Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Your definition is Consensual though and that's what many of us don't mind. There are a few consensual PvP systems that will work and the crux of this argument and this post is that the PvP must contain consensual encounters. Whether it be through a flagging system, an alignment system, segregated PvP zones, or any number of other consensual PvP ideals. What we don't want is Darkfall or UO pre-trammel.
A dedicated sandbox PvE experience with a consensual PvP mechanic is fine. The beauty of our arguments is that we PvE players are willing to meet In the middle when it comes to PvP but the ugly truth is the PvP crowd wants to force their playstyle on us. That is inherently a damning proposition and further proves to me the whole argument that the PvP crowd makes for a horrible community.
ok, I don't think that one of your statements is 100% true. I like full pvp. However, given what I stated above - player made cities that can war or not, and there should be a mechanic in place that allows a city to have a neutral flag... however that should have penalties - like not be able to farm mobs in a non-neutrals territory without paying a price to that city. If you want peace - pay for it. I don't want to force anything down anyone's throat - compromise works for me. However the games being made with anything but arena pvp, which I loathe, seem to me to be getting fewer and fewer. Well there a lot of pve games. Make one with the things I said - PvP between player cities, a status for cities that do not want to war, but with the penalty that they have to make arrangements to farm mobs for loot in an "aggressive" Cities territory. If I ran an aggressive city I would appreciate some extra income coming in to maintain my ability to fight the wars i am in. Don't know about anyone else but I would play that style.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
Your right I consider all PvP horrifying and bland but I still do not mind mechanics or systems in a game to give consensual styles. Let me PvE and I'll let you PvP. No one is forcing you to PvE, unless you consider the leveling up portion and other RPG elements part of the PvE (which it is) but those elements are required in an mmoRPG, if you do not like the RPG elements (PvE) then why not play a FPS or a MOBA.
Then again it's the Developers who are forcing the PvE down your through because by definition you need those elements in an mmoRPG or it becomes a different genre altogether.
1) pve is a part of a good game, pvp is also. PvP can be done in such a way as to protect those who cannot pvp, whether by lack of skill or lack of onviction.
2) PvP does not have to be non-consensual.
3) do not blame the dev's the listen to the very loud complaints of those gamers who don't like a game that has any challenges or pvp or anything that really makes a game interesting. They just want a casual experience with no effort. They have ruined LOTRO, and a few other games and have gotten them so nerfed that they are not worth playing. Notice I am talking about a pve game here.
4) you are going to endlessly argue your points because you have a closed mind. I know a compromise could be made - if you opened your mind to compromise. You are only interested in your gameplay not anyone else's. That is sad. By the way - as to pvp - any type of pvp being horrifying - it is just a game. You do not actually lose anything real. peace, hope you get all the crap pve games you want. please understand that your attitude excludes people from playing mmo's and that it is you doing the shoving, not us.
Since we're gamers on these particular forums, naturally our own opinions invalidate everyone elses right?
The real argument here now, for some reason, seems to be wether or not a pvp game must contain full on, no way out pvp or if it must have a way to opt out.
Honestly I would think the answer is easy and simple.
PVP people clearly luvs them their pvp I don't see why they should care one bit if people can opt out, those are people that didn't want to play with you in the first place. The other way around here is if (and this is a big if) the game actually happens to have a no opt out system, face it, the pve people are not going to play it, for the same reason as above, they didn't want to play with the pvp people to begin with!
If this makes you mad as a PVE player that the PVP people got a game to themselves, well hush, you have plenty to go PVE in and nobody is forcing you to play EQ next, again we're assuming they go the unlikely road of full on pvp.
If the game DOESN'T go full PVP (As I personaly feel is far more likely), then PVE people you got the game you wanted, the ability to opt in and out at will, PVP people you'll simply have to take it for what it is and hope something else comes along.
You can argue back and forth all day about which is better and who's team is prettiest and most popular but frankly you're all arguing in circles and are starting to sound like a broken record now. There's nothing, I repeat, NOTHING wrong with liking a certain kind of game. Just because it's a way you don't like doesn't make it a bad game, just makes it a bad one for YOU.
