is already made and players simply click buttons and capture things. They get to focus on the PVP aspect. When the players have to go out, gather materials, design, build, that changes the dynamic completely.
I hope there is PVP in EQN and that it actually has a point, meaning, impact on gameplay, but I'm having a hard time seeing it be anything more than a game of tag, capture the flag, king of the hill, that most rpgmmos have these days. Or worse yet, instanced arena/battlegrounds with zero meaning that is sold as having importance.
Games like EVE that have more serious results from player conflict can't work on the scale that SOE is going for and the EQN world itself doesn't really cater to that system. I hope they get creative, but I'm not sure what is going to happen.
I think you are right that many players "need" and expect some sort of tangible result from their actions. Be it a score, rank, gold, items, land, etc. Sadly, a lot of people can't just have fun and enjoy the experience.
Although I think people will get creative and have fun with player built arenas, trap mazes, and other things. Bring players together to have a good time. Those that want to just come in and stomp on others work shouldn't be looking at Landmark or EQN hopefully.
There's no reason why SoE can't put in systems to make PvP more meaningful without allowing griefing. The problem with allowing full and permanent destruction of built structures is the discrepancy between time invested and time lost. In games with full loot PvP items are easy to come by or craft because of this balance. It would be like a system where if your character was caught after PKing you couldn't play it for 24 hours. It would take,the "game" out of the experience.
I have no doubt they'll make PvP fun. I'm glad they are ensuring everyone else can have fun as well.
I enjoy not getting griefed by young idiots. Because that's EXACTLY what FFA PVP caters to. Those clowns wouldn't know honor if it bit them on the arse. They don't check themselves and all it'd take is one moment of Haha this'll be awesome.. because they'll post their dumb antics on youtube so their brethren see it and then their brethren will follow the lead because they're like lemmings.
For the same reason, I HATE the food patch in Minecraft. It's a waste and I don't need a game giving me shit about mining all day. I don't need to eat.. it's a GAME.
Boo-ya! This is pretty much the "it" of it. I don't think it could have been said any better, either.
Worst Online Communities: WoW/WoD(the OG MMO Trolls), DayZ/WarZ, SMITE/LoL/DOTA, EVE Online, APB "Im ready for All the comparisons I think its dumb and its embarrassing Im switching off No longer listening Ive had enough of persecution and conditioning Maybe its instinct- Were only animal" - Lily Allen, Sheezus
People do remember that Landmark is primarily the creative/design focused game, and Next is launching as a separate game, right?
If you want your player combat and griefing, why not wait until you have the version that focuses more on the narrative, adventure, and combat?
I think the issue is SOE has said a lot of things that can be taking in multiple ways. Be they are doing it on purpose to see player interest/response or to hype as many people as possible, it is confusing.
They've said it is a building game, but also that players will be able to "build their own mmo" "play the way you want." If I want FFA OW PVP in my mmo, can I? (I don't, but just saying).
They've also suggested that PVP will be a bigger deal this time around, EQN especially. Then say they are implementing as much as they can to stop griefing which apparently some think should be possible. If "PVP" is simply opt-in player made claim arenas with reset switching, they aren't being to clear about it. As I'm assuming the majority of PVPers wouldn't consider that PVP or at least not what they would hope for.
So I think people are having issues with the mixed messages. Unfortunately, not until the game(s) are fleshed out a bit more will we really know what the possibilities will be. Which sucks for those hoping for one thing or another based on the vague statements SOE has made.
The PC Gamer article was really informative about what the plans are for Landmark. Dave stated people could host D&D style dungeons for their friends and Jeff said that they wanted no separation between the tools SoE uses for EQN and what the players use for Landmark.
While it's true that Landmark is for building that isn't just structures. Plus, SoE will be adding indigenous mobs in the world on top of it.
People do remember that Landmark is primarily the creative/design focused game, and Next is launching as a separate game, right?
If you want your player combat and griefing, why not wait until you have the version that focuses more on the narrative, adventure, and combat?
I think the issue is SOE has said a lot of things that can be taking in multiple ways. Be they are doing it on purpose to see player interest/response or to hype as many people as possible, it is confusing.
They've said it is a building game, but also that players will be able to "build their own mmo" "play the way you want." If I want FFA OW PVP in my mmo, can I? (I don't, but just saying).
They've also suggested that PVP will be a bigger deal this time around, EQN especially. Then say they are implementing as much as they can to stop griefing which apparently some think should be possible. If "PVP" is simply opt-in player made claim arenas with reset switching, they aren't being to clear about it. As I'm assuming the majority of PVPers wouldn't consider that PVP or at least not what they would hope for.
