The artificial intelligence of EQNext will become self-aware on 08.02.2013, and will begin to grow at a geometric rate. The defense grids will be re-tasked to wipe out humanity.
Originally posted by Waterlily If EQNext is good you can have all the PVP you want as long as there are pure PVE servers. I'm not touching a forced PVP game with a ten foot pole.
Ya I like my PvE and PvP to be in its own area. Thats why I hope to have a a few maps that are just for that and no PvP in the PvE areas. EQ was by far the best PvE I have ever played and I would hate to see pure PvEer driven off by lowbe camping or using the flagging system.
I know you don't think so, but what you're describing is the definition of linear and coddled gameplay.
I refer you to the title of this thread and wish you luck, sir.
Dont care what the title is... you have to look at the staples of what makes EQ, EQ. PvE! Thats it. The fans over the past 14 years that have supported it have been mostly PvE fans. Do you really think they will shaft their prime fan base by putting them in a situation where they are forced to PvP? I dont think so. But can you really launch a MMO in 2013 and not have a solid PvP plan? Not really. So where is the balance? Flag system where it so easy to force people to flag? All PvP servers? EQ has always been that game where you can play with any race. So I dont think thats a very EQ move as well. I could be wrong. AA has a continent just for PvPing if I read right? This is far from hand holding. How big dose a map need to be to give open world PvP a real fun sandbox feel? With how many square miles EQ1 and EQ2 ended up I would say 25%. Forcing people to PvP is not EQ in any way.
If I were forced to guess, I'd say EQ:N will end up a lot like ArcheAge with Norrathian lore.
Large PVE territories with dungeons, but with a subtle nudge toward contested areas as you level up. A heavy crafting influence, and the best gear will be had by those who hold down contested territory and (literally) farm the region.
Could be fun, I'm not a PKer but I could be convinced to play a game where politics trumps dual-boxing, aim-botting, and 24/7 sociopathy.
I hope PvP will be a little more focused then that. Spreading PvP over many zones tends to water it down. I kinda hope for 1 to 3 maps for just PvP. With the ability to build castles and keeps. Less maps means less noob killing and driving off pure PvEers and tends to focus the PvP to have more large scale battles.
In the truly fleshed out and fully realized "next gen" MMO experience, the player wouldn't be able to tell the difference between PvE and PvP.
They would also be able to pull this off while still being able to establish and maintain social order.
Players would care about their reputation and place in the world, and the anti-social and/or truly malevolent "anti-society" types would be few and far between.
They would genuinely care about their friends and in-game "family," and most would fear being both excluded from the social norms and/or standing out too far and thus alienating themselves.
As it is in the real world.
I am almost 99% certain none of this will actually be true in EQNext, and more likely than not EQNext's "sandbox" nature is going to revolve around a variety of server types and some system-based tools for content creation.
They may even expand upon the availability of "official" servers and allow player made and run servers and custom rule sets.
Create more tight knit communities, but each smaller and more "micro" than the overall macro community.
Also, linear statistical progression, be it levels or skills or gear or all of them etc. is pretty much a must as 9/10 MMO players would never play a game without some kind of power progression/vertical growth.
In the truly fleshed out and fully realized "next gen" MMO experience, the player wouldn't be able to tell the difference between PvE and PvP.
They would also be able to pull this off while still being able to establish and maintain social order.
Players would care about their reputation and place in the world, and the anti-social and/or truly malevolent "anti-society" types would be few and far between.
They would genuinely care about their friends and in-game "family," and most would fear being both excluded from the social norms and/or standing out too far and thus alienating themselves.
As it is in the real world.
I am almost 99% certain none of this will actually be true in EQNext, and more likely than not EQNext's "sandbox" nature is going to revolve around a variety of server types and some system-based tools for content creation.
They may even expand upon the availability of "official" servers and allow player made and run servers and custom rule sets.
Create more tight knit communities, but each smaller and more "micro" than the overall macro community.
Also, linear statistical progression, be it levels or skills or gear or all of them etc. is pretty much a must as 9/10 MMO players would never play a game without some kind of power progression/vertical growth.
Bad Spock, BAAAAAAD SPOCK! Learn to have some faith. When MMO jumpers leave EQN things will settle down and a real community with form. Thats gona take time, but withing a year you will see it start to happen.
Like he said carebears, there are plenty of games for you out there already. Don't try to ruin ours.
Just because the game has open world pvp doesn't mean it revolves around it, open world pvp just makes a MMORPG more realistic.
you have it reversed. PvP fans have EvE (and Wushu and Darkfall and ArcheAge). PvP sandboxes come out all the time (even if most suck)
PvE sandbox fans have SWGemu server which is a half finished version of a half finished game.