People have said it here a few times, PVP'rs are trying to shove PVP down our throat, well PVE'rs are doing the same thing to them. Cease and desist, neither of you two sides are going to change anyones mind.
I still don't think mandatory pvp will drive the players away if it is truly a fantasy sandbox. It is the possibility of full loot pvp that may.
Then again, if he wants to make eve in a fantasy environment I am all for it.
History proves otherwise.
Not that I care 1 way or the other, if its a FFA game, I wont play. If it isn't I will. Pretty simple.
I think if the only pull the game has is that it is ffa pvp then yeah it will drive people away. But if this game has everything a gamer has ever been looking for but I have to put up with being ganked every once and a while (without losing my stuff) then I would be okay with it and I am sure many others would be as well
Couldn't speak for every otherone but I can speak for me and I would never play that game. Even when I play themepark MMO's with alternate ruleset servers I still play on strict PvE servers because I abhor non-consensual PvP. The thought of getting ganked while I'm doing a quest or farming resources is abhorrent to me because when I do something like say quest or farm resource nodes, that's what I expect to do with my time and if I am interrupted I get pissed because then it forces me to either move on or fight. It's a mentality that a lot of people have it's not right or wrong but if I want to PvP (which I won't but for arguments sake say I do) then I will either flag myself, go to a PvP zone, queue up a battleground, or any other myriad consensual PvP functions.
I would wager forcing the PvP element is not as promising and as blasé as it sounds even if the game has amazing PvE elements.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
1) make a PVP server with open pvp. (perhaps give it a Zek name to keep it real?)
2) make a PVP server with not-open pvp such as the factional pvp servers in EQ1.
3) make a PVE server.
then nobody's being driven away because everyone can play on the server they like.
amirite?
And when it comes time to balance some skills do you just maintain two entirely different systems?
Cause balanced for pve and balanced for pvp arent really the same thing. And neither side likes nerfs cause random spell was too good in the side of the game they dont really care about.
This was done very well in Ultima Online. There was a rule set that was simple to understand. This basically consisted of max resist/damage etc that could be done to players and also a max against PvE.
This made it very useful to balance gear dialing it into the levels cap levels you preferred. It worked very well and you could have sets for different purposes in your house or bank and just have the one you are using equipped at the time.
pvp has always beeen niche on eq ok maybe it wont be this time, but theyre not going to force pvp on people youll get your pvp but you;; have to flag as discord or something and people who dont want to wont have to OR itl be regulated to pvp servbers why do you insist on forceing people to pvp ? is it because u know people wont play on pvp servers as much? hmmm
STOP MAKEING endLess amounts of pvp threads WHEN WE KNOW EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Instead of non-consensual, how about player made cities that can declare war on other cities. Players in the war can pvp anywhere they find themselves. Players from neutral Cities cannot pvp or be pvp'd upon - unless their city joins a side - then they can pvp against the side they did not join. Call it player faction warfare. No predetermined sides. It would allow Cities to be made that specialize in being mercenaries, not unlike what happens in EVE. Is that a better idea than total non-consensual PVP?
Your definition is Consensual though and that's what many of us don't mind. There are a few consensual PvP systems that will work and the crux of this argument and this post is that the PvP must contain consensual encounters. Whether it be through a flagging system, an alignment system, segregated PvP zones, or any number of other consensual PvP ideals. What we don't want is Darkfall or UO pre-trammel.
A dedicated sandbox PvE experience with a consensual PvP mechanic is fine. The beauty of our arguments is that we PvE players are willing to meet In the middle when it comes to PvP but the ugly truth is the PvP crowd wants to force their playstyle on us. That is inherently a damning proposition and further proves to me the whole argument that the PvP crowd makes for a horrible community.
ok, I don't think that one of your statements is 100% true. I like full pvp. However, given what I stated above - player made cities that can war or not, and there should be a mechanic in place that allows a city to have a neutral flag... however that should have penalties - like not be able to farm mobs in a non-neutrals territory without paying a price to that city. If you want peace - pay for it. I don't want to force anything down anyone's throat - compromise works for me. However the games being made with anything but arena pvp, which I loathe, seem to me to be getting fewer and fewer. Well there a lot of pve games. Make one with the things I said - PvP between player cities, a status for cities that do not want to war, but with the penalty that they have to make arrangements to farm mobs for loot in an "aggressive" Cities territory. If I ran an aggressive city I would appreciate some extra income coming in to maintain my ability to fight the wars i am in. Don't know about anyone else but I would play that style.