So I think people are having issues with the mixed messages. Unfortunately, not until the game(s) are fleshed out a bit more will we really know what the possibilities will be. Which sucks for those hoping for one thing or another based on the vague statements SOE has made.
People should put more effort into reading the statements that give information, and ignoring the statements that don't. What happens is that people ignore the statements that give information, and then read what they want into the statements that don't provide specific information.
What people should be doing is the process of effective business writing, but in reverse. Edit out words that don't mean anything. "PvP will be more important this time around!" More important than what? What kind of PvP? These questions aren't defined by the statement, so the developer has effectively said nothing. That doesn't seem to stop people from thinking that this means there will be three faction PvP, or OW/FFA PvP though. That's not the developer's fault. The developer is supposed to drum up interest for their game. It's their job. They have always done this and they always will.
But in regards to EQN and EQN:L, nothing they've said has been much of a surprise to me, and I haven't been following this game nearly as closely as some of the people who seem angry or surprised that OW PvP seems to be out. Same thing happened with SWToR and Rift before it. My cursory examination of Shroud of the Avatar seems superior to the people who have been "following the game for over a year" too. I don't see how this is possible, but it does seem to be true. People read a lot of what they wanted into the developers' statements instead of looking at what the developer said. It's all there. Just read what they say, delete the non-information and stop putting your own words in their mouths.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Here's the thread the actual poll was attached too, from the EQN site. Everyone can post here.
You do realize the primary reason for this to exist is to build things, right? Its not really a pvp type game and most of the people who will be attracted to it probably won't be the pvp types. Its like Minecraft..but not.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Originally posted by GwapoJosh Originally posted by kitarad 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 agree.. You would have to be an idiot to think SOE would let any random person, that walks by, destroy your property.
Play on a non-combat art and design server, problem solved.
Most people dont want their buildings destroyed, but you still think "they" should be the ones on a special server? Lol at egos living in their own lil bubbles.
It's SOE... You can always trust them to make the wrong decision.
It's like a law or some thing.
That is so true. I remember back with EQ and than with SWG there were major fan resistance to drastic class changes for EQ and combat changes for SWG and SOE still went the other direction. One of those games got shutdown. I am like you , I think they must have it in their friggin handbook or something to do the opposite of what surveys / polls / petitions tell them. Crazy!
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 agree.. You would have to be an idiot to think SOE would let any random person, that walks by, destroy your property.
Play on a non-combat art and design server, problem solved.
Most people dont want their buildings destroyed, but you still think "they" should be the ones on a special server? Lol at egos living in their own lil bubbles.
32%=/=51% so kindly stop making yourself into a case study of self-irony.
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 agree.. You would have to be an idiot to think SOE would let any random person, that walks by, destroy your property.
Play on a non-combat art and design server, problem solved.
Most people dont want their buildings destroyed, but you still think "they" should be the ones on a special server? Lol at egos living in their own lil bubbles.
32%=/=51% so kindly stop making yourself into a case study of self-irony.
You're basing that on what? A forum poll??? ROFL
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Originally posted by AzurePrower It's SOE... You can always trust them to make the wrong decision.It's like a law or some thing.
That is so true. I remember back with EQ and than with SWG there were major fan resistance to drastic class changes for EQ and combat changes for SWG and SOE still went the other direction. One of those games got shutdown. I am like you , I think they must have it in their friggin handbook or something to do the opposite of what surveys / polls / petitions tell them. Crazy!
So they have have polls about more or less everything and focusing on what the majority want ( also in this case were 32% voted for it) and still your saying that theyre goin against what everyone wants? Did the SoE devs steal your lunch money when you wrre a kid? Its almost like a law that some people HAVE to hate on stuff just cause they made up their minds. Crazy!
Those polls SOE is taking seriously and are now redesigning the game around the outcome of some of them. It wasn't a small poll, thousands voted and the result was split. 50% want more freedom to effect the world.
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 agree.. You would have to be an idiot to think SOE would let any random person, that walks by, destroy your property.
Play on a non-combat art and design server, problem solved.
Most people dont want their buildings destroyed, but you still think "they" should be the ones on a special server? Lol at egos living in their own lil bubbles.
32%=/=51% so kindly stop making yourself into a case study of self-irony.
You're basing that on what? A forum poll??? ROFL
Try reading the opening post before rolling on the floor laughing at a neutral and looking like an ass to everyone.