So by your logic, the fact that there are 3 PVP-centric MMOs on the market, one that you mentioned is not even released to the west....and there are 1000's of PVE-centric MMO's...that means that PVP players are provided for? As if having open world pvp in a game makes it a "pvp game." We're not talking about FFA Open world PVP here. You wanna be a sissy, just turn it off. Though I wouldn't be opposed to a FFA system.
Name one developer supported PvE sandbox .
By the way, I think SWG was the perfect compromise. It was at heart a PvE game but had a nice PvP side for those who wanted it without cutting off large portions of the game for PvE folks.
ATITD. Total sandbox and no combat what so ever let alone pvp. It is small but it has also been around for many years under active development.
It is also worth noting that it isn't simply the pvp in Eve Online that drives the economy, it is that things can blow up and be destroyed. Granted most of the blowing up is driven by the pvp of the game but it isn't the pvp itself it is the results of the pvp. The important point is that things must have a limited lifespan in some way or another. SWG did this even on its PvE side with item durability decay and that structures needed to be maintained. You don't need open world pvp to keep a sandbox economy running, you need a need for crafted items to be replaced, pvp can simply help with that.
I am almost 99% certain none of this will actually be true in EQNext, and more likely than not EQNext's "sandbox" nature is going to revolve around a variety of server types and some system-based tools for content creation.
I definitely think there's more to EQN than that.. otherwise mmorpg.com and tth made a fool of themselves and Bill pooped his pants because of something that he's already seen in Neverwinter..
I'm not all that excited about content creation, like the foundy to be honest.. I'm more interested in housing, player cities, having your own shops.. And I'm pretty sure we'll see something of that in EQN. Plus the already mentioned changing seasons (has any other AAA mmo done this?)
I'm also hoping for intelligent wildlife. Like in Ryzom.
Originally posted by Waterlily If EQNext is good you can have all the PVP you want as long as there are pure PVE servers. I'm not touching a forced PVP game with a ten foot pole.
Ya I like my PvE and PvP to be in its own area. Thats why I hope to have a a few maps that are just for that and no PvP in the PvE areas. EQ was by far the best PvE I have ever played and I would hate to see pure PvEer driven off by lowbe camping or using the flagging system.
I know you don't think so, but what you're describing is the definition of linear and coddled gameplay.
I refer you to the title of this thread and wish you luck, sir.
Dont care what the title is... you have to look at the staples of what makes EQ, EQ. PvE! Thats it. The fans over the past 14 years that have supported it have been mostly PvE fans. Do you really think they will shaft their prime fan base by putting them in a situation where they are forced to PvP? I dont think so. But can you really launch a MMO in 2013 and not have a solid PvP plan? Not really. So where is the balance? Flag system where it so easy to force people to flag? All PvP servers? EQ has always been that game where you can play with any race. So I dont think thats a very EQ move as well. I could be wrong. AA has a continent just for PvPing if I read right? This is far from hand holding. How big dose a map need to be to give open world PvP a real fun sandbox feel? With how many square miles EQ1 and EQ2 ended up I would say 25%. Forcing people to PvP is not EQ in any way.
I hear you but you've gotta remember that the devs have been warning us that this will be a totally different game and that they didn't want to just make a new version of EQ1 and EQ2. Why would they bother saying that if they were stuck on the things players are used to?
Originally posted by Waterlily If EQNext is good you can have all the PVP you want as long as there are pure PVE servers. I'm not touching a forced PVP game with a ten foot pole.
Ya I like my PvE and PvP to be in its own area. Thats why I hope to have a a few maps that are just for that and no PvP in the PvE areas. EQ was by far the best PvE I have ever played and I would hate to see pure PvEer driven off by lowbe camping or using the flagging system.
I know you don't think so, but what you're describing is the definition of linear and coddled gameplay.
I refer you to the title of this thread and wish you luck, sir.
Dont care what the title is... you have to look at the staples of what makes EQ, EQ. PvE! Thats it. The fans over the past 14 years that have supported it have been mostly PvE fans. Do you really think they will shaft their prime fan base by putting them in a situation where they are forced to PvP? I dont think so. But can you really launch a MMO in 2013 and not have a solid PvP plan? Not really. So where is the balance? Flag system where it so easy to force people to flag? All PvP servers? EQ has always been that game where you can play with any race. So I dont think thats a very EQ move as well. I could be wrong. AA has a continent just for PvPing if I read right? This is far from hand holding. How big dose a map need to be to give open world PvP a real fun sandbox feel? With how many square miles EQ1 and EQ2 ended up I would say 25%. Forcing people to PvP is not EQ in any way.