Might want to look up the definition of Consensual my friend:
con·sen·su·al
1: existing or made by mutual consent without an act of writing consensual contract>
Or just have a flagged PvP option. Problem solved. PvP and PvE now Co- Exist. Let the player base choose which will thrive.
yeah, but I get the idea that a lot of Pve'rs want to shove non-pvp gameplay down pvp'rs throats and consider even the most bland pvp to be horrifying.
Your right I consider all PvP horrifying and bland but I still do not mind mechanics or systems in a game to give consensual styles. Let me PvE and I'll let you PvP. No one is forcing you to PvE, unless you consider the leveling up portion and other RPG elements part of the PvE (which it is) but those elements are required in an mmoRPG, if you do not like the RPG elements (PvE) then why not play a FPS or a MOBA.
Then again it's the Developers who are forcing the PvE down your through because by definition you need those elements in an mmoRPG or it becomes a different genre altogether.
1) pve is a part of a good game, pvp is also. PvP can be done in such a way as to protect those who cannot pvp, whether by lack of skill or lack of conviction.
2) PvP does not have to be non-consensual.
3) do not blame the dev's the listen to the very loud complaints of those gamers who don't like a game that has any challenges or pvp or anything that really makes a game interesting. They just want a casual experience with no effort. They have ruined LOTRO, and a few other games and have gotten them so nerfed that they are not worth playing. Notice I am talking about a pve game here.
4) you are going to endlessly argue your points because you have a closed mind. I know a compromise could be made - if you opened your mind to compromise. You are only interested in your gameplay not anyone else's. That is sad. By the way - as to pvp - any type of pvp being horrifying - it is just a game. You do not actually lose anything real. peace, hope you get all the crap pve games you want. please understand that your attitude excludes people from playing mmo's and that it is you doing the shoving, not us.
1. Opinion. I do not consider PvP required for a good game but that's my opinion. Again I'm not against having PvP but I am against forcing me to PvP when all I want to do is quest, hunt mobs, build stuff, craft, gather resources, role play with my guild and other PERSONAL PvE elements.
2. Yes it does FOR ME. Again I will never play a non-consensual PvP game. My opinion.
3. I'm not casual I play 12+ hours a day 7 days a week and all I do is PvE. I find plenty of challenges in a PvE game and I do not think adding Player Conflict makes a game interesting it makes me take more time to get to what I want to do. Imagine your self going on vacation to say Florida and its a 12 hour drive. I consider the 12 hour drive to get to your vacation destination the horrible part (travelling) so I wish to make it go by as quick as possible and if I could teleport to Florida to skip the Drive I would. To me Vacation in Florida is PvE the Drive to get there is PvP. Now if my car breaks down (I get ganked) and it moves my travel time back another 12 hours I just lost 12 hours doing what I want to do. Breaking down on the highway or stopping at some small town to site see (PvP) is not my ideal of fun. Now I'm sure there are people that like to travel to Florida and they stop at every rest stop and town along the way and don't mind the detours and lost time (my grandma) but I'm not one of them.
4.??WTF???. I am compromising, I say make the PvP consensual. I'm not saying "remove PvP or the game is fail".
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
If the PvP is Non-consensual, no they will not stay.
Most MMO gamers dont like PvP that is on someone elses terms.
Then they can go play any number of the shit mmos on the game list. PvPers have 2 games Darkfall and MO neither of which are done right even in the slightest because of being indie companys.
as unlikely as it is if you guys get eqnext to go full non consensual pvp on every server i will hunt you down irl and engage im some non consensual pvp you love so dearly
Holy crap... this thread is almost growing faster than I can read it. I've created a monster...!