Is there not quite a bunch of stupidity behind a comparison between Everquest Next: Landmark to games like Everquest 1 and 2 or even Everquest Next?
Yes they should NOT have called it EQ Next Landmark, EQ Landmark would have been much better. I was in Alpha and loves it but the game is not for everyone and they have not communicated that well. Its not an MMO, yet at least, its a very fun social setting and the Swap meets and going away parties the last days have been awesome. BUT if you like PvP its not for you, at least not yet.
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 agree.. You would have to be an idiot to think SOE would let any random person, that walks by, destroy your property.
Play on a non-combat art and design server, problem solved.
Most people dont want their buildings destroyed, but you still think "they" should be the ones on a special server? Lol at egos living in their own lil bubbles.
32%=/=51% so kindly stop making yourself into a case study of self-irony.
There are a couple ways to look at this.
32% is the single largest group. Given that less than 32% of people tend to stick with a game, keeping the largest group happy makes sense.
You could compare the "No Changes", "Minor Changes" and "Significant Changes" groups. 32% for no changes, 39% for minor changes (public & friends) and 31% for major changes (public and friends). In this case, minor, non-game altering changes is the majority group.
It's close, but in neither scenario is the group that wants major changes the majority group.
Finally, it doesn't matter anyway. They are planning on having PvP, big changes, etc., but not at launch. Not only that, people will be able to choose what they want to do since the different continents or different servers can have different rule sets.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
People do remember that Landmark is primarily the creative/design focused game, and Next is launching as a separate game, right?
If you want your player combat and griefing, why not wait until you have the version that focuses more on the narrative, adventure, and combat?
I think the issue is SOE has said a lot of things that can be taking in multiple ways. Be they are doing it on purpose to see player interest/response or to hype as many people as possible, it is confusing.
They've said it is a building game, but also that players will be able to "build their own mmo" "play the way you want." If I want FFA OW PVP in my mmo, can I? (I don't, but just saying).
They've also suggested that PVP will be a bigger deal this time around, EQN especially. Then say they are implementing as much as they can to stop griefing which apparently some think should be possible. If "PVP" is simply opt-in player made claim arenas with reset switching, they aren't being to clear about it. As I'm assuming the majority of PVPers wouldn't consider that PVP or at least not what they would hope for.
So I think people are having issues with the mixed messages. Unfortunately, not until the game(s) are fleshed out a bit more will we really know what the possibilities will be. Which sucks for those hoping for one thing or another based on the vague statements SOE has made.
People should put more effort into reading the statements that give information, and ignoring the statements that don't. What happens is that people ignore the statements that give information, and then read what they want into the statements that don't provide specific information.
What people should be doing is the process of effective business writing, but in reverse. Edit out words that don't mean anything. "PvP will be more important this time around!" More important than what? What kind of PvP? These questions aren't defined by the statement, so the developer has effectively said nothing. That doesn't seem to stop people from thinking that this means there will be three faction PvP, or OW/FFA PvP though. That's not the developer's fault. The developer is supposed to drum up interest for their game. It's their job. They have always done this and they always will.
But in regards to EQN and EQN:L, nothing they've said has been much of a surprise to me, and I haven't been following this game nearly as closely as some of the people who seem angry or surprised that OW PvP seems to be out. Same thing happened with SWToR and Rift before it. My cursory examination of Shroud of the Avatar seems superior to the people who have been "following the game for over a year" too. I don't see how this is possible, but it does seem to be true. People read a lot of what they wanted into the developers' statements instead of looking at what the developer said. It's all there. Just read what they say, delete the non-information and stop putting your own words in their mouths.
I think the issue is the majority of what they say is non-information and without it, we don't have much to discuss, debate, get crazy about on forums.
Without all the vagueness, we are left with a game that does some things. Not a lot of room for imagination or thinking to the future and outside the box. Like I said, until it is a bit more feature complete, we won't have a real grasp on what it will end up like. Right now all the talk can be taken multiple different ways and doesn't end up with very constructive conversations.
Seems they are trying to be as neutral as possible when talking about anything and never give a clear "this is how it will be" statement. Hopefully they continue with their timeline and work on giving more actual facts and detail to how things will work or how they intend them to. This will help players understand what they should be expecting and how they should be reacting.
Right now, if someone was to read that Landmark is/will have PVP and then get in game and realize it is only on a claim, they will probably be bummed. I blame buzzwords and how every company and player uses them differently. It is what it is, but unfortunately it makes for a lot of arguing and disgruntled people.