I hear you but you've gotta remember that the devs have been warning us that this will be a totally different game and that they didn't want to just make a new version of EQ1 and EQ2. Why would they bother saying that if they were stuck on the things players are used to?
I definitely don't think there'll be forced PVP, unless it's on a "PVP server". They've said this game will be different from EQ1 and 2 yes. But Dave's also mentioned catering to different gamers; hardcore gamers, crafters, casuals, socials.. So why wouldn't pvpers be included, but no way do I see forced PVP in there, if they are going to cater to so many different gamers.
Faction system of Everquest was one of the coolest features it had in my opinion. In fact it was one of the most overlooked features in Everquest yet everyone had to deal with it at some point in the game.
Everquest Next could take this to the next level and really turn it up and add alot of dynamic to it. I never understood why cities weren't attacked be monsters and creatures, as that was why they had to have protection and walls.
Originally posted by DocBrody Originally posted by aspekxi think the broken hopes and dreams for EQN will be the final straw for the mmo community.
If EQ Next is not going to be as hardcore as Pre-Trammel Ultima Online, I'll throw my PC out of the window and will go back to playing 10 hour sessions of Tetris on my B/W Gameboy. Only switching between music A and B occasionally
lol that made me chuckle from nostalgia.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Originally posted by Waterlily If EQNext is good you can have all the PVP you want as long as there are pure PVE servers. I'm not touching a forced PVP game with a ten foot pole.
Ya I like my PvE and PvP to be in its own area. Thats why I hope to have a a few maps that are just for that and no PvP in the PvE areas. EQ was by far the best PvE I have ever played and I would hate to see pure PvEer driven off by lowbe camping or using the flagging system.
I know you don't think so, but what you're describing is the definition of linear and coddled gameplay.
I refer you to the title of this thread and wish you luck, sir.
If he makes a game because players want pvp, then he is coddling pvpers as well. It goes both ways.....
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by Waterlily If EQNext is good you can have all the PVP you want as long as there are pure PVE servers. I'm not touching a forced PVP game with a ten foot pole.
Ya I like my PvE and PvP to be in its own area. Thats why I hope to have a a few maps that are just for that and no PvP in the PvE areas. EQ was by far the best PvE I have ever played and I would hate to see pure PvEer driven off by lowbe camping or using the flagging system.
I know you don't think so, but what you're describing is the definition of linear and coddled gameplay.
I refer you to the title of this thread and wish you luck, sir.
If he makes a game because players want pvp, then he is coddling pvpers as well. It goes both ways.....
You don't understand the way he was using the word coddling. He was using it to refer to handholding that we see in many other MMO's. Linear gameplay. PvP is by definition not coddling because it creates a brutal environment that the player succeeds in or fails based off their own effort. They aren't protected by systems.
Catering =/= Coddling.
It seems he is Catering to PvPers. Which is nice to see for once.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Like he said carebears, there are plenty of games for you out there already. Don't try to ruin ours.
Just because the game has open world pvp doesn't mean it revolves around it, open world pvp just makes a MMORPG more realistic.
you have it reversed. PvP fans have EvE (and Wushu and Darkfall and ArcheAge). PvP sandboxes come out all the time (even if most suck)
PvE sandbox fans have SWGemu server which is a half finished version of a half finished game.
So by your logic, the fact that there are 3 PVP-centric MMOs on the market, one that you mentioned is not even released to the west....and there are 1000's of PVE-centric MMO's...that means that PVP players are provided for? As if having open world pvp in a game makes it a "pvp game." We're not talking about FFA Open world PVP here. You wanna be a sissy, just turn it off. Though I wouldn't be opposed to a FFA system.
Name one developer supported PvE sandbox .
By the way, I think SWG was the perfect compromise. It was at heart a PvE game but had a nice PvP side for those who wanted it without cutting off large portions of the game for PvE folks.
ATITD. Total sandbox and no combat what so ever let alone pvp. It is small but it has also been around for many years under active development.
It is also worth noting that it isn't simply the pvp in Eve Online that drives the economy, it is that things can blow up and be destroyed. Granted most of the blowing up is driven by the pvp of the game but it isn't the pvp itself it is the results of the pvp. The important point is that things must have a limited lifespan in some way or another. SWG did this even on its PvE side with item durability decay and that structures needed to be maintained. You don't need open world pvp to keep a sandbox economy running, you need a need for crafted items to be replaced, pvp can simply help with that.