This is the best PVP I've had all month.
my friend for that quote alone you deserve those full 5 stars next to your name.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
If the PvP is Non-consensual, no they will not stay.
Most MMO gamers dont like PvP that is on someone elses terms.
Then they can go play any number of the shit mmos on the game list.
i WANT TO PLAY EQ3 BECAUSE EQ1 IS DEAD TO ME EXTREMELY DATED GRAPHICS EXCUSES AS TO WHY THEY CANT DO THIS OR THAT, AND THE AA AND LVL SYSTEM IS SO bloated... and everyone i knew left it.
and eq2 bleh no tghanks and wow fuck no i cant stand their graphics and gameplay
Open world PvP should be limited to certain servers if Sony wants to make money off of this game. Really, most mmo players do not like it. However, sandbox game that players design and build would be awesome. Less work for Devs, more incentive for players. Also, as a side note...more game companies should get GM's involved in play as they did in LOTRO a couple of years ago. It's truly great fun and can be much more creative than just adding land mass.
Nice premise but it is entirely false for one reason. Non-consensual PvP is perhaps the smallest niche market in the MMO genre and is highly doubtful SOE would commit to this style of game with such a limited return on investment. Now I'm not saying it won't happen but I suspect that there will be alternate ruleset servers, PvE and PvP. This is the best case scenario.
Exactly.
Btw OP the poll you cited has far too few respondents to give an accurate indication of anything.
Open sandbox world ? Yes. Open world FFA PVP ? Bad idea, proof is littered a cross the MMO space like corpses on a battlefield.
Here's hoping this game goes open world non consensual PvP because at this point with all these threads and polls and people saying they won't play Everquest Next if it has PvP.
Bring on the PvP however you want to impliment it as there are work arounds and I so want to hunt and kill players much moreso then any predictible MOB as it is much more exciting and amusing and challenging and interesting.
Make this game as niche as you want as I would rather play alongside and against hardcore PvPers then these incessantly whiny and often catered to carebears any freakin day.
Everquest Next is inside of a blackbox like I've never witnessed before and people are already deciding if they want to buy the game to play or not on crap like if the game has PvP amd how its implimented?!?
Seriously why don't all you carebears go participate in ArchAge flying gliders or even Wildstar with its toony graphics...as this game sounds too dynamic for you to really appreciate
first of all, as has been noted elsewhere, Smed recently commented, i believe on twitter, that this game will not be "griefquest" so i think there's a lot of premature ... speculation going on here.
we all do it in one form or another, but the open pvp folks i think are craving a game that fits their model so badly lately, that this isn't surprising. i would add however, that perhaps waiting till the August reveal or even open beta, might be a more sane way to approach this.
if you want the ffa pvp in EQN my bet is that going directly to their forums or find contact info for them would work better.
finally, i take only one issue with the OP's statement: if you build it, they will come.
who exactly are 'they'?
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Open World PVP is niche not because people inherently dislike risk. It is niche because of the track record of the PVPers themselves. Given an inch, they take a mile.
Crafting, exploring, socializing, questing...all those activities build community. PVP can build community as well, if it occurs in the context of being just one of many enjoyable activities.
But "hard-core" PVPers want to do one thing, and one thing only - kill everything that moves. They could care less about the rest of the game, other game systems, lore, server population. It is kill, kill, kill, 24/7 and 365, and usually of the RPK style where anyone who is not you is fair game at anytime.
The natural result was what happened to old UO - they had to create Trammel to keep players from leaving.
When they created original UO, they thought open world PVP would work because people would kill for a reason, for a purpose, as part of their character's story, world politics, etc. They didn't expect the mindless Pavlovian slaughtering that actually occurred.
Same thing with wildlife. Raph Koster and company tried to design an ecosystem. Then they watched with jaws agape as people just fanned out like locusts attacking everything, regardless of whether they needed meat, hides, etc. Kill, kill, kill. Because I can hit something with this sword, I MUST hit something!