While I dislike when companies slap labels on their products or single out particular things, sometimes it is needed. Saying "you can do whatever you want" is a bit misleading obviously. They need to have a long list of what you actually can and can't do following that statement for clarification. Games have always had those generalize "best game ever" statements on the front of the box and then a nice bullet list on the back of what really can happen. Right now we seem to be missing the bullets and only have the "please everyone" quoted phrases to work with.
Is there not quite a bunch of stupidity behind a comparison between Everquest Next: Landmark to games like Everquest 1 and 2 or even Everquest Next?
Yes they should NOT have called it EQ Next Landmark, EQ Landmark would have been much better. I was in Alpha and loves it but the game is not for everyone and they have not communicated that well. Its not an MMO, yet at least, its a very fun social setting and the Swap meets and going away parties the last days have been awesome. BUT if you like PvP its not for you, at least not yet.
The name is confusing I can agree to that but when someone tries to look informed and knowledgeable about MMO's (in general, history and what not) then the difference between those two games can not be unknown regardless of the similarity of the two names.
Looking at the connection between the EQ Next and EQ Next: Landmark the nameing also makes sense.
But this is the usual jibbering jabberish on mmorpg.com, why have a constructive forum? Meh.
Mauhahha...they never do that if they can just cater to the "I want it all and i want it the easy way" crowd. Make a few million from people that buy unfinished Alpha crap and collectors editions and then when they all done with it in a month or two and migrate to the next easy mode game go microtransactions until it's bled dry.
"Give players systems and tools instead of rails and rules"
Comments
I tried out Landmark, it was fun up until you run into all the limitations and unreliable building tools. I did some pretty cool things but I had no desire to complete my projects because it was an annoying experience. The tools are bad. I refuse to believe we're using the same as the devs as stated. All the servers are on "low" now and I think people have hit a wall with Landmark Alpha as well. I know it's "Alpha" but I have a bad feeling that the things that are wrong are going to stay wrong.
Also the game runs terribly on decent rigs. Even if you put the game on lowest settings. Them adding mobs to this current mess cares me let alone PVP.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, that video was a little painful to watch when the topic turned to griefing/destruction
This "opt-in" mayhem (with the button to restore everything back to how it was) seems to be this idealized idea of what a dedicated PvEer thinks motivates a PvPer. This guy just doesn't seem to understand it.
For a PvP model to be even functional, it requires 2 things.
1. Tangible or Emotional gain.
2. Tangible or Emotional loss.
In modern RTSes, you win/lose, you have a Tangible gain in the form of Rating. In modern MMOs, you have tangible gains in currency (like Honor/Conquest/Rating in WoW). In FPSes, it's all about emotional gains. You blow 10x as many heads off as you get blown, you top your team and feel awesome. You blow 1 for every 10 times you die, you look like a chump and get flak for bringing your team down. Games like LoL and DOTA basically live by that model - you don't wanna be the guy who sucks. Speaking from experience, you REALLY don't. lol
This "opt-in" mayhem provides none of these. There is no tangible or emotional loss. Guy comes back, clicks a button, his masterpiece is back. Knowing that, how can there be any tangible gains? The player who gets his jollys off destroying buildings that won't be missed might as well just save pictures off Google Image... open up MS Paint... and scribble on them. It's the same thing.
I think the correct answer was: "Landmark is a PvE game and we really have no intention of incorperating meaningful PvP into it. Everquest Next is going to have the PvP elements."
What is meaningful PVP and what games have it? What is or would be the point of PVP in Landmark to begin with?
I think PVP in most games is pretty pointless with no real impact on the game or others in the long run. Landmark isn't a PVE or PVP game, it is the foundation for players to do what they want (to a point).
If someone wants to "go to war" with someone else, they could easily make their claim open to attack and if it is destroyed, simply not hit the reset button. Or bet with claim flags (pink slips for racers out there). Or any number of competitive things.
I think any sort of "real" PVP like FFA OW would be a failure. Why? Because everyone would be out looking to kill/destroy and nothing would exist to even destroy. Or people would get on in the middle of the night and blow everything up (ninja raids!). There is just too much room for griefing, exploiting, and overall "non-fun" actions where people will use overwhelming numbers or some other advantage to win no matter what. Rarely is there an even "fair" fight in an open PVP system. That's why MOBA, FPS, RTS, arenas/battlegrounds are so popular, they enforce some degree of fairness.