ATITD isnt really a PvE game either, because as you pointed out has no combat
Someone mentioned Runescape which i always took to be a game closer to old EQ but with a skill system instead of levels. Not a themepark, but not a true sandbox either (as far as I know there is no interaction with the game world. Levels vs skills is *not* a themepark vs sandbox thing at all.
Originally posted by Waterlily If EQNext is good you can have all the PVP you want as long as there are pure PVE servers. I'm not touching a forced PVP game with a ten foot pole.
Ya I like my PvE and PvP to be in its own area. Thats why I hope to have a a few maps that are just for that and no PvP in the PvE areas. EQ was by far the best PvE I have ever played and I would hate to see pure PvEer driven off by lowbe camping or using the flagging system.
I know you don't think so, but what you're describing is the definition of linear and coddled gameplay.
I refer you to the title of this thread and wish you luck, sir.
If he makes a game because players want pvp, then he is coddling pvpers as well. It goes both ways.....
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Originally posted by Waterlily If EQNext is good you can have all the PVP you want as long as there are pure PVE servers. I'm not touching a forced PVP game with a ten foot pole.
Ya I like my PvE and PvP to be in its own area. Thats why I hope to have a a few maps that are just for that and no PvP in the PvE areas. EQ was by far the best PvE I have ever played and I would hate to see pure PvEer driven off by lowbe camping or using the flagging system.
I know you don't think so, but what you're describing is the definition of linear and coddled gameplay.
I refer you to the title of this thread and wish you luck, sir.
If he makes a game because players want pvp, then he is coddling pvpers as well. It goes both ways.....
Yeah nice try but thats not what it means...By your logic you are saying he is shielding pvpers from the carebears and their deadly carebear stare? Or the young people that start talking crap and you cant kill them so he is codding pvpers so they can kill them? I honestly have no clue what you are getting at.
Originally posted by aspekxi think the broken hopes and dreams for EQN will be the final straw for the mmo community.
If EQ Next is not going to be as hardcore as Pre-Trammel Ultima Online, I'll throw my PC out of the window and will go back to playing 10 hour sessions of Tetris on my B/W Gameboy. Only switching between music A and B occasionally
lol that made me chuckle from nostalgia.
Lol I was the guy who came into the mines and killed all the miners and took their materials .
I think I made a master smith just from the mats farmed from pkilling miners .
This is the key...concentual pvp with permadeath. I love it. The pvpr's will kill themselves off and we can enjoy the game. Natural selection at it's finest.
He did not specifically agree with open world PvP. For all you know he could be agreeing with part of what was said, like just the risk vs. reward part. Smedly is like a politician, he will say things to hype, albeit bait, everyone, including niche crowds like PvPers and Rpers. PvE and Risk vs Reward is what EQ was always about from beginning to end game.
He did not specifically agree with open world PvP. For all you know he could be agreeing with part of what was said, like just the risk vs. reward part. Smedly is like a politician, he will say things to hype, albeit bait, everyone, including niche crowds like PvPers and Rpers. PvE and Risk vs Reward is what EQ was always about from beginning to end game.
It's possible he has no access to the project either. None of the EQ or EQ2 dev staff has access to the EQNext project. Who knows if Smedley has, he might just make up stuff as he goes along.
Well if he is being true to his word then all I have to say is, it is about time. Not every mmo needs to be linear and hold you by the hand. That is part of the problem with the current steaming pile of mmos these days.
Comments
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Dont care what the title is... you have to look at the staples of what makes EQ, EQ. PvE! Thats it. The fans over the past 14 years that have supported it have been mostly PvE fans. Do you really think they will shaft their prime fan base by putting them in a situation where they are forced to PvP? I dont think so. But can you really launch a MMO in 2013 and not have a solid PvP plan? Not really. So where is the balance? Flag system where it so easy to force people to flag? All PvP servers? EQ has always been that game where you can play with any race. So I dont think thats a very EQ move as well. I could be wrong. AA has a continent just for PvPing if I read right? This is far from hand holding. How big dose a map need to be to give open world PvP a real fun sandbox feel? With how many square miles EQ1 and EQ2 ended up I would say 25%. Forcing people to PvP is not EQ in any way.
Full PVP servers
PVE servers
Now THAT would be fun.
All die, so die well.
In the truly fleshed out and fully realized "next gen" MMO experience, the player wouldn't be able to tell the difference between PvE and PvP.
They would also be able to pull this off while still being able to establish and maintain social order.
Players would care about their reputation and place in the world, and the anti-social and/or truly malevolent "anti-society" types would be few and far between.
They would genuinely care about their friends and in-game "family," and most would fear being both excluded from the social norms and/or standing out too far and thus alienating themselves.