We have themeparks because people cannot or will not control themselves. Hence, few companies outside the niche in their right mind have completely open world PVP. Even Eve has safe areas.
Maybe EQN can square the circle. If so, hats off to them. I would support open world PVP if it was something that made for an interesting game world. If its the usual herd of psychopath zombies - no thanks.
Seriously why don't all you carebears go participate in ArchAge
ArcheAge is a forced PvP game from what Ive read.
Actually a handful of PvP focused games coming up in development with AA, Age of Wushu, Repopulation, Pathfinder Online, CU, ESO for the DAOC crowd. Really hasn't been another game like EQ that's come out since...well...EQ.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
Open World PVP is niche not because people inherently dislike risk. It is niche because of the track record of the PVPers themselves. Given an inch, they take a mile.
Crafting, exploring, socializing, questing...all those activities build community. PVP can build community as well, if it occurs in the context of being just one of many enjoyable activities.
But "hard-core" PVPers want to do one thing, and one thing only - kill everything that moves. They could care less about the rest of the game, other game systems, lore, server population. It is kill, kill, kill, 24/7 and 365, and usually of the RPK style where anyone who is not you is fair game at anytime.
The natural result was what happened to old UO - they had to create Trammel to keep players from leaving.
When they created original UO, they thought open world PVP would work because people would kill for a reason, for a purpose, as part of their character's story, world politics, etc. They didn't expect the mindless Pavlovian slaughtering that actually occurred.
Same thing with wildlife. Raph Koster and company tried to design an ecosystem. Then they watched with jaws agape as people just fanned out like locusts attacking everything, regardless of whether they needed meat, hides, etc. Kill, kill, kill. Because I can hit something with this sword, I MUST hit something!
We have themeparks because people cannot or will not control themselves. Hence, few companies outside the niche in their right mind have completely open world PVP. Even Eve has safe areas.
Maybe EQN can square the circle. If so, hats off to them. I would support open world PVP if it was something that made for an interesting game world. If its the usual herd of psychopath zombies - no thanks.
Originally posted by Kuanshu Here's hoping this game goes open world non consensual PvP because at this point with all these threads and polls and people saying they won't play Everquest Next if it has PvP.Bring on the PvP however you want to impliment it as there are work arounds and I so want to hunt and kill players much moreso then any predictible MOB as it is much more exciting and amusing and challenging and interesting.Make this game as niche as you want as I would rather play alongside and against hardcore PvPers then these incessantly whiny and often catered to carebears any freakin day. Everquest Next is inside of a blackbox like I've never witnessed before and people are already deciding if they want to buy the game to play or not on crap like if the game has PvP amd how its implimented?!? Seriously why don't all you carebears go participate in ArchAge flying gliders or even Wildstar with its toony graphics...as this game sounds too dynamic for you to really appreciate
This post pretty much sums up all the attitudes that will prevent EQN from having those hardcore features. Sony isn't going to spend the time and the money they are spending on a game that's going to send the majority of players someplace else.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Open World PVP is niche not because people inherently dislike risk. It is niche because of the track record of the PVPers themselves. Given an inch, they take a mile.
Crafting, exploring, socializing, questing...all those activities build community. PVP can build community as well, if it occurs in the context of being just one of many enjoyable activities.
But "hard-core" PVPers want to do one thing, and one thing only - kill everything that moves. They could care less about the rest of the game, other game systems, lore, server population. It is kill, kill, kill, 24/7 and 365, and usually of the RPK style where anyone who is not you is fair game at anytime.
The natural result was what happened to old UO - they had to create Trammel to keep players from leaving.
When they created original UO, they thought open world PVP would work because people would kill for a reason, for a purpose, as part of their character's story, world politics, etc. They didn't expect the mindless Pavlovian slaughtering that actually occurred.
Same thing with wildlife. Raph Koster and company tried to design an ecosystem. Then they watched with jaws agape as people just fanned out like locusts attacking everything, regardless of whether they needed meat, hides, etc. Kill, kill, kill. Because I can hit something with this sword, I MUST hit something!