PVP has worked decently in other games like DAoC because everything is already made and players simply click buttons and capture things. They get to focus on the PVP aspect. When the players have to go out, gather materials, design, build, that changes the dynamic completely.
I hope there is PVP in EQN and that it actually has a point, meaning, impact on gameplay, but I'm having a hard time seeing it be anything more than a game of tag, capture the flag, king of the hill, that most rpgmmos have these days. Or worse yet, instanced arena/battlegrounds with zero meaning that is sold as having importance.
Games like EVE that have more serious results from player conflict can't work on the scale that SOE is going for and the EQN world itself doesn't really cater to that system. I hope they get creative, but I'm not sure what is going to happen.
I think you are right that many players "need" and expect some sort of tangible result from their actions. Be it a score, rank, gold, items, land, etc. Sadly, a lot of people can't just have fun and enjoy the experience.
Although I think people will get creative and have fun with player built arenas, trap mazes, and other things. Bring players together to have a good time. Those that want to just come in and stomp on others work shouldn't be looking at Landmark or EQN hopefully.
I have no doubt they'll make PvP fun. I'm glad they are ensuring everyone else can have fun as well.
People do remember that Landmark is primarily the creative/design focused game, and Next is launching as a separate game, right?
If you want your player combat and griefing, why not wait until you have the version that focuses more on the narrative, adventure, and combat?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Boo-ya! This is pretty much the "it" of it. I don't think it could have been said any better, either.
Loves: SMITE, WildStar, Project Zomboid, PSO2, DCUO,
Worst Online Communities: WoW/WoD(the OG MMO Trolls), DayZ/WarZ, SMITE/LoL/DOTA, EVE Online, APB
"Im ready for
All the comparisons
I think its dumb and its embarrassing
Im switching off
No longer listening
Ive had enough of persecution and conditioning
Maybe its instinct- Were only animal" - Lily Allen, Sheezus
I think the issue is SOE has said a lot of things that can be taking in multiple ways. Be they are doing it on purpose to see player interest/response or to hype as many people as possible, it is confusing.
They've said it is a building game, but also that players will be able to "build their own mmo" "play the way you want." If I want FFA OW PVP in my mmo, can I? (I don't, but just saying).
They've also suggested that PVP will be a bigger deal this time around, EQN especially. Then say they are implementing as much as they can to stop griefing which apparently some think should be possible. If "PVP" is simply opt-in player made claim arenas with reset switching, they aren't being to clear about it. As I'm assuming the majority of PVPers wouldn't consider that PVP or at least not what they would hope for.
So I think people are having issues with the mixed messages. Unfortunately, not until the game(s) are fleshed out a bit more will we really know what the possibilities will be. Which sucks for those hoping for one thing or another based on the vague statements SOE has made.
While it's true that Landmark is for building that isn't just structures. Plus, SoE will be adding indigenous mobs in the world on top of it.
People should put more effort into reading the statements that give information, and ignoring the statements that don't. What happens is that people ignore the statements that give information, and then read what they want into the statements that don't provide specific information.
What people should be doing is the process of effective business writing, but in reverse. Edit out words that don't mean anything. "PvP will be more important this time around!" More important than what? What kind of PvP? These questions aren't defined by the statement, so the developer has effectively said nothing. That doesn't seem to stop people from thinking that this means there will be three faction PvP, or OW/FFA PvP though. That's not the developer's fault. The developer is supposed to drum up interest for their game. It's their job. They have always done this and they always will.
But in regards to EQN and EQN:L, nothing they've said has been much of a surprise to me, and I haven't been following this game nearly as closely as some of the people who seem angry or surprised that OW PvP seems to be out. Same thing happened with SWToR and Rift before it. My cursory examination of Shroud of the Avatar seems superior to the people who have been "following the game for over a year" too. I don't see how this is possible, but it does seem to be true. People read a lot of what they wanted into the developers' statements instead of looking at what the developer said. It's all there. Just read what they say, delete the non-information and stop putting your own words in their mouths.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You do realize the primary reason for this to exist is to build things, right? Its not really a pvp type game and most of the people who will be attracted to it probably won't be the pvp types. Its like Minecraft..but not.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I agree.. You would have to be an idiot to think SOE would let any random person, that walks by, destroy your property.
Play on a non-combat art and design server, problem solved.
Most people dont want their buildings destroyed, but you still think "they" should be the ones on a special server? Lol at egos living in their own lil bubbles.That is so true. I remember back with EQ and than with SWG there were major fan resistance to drastic class changes for EQ and combat changes for SWG and SOE still went the other direction. One of those games got shutdown. I am like you , I think they must have it in their friggin handbook or something to do the opposite of what surveys / polls / petitions tell them. Crazy!