As it is in the real world.
I am almost 99% certain none of this will actually be true in EQNext, and more likely than not EQNext's "sandbox" nature is going to revolve around a variety of server types and some system-based tools for content creation.
They may even expand upon the availability of "official" servers and allow player made and run servers and custom rule sets.
Create more tight knit communities, but each smaller and more "micro" than the overall macro community.
Also, linear statistical progression, be it levels or skills or gear or all of them etc. is pretty much a must as 9/10 MMO players would never play a game without some kind of power progression/vertical growth.
Bad Spock, BAAAAAAD SPOCK! Learn to have some faith. When MMO jumpers leave EQN things will settle down and a real community with form. Thats gona take time, but withing a year you will see it start to happen.
ATITD. Total sandbox and no combat what so ever let alone pvp. It is small but it has also been around for many years under active development.
It is also worth noting that it isn't simply the pvp in Eve Online that drives the economy, it is that things can blow up and be destroyed. Granted most of the blowing up is driven by the pvp of the game but it isn't the pvp itself it is the results of the pvp. The important point is that things must have a limited lifespan in some way or another. SWG did this even on its PvE side with item durability decay and that structures needed to be maintained. You don't need open world pvp to keep a sandbox economy running, you need a need for crafted items to be replaced, pvp can simply help with that.
All die, so die well.
I definitely think there's more to EQN than that.. otherwise mmorpg.com and tth made a fool of themselves and Bill pooped his pants because of something that he's already seen in Neverwinter..
I'm not all that excited about content creation, like the foundy to be honest.. I'm more interested in housing, player cities, having your own shops.. And I'm pretty sure we'll see something of that in EQN. Plus the already mentioned changing seasons (has any other AAA mmo done this?)
I'm also hoping for intelligent wildlife. Like in Ryzom.
SWG, Eve, Planetside 2, EQN, Star Citizen
I hear you but you've gotta remember that the devs have been warning us that this will be a totally different game and that they didn't want to just make a new version of EQ1 and EQ2. Why would they bother saying that if they were stuck on the things players are used to?
I definitely don't think there'll be forced PVP, unless it's on a "PVP server". They've said this game will be different from EQ1 and 2 yes. But Dave's also mentioned catering to different gamers; hardcore gamers, crafters, casuals, socials.. So why wouldn't pvpers be included, but no way do I see forced PVP in there, if they are going to cater to so many different gamers.
SWG, Eve, Planetside 2, EQN, Star Citizen
Faction system of Everquest was one of the coolest features it had in my opinion. In fact it was one of the most overlooked features in Everquest yet everyone had to deal with it at some point in the game.
Everquest Next could take this to the next level and really turn it up and add alot of dynamic to it. I never understood why cities weren't attacked be monsters and creatures, as that was why they had to have protection and walls.
lol that made me chuckle from nostalgia.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
If he makes a game because players want pvp, then he is coddling pvpers as well. It goes both ways.....
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You don't understand the way he was using the word coddling. He was using it to refer to handholding that we see in many other MMO's. Linear gameplay. PvP is by definition not coddling because it creates a brutal environment that the player succeeds in or fails based off their own effort. They aren't protected by systems.
Catering =/= Coddling.
It seems he is Catering to PvPers. Which is nice to see for once.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
Nevermind. These forums are such a waste of time. lol.
ATITD isnt really a PvE game either, because as you pointed out has no combat
Someone mentioned Runescape which i always took to be a game closer to old EQ but with a skill system instead of levels. Not a themepark, but not a true sandbox either (as far as I know there is no interaction with the game world. Levels vs skills is *not* a themepark vs sandbox thing at all.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Yeah nice try but thats not what it means...By your logic you are saying he is shielding pvpers from the carebears and their deadly carebear stare? Or the young people that start talking crap and you cant kill them so he is codding pvpers so they can kill them? I honestly have no clue what you are getting at.
Haha, why do I get the feeling you typed that EXTRA hard...
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Have to give a +1 for Poetic here, and a -1 for evasive answering to smeders
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
Lol I was the guy who came into the mines and killed all the miners and took their materials .
I think I made a master smith just from the mats farmed from pkilling miners .
He did not specifically agree with open world PvP. For all you know he could be agreeing with part of what was said, like just the risk vs. reward part. Smedly is like a politician, he will say things to hype, albeit bait, everyone, including niche crowds like PvPers and Rpers. PvE and Risk vs Reward is what EQ was always about from beginning to end game.
It's possible he has no access to the project either. None of the EQ or EQ2 dev staff has access to the EQNext project. Who knows if Smedley has, he might just make up stuff as he goes along.