We have themeparks because people cannot or will not control themselves. Hence, few companies outside the niche in their right mind have completely open world PVP. Even Eve has safe areas.
Maybe EQN can square the circle. If so, hats off to them. I would support open world PVP if it was something that made for an interesting game world. If its the usual herd of psychopath zombies - no thanks.
Except not.
Eve proves the first two paragraphs of your dribble to be not only wrong, but factually so incorrect its not funny. EVE is open pvp, even if safe zones you still get ganked. Its full loot, player driven sandbox, yet not every single player in eve who is a hardcore pvp'r just pirates all day long.
Andred, and Mordred proved that wrong also. Although population and other changes would ruin the pvp environment there, you still have complete guilds of "protectors" and guilds of "gankers" both filled to the brim with "hard core pvprs" The problem is here that people like you, preconceived notions and all want it ALL. You aren't happy that 99.5% of the market is care bear, theme park no risk, no life, no story bs because its easy for you to just faceroll through it so you have to change ANY game on the market coming out with as much of this non factual spewage as you can in hopes you can rally the other drones in an attempt to change a game before you even try it.
Also, you can say you would support an open world pvp "if it does this, or that" all you want, but the blatant mis-characterization of pvp'rs and the cherry picking of systems you find to be a problem while ignoring ones that work, won't actually make those of us who do love pvp believe you anymore.
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
Comments
1) pve is a part of a good game, pvp is also. PvP can be done in such a way as to protect those who cannot pvp, whether by lack of skill or lack of onviction.
2) PvP does not have to be non-consensual.
3) do not blame the dev's the listen to the very loud complaints of those gamers who don't like a game that has any challenges or pvp or anything that really makes a game interesting. They just want a casual experience with no effort. They have ruined LOTRO, and a few other games and have gotten them so nerfed that they are not worth playing. Notice I am talking about a pve game here.
4) you are going to endlessly argue your points because you have a closed mind. I know a compromise could be made - if you opened your mind to compromise. You are only interested in your gameplay not anyone else's. That is sad. By the way - as to pvp - any type of pvp being horrifying - it is just a game. You do not actually lose anything real. peace, hope you get all the crap pve games you want. please understand that your attitude excludes people from playing mmo's and that it is you doing the shoving, not us.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Why is this thread still happening?
We get it, everyone gets it!
PVP people like pvp.
PVE people like pve.
Since we're gamers on these particular forums, naturally our own opinions invalidate everyone elses right?
The real argument here now, for some reason, seems to be wether or not a pvp game must contain full on, no way out pvp or if it must have a way to opt out.
Honestly I would think the answer is easy and simple.
PVP people clearly luvs them their pvp I don't see why they should care one bit if people can opt out, those are people that didn't want to play with you in the first place. The other way around here is if (and this is a big if) the game actually happens to have a no opt out system, face it, the pve people are not going to play it, for the same reason as above, they didn't want to play with the pvp people to begin with!
If this makes you mad as a PVE player that the PVP people got a game to themselves, well hush, you have plenty to go PVE in and nobody is forcing you to play EQ next, again we're assuming they go the unlikely road of full on pvp.
If the game DOESN'T go full PVP (As I personaly feel is far more likely), then PVE people you got the game you wanted, the ability to opt in and out at will, PVP people you'll simply have to take it for what it is and hope something else comes along.
You can argue back and forth all day about which is better and who's team is prettiest and most popular but frankly you're all arguing in circles and are starting to sound like a broken record now. There's nothing, I repeat, NOTHING wrong with liking a certain kind of game. Just because it's a way you don't like doesn't make it a bad game, just makes it a bad one for YOU.
People have said it here a few times, PVP'rs are trying to shove PVP down our throat, well PVE'rs are doing the same thing to them. Cease and desist, neither of you two sides are going to change anyones mind.
Holy crap... this thread is almost growing faster than I can read it. I've created a monster...!
This is the best PVP I've had all month.