32%=/=51% so kindly stop making yourself into a case study of self-irony.
You're basing that on what? A forum poll??? ROFL
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
That is so true. I remember back with EQ and than with SWG there were major fan resistance to drastic class changes for EQ and combat changes for SWG and SOE still went the other direction. One of those games got shutdown. I am like you , I think they must have it in their friggin handbook or something to do the opposite of what surveys / polls / petitions tell them. Crazy!
So they have have polls about more or less everything and focusing on what the majority want ( also in this case were 32% voted for it) and still your saying that theyre goin against what everyone wants? Did the SoE devs steal your lunch money when you wrre a kid? Its almost like a law that some people HAVE to hate on stuff just cause they made up their minds. Crazy!Those polls SOE is taking seriously and are now redesigning the game around the outcome of some of them. It wasn't a small poll, thousands voted and the result was split. 50% want more freedom to effect the world.
Try reading the opening post before rolling on the floor laughing at a neutral and looking like an ass to everyone.
Is there not quite a bunch of stupidity behind a comparison between Everquest Next: Landmark to games like Everquest 1 and 2 or even Everquest Next?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Yes they should NOT have called it EQ Next Landmark, EQ Landmark would have been much better. I was in Alpha and loves it but the game is not for everyone and they have not communicated that well. Its not an MMO, yet at least, its a very fun social setting and the Swap meets and going away parties the last days have been awesome. BUT if you like PvP its not for you, at least not yet.
Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.
He who can describe the flame does not burn.
Petrarch
There are a couple ways to look at this.
32% is the single largest group. Given that less than 32% of people tend to stick with a game, keeping the largest group happy makes sense.
You could compare the "No Changes", "Minor Changes" and "Significant Changes" groups. 32% for no changes, 39% for minor changes (public & friends) and 31% for major changes (public and friends). In this case, minor, non-game altering changes is the majority group.
It's close, but in neither scenario is the group that wants major changes the majority group.
Finally, it doesn't matter anyway. They are planning on having PvP, big changes, etc., but not at launch. Not only that, people will be able to choose what they want to do since the different continents or different servers can have different rule sets.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the issue is the majority of what they say is non-information and without it, we don't have much to discuss, debate, get crazy about on forums.
Without all the vagueness, we are left with a game that does some things. Not a lot of room for imagination or thinking to the future and outside the box. Like I said, until it is a bit more feature complete, we won't have a real grasp on what it will end up like. Right now all the talk can be taken multiple different ways and doesn't end up with very constructive conversations.
Seems they are trying to be as neutral as possible when talking about anything and never give a clear "this is how it will be" statement. Hopefully they continue with their timeline and work on giving more actual facts and detail to how things will work or how they intend them to. This will help players understand what they should be expecting and how they should be reacting.
Right now, if someone was to read that Landmark is/will have PVP and then get in game and realize it is only on a claim, they will probably be bummed. I blame buzzwords and how every company and player uses them differently. It is what it is, but unfortunately it makes for a lot of arguing and disgruntled people.
While I dislike when companies slap labels on their products or single out particular things, sometimes it is needed. Saying "you can do whatever you want" is a bit misleading obviously. They need to have a long list of what you actually can and can't do following that statement for clarification. Games have always had those generalize "best game ever" statements on the front of the box and then a nice bullet list on the back of what really can happen. Right now we seem to be missing the bullets and only have the "please everyone" quoted phrases to work with.
The name is confusing I can agree to that but when someone tries to look informed and knowledgeable about MMO's (in general, history and what not) then the difference between those two games can not be unknown regardless of the similarity of the two names.
Looking at the connection between the EQ Next and EQ Next: Landmark the nameing also makes sense.
But this is the usual jibbering jabberish on mmorpg.com, why have a constructive forum? Meh.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Have them make different Server Types maybe?
Mauhahha...they never do that if they can just cater to the "I want it all and i want it the easy way" crowd. Make a few million from people that buy unfinished Alpha crap and collectors editions and then when they all done with it in a month or two and migrate to the next easy mode game go microtransactions until it's bled dry.
This thread is complete BS based on talk from alpha and hasn't had any relevance at all since last Wensdays blueprint update.
https://forums.station.sony.com/landmark/index.php?threads/the-blueprint.26034/
Everything moaned about is listed under Risk & Danger.