Couldn't speak for every otherone but I can speak for me and I would never play that game. Even when I play themepark MMO's with alternate ruleset servers I still play on strict PvE servers because I abhor non-consensual PvP. The thought of getting ganked while I'm doing a quest or farming resources is abhorrent to me because when I do something like say quest or farm resource nodes, that's what I expect to do with my time and if I am interrupted I get pissed because then it forces me to either move on or fight. It's a mentality that a lot of people have it's not right or wrong but if I want to PvP (which I won't but for arguments sake say I do) then I will either flag myself, go to a PvP zone, queue up a battleground, or any other myriad consensual PvP functions.
I would wager forcing the PvP element is not as promising and as blasé as it sounds even if the game has amazing PvE elements.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
This was done very well in Ultima Online. There was a rule set that was simple to understand. This basically consisted of max resist/damage etc that could be done to players and also a max against PvE.
This made it very useful to balance gear dialing it into the levels cap levels you preferred. It worked very well and you could have sets for different purposes in your house or bank and just have the one you are using equipped at the time.
pvp has always beeen niche on eq ok maybe it wont be this time, but theyre not going to force pvp on people youll get your pvp but you;; have to flag as discord or something and people who dont want to wont have to OR itl be regulated to pvp servbers why do you insist on forceing people to pvp ? is it because u know people wont play on pvp servers as much? hmmm
STOP MAKEING endLess amounts of pvp threads WHEN WE KNOW EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT IT.
1. Opinion. I do not consider PvP required for a good game but that's my opinion. Again I'm not against having PvP but I am against forcing me to PvP when all I want to do is quest, hunt mobs, build stuff, craft, gather resources, role play with my guild and other PERSONAL PvE elements.
2. Yes it does FOR ME. Again I will never play a non-consensual PvP game. My opinion.
3. I'm not casual I play 12+ hours a day 7 days a week and all I do is PvE. I find plenty of challenges in a PvE game and I do not think adding Player Conflict makes a game interesting it makes me take more time to get to what I want to do. Imagine your self going on vacation to say Florida and its a 12 hour drive. I consider the 12 hour drive to get to your vacation destination the horrible part (travelling) so I wish to make it go by as quick as possible and if I could teleport to Florida to skip the Drive I would. To me Vacation in Florida is PvE the Drive to get there is PvP. Now if my car breaks down (I get ganked) and it moves my travel time back another 12 hours I just lost 12 hours doing what I want to do. Breaking down on the highway or stopping at some small town to site see (PvP) is not my ideal of fun. Now I'm sure there are people that like to travel to Florida and they stop at every rest stop and town along the way and don't mind the detours and lost time (my grandma) but I'm not one of them.
4.??WTF???. I am compromising, I say make the PvP consensual. I'm not saying "remove PvP or the game is fail".
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
i am speculating but i don't think separate pve/pvp servers are an option with this game.
if it truly is the largest sandbox style mmo ever made, its likely going to be only one server.
maybe there could be one pve and one pvp server if there is a shit ton of players playing this.
but if its that massive it will feel barren if there are multiple game worlds to join IMO
Then they can go play any number of the shit mmos on the game list. PvPers have 2 games Darkfall and MO neither of which are done right even in the slightest because of being indie companys.
then they could just have a pvp shard . feel like pvping move to that shard
my friend for that quote alone you deserve those full 5 stars next to your name.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
i WANT TO PLAY EQ3 BECAUSE EQ1 IS DEAD TO ME EXTREMELY DATED GRAPHICS EXCUSES AS TO WHY THEY CANT DO THIS OR THAT, AND THE AA AND LVL SYSTEM IS SO bloated... and everyone i knew left it.
and eq2 bleh no tghanks and wow fuck no i cant stand their graphics and gameplay
Exactly.Btw OP the poll you cited has far too few respondents to give an accurate indication of anything.
Open sandbox world ? Yes. Open world FFA PVP ? Bad idea, proof is littered a cross the MMO space like corpses on a battlefield.
Here's hoping this game goes open world non consensual PvP because at this point with all these threads and polls and people saying they won't play Everquest Next if it has PvP.
Bring on the PvP however you want to impliment it as there are work arounds and I so want to hunt and kill players much moreso then any predictible MOB as it is much more exciting and amusing and challenging and interesting.
Make this game as niche as you want as I would rather play alongside and against hardcore PvPers then these incessantly whiny and often catered to carebears any freakin day.
Everquest Next is inside of a blackbox like I've never witnessed before and people are already deciding if they want to buy the game to play or not on crap like if the game has PvP amd how its implimented?!?
Seriously why don't all you carebears go participate in ArchAge flying gliders or even Wildstar with its toony graphics...as this game sounds too dynamic for you to really appreciate
first of all, as has been noted elsewhere, Smed recently commented, i believe on twitter, that this game will not be "griefquest" so i think there's a lot of premature ... speculation going on here.
we all do it in one form or another, but the open pvp folks i think are craving a game that fits their model so badly lately, that this isn't surprising. i would add however, that perhaps waiting till the August reveal or even open beta, might be a more sane way to approach this.
if you want the ffa pvp in EQN my bet is that going directly to their forums or find contact info for them would work better.
finally, i take only one issue with the OP's statement: if you build it, they will come.
who exactly are 'they'?
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
ArcheAge is a forced PvP game from what Ive read.
Open World PVP is niche not because people inherently dislike risk. It is niche because of the track record of the PVPers themselves. Given an inch, they take a mile.
Crafting, exploring, socializing, questing...all those activities build community. PVP can build community as well, if it occurs in the context of being just one of many enjoyable activities.
But "hard-core" PVPers want to do one thing, and one thing only - kill everything that moves. They could care less about the rest of the game, other game systems, lore, server population. It is kill, kill, kill, 24/7 and 365, and usually of the RPK style where anyone who is not you is fair game at anytime.
The natural result was what happened to old UO - they had to create Trammel to keep players from leaving.
When they created original UO, they thought open world PVP would work because people would kill for a reason, for a purpose, as part of their character's story, world politics, etc. They didn't expect the mindless Pavlovian slaughtering that actually occurred.
Same thing with wildlife. Raph Koster and company tried to design an ecosystem. Then they watched with jaws agape as people just fanned out like locusts attacking everything, regardless of whether they needed meat, hides, etc. Kill, kill, kill. Because I can hit something with this sword, I MUST hit something!
We have themeparks because people cannot or will not control themselves. Hence, few companies outside the niche in their right mind have completely open world PVP. Even Eve has safe areas.
Maybe EQN can square the circle. If so, hats off to them. I would support open world PVP if it was something that made for an interesting game world. If its the usual herd of psychopath zombies - no thanks.
Actually a handful of PvP focused games coming up in development with AA, Age of Wushu, Repopulation, Pathfinder Online, CU, ESO for the DAOC crowd. Really hasn't been another game like EQ that's come out since...well...EQ.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
Smart post here
This post pretty much sums up all the attitudes that will prevent EQN from having those hardcore features. Sony isn't going to spend the time and the money they are spending on a game that's going to send the majority of players someplace else.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Except not.
Eve proves the first two paragraphs of your dribble to be not only wrong, but factually so incorrect its not funny. EVE is open pvp, even if safe zones you still get ganked. Its full loot, player driven sandbox, yet not every single player in eve who is a hardcore pvp'r just pirates all day long.
Andred, and Mordred proved that wrong also. Although population and other changes would ruin the pvp environment there, you still have complete guilds of "protectors" and guilds of "gankers" both filled to the brim with "hard core pvprs" The problem is here that people like you, preconceived notions and all want it ALL. You aren't happy that 99.5% of the market is care bear, theme park no risk, no life, no story bs because its easy for you to just faceroll through it so you have to change ANY game on the market coming out with as much of this non factual spewage as you can in hopes you can rally the other drones in an attempt to change a game before you even try it.
Also, you can say you would support an open world pvp "if it does this, or that" all you want, but the blatant mis-characterization of pvp'rs and the cherry picking of systems you find to be a problem while ignoring ones that work, won't actually make those of us who do love pvp believe you anymore.
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley