First off there were too many PvP and PvE threads fighting over what Everquest Next is going to be, so instead of answering each one, I made my own thread.
So I grew slighty concerned as well as some of my guild-mates about the idea of the EQ IP being changed from a PvE Centric game to a Non Consensual PVP game.
I opted to Ask a number of the Developers.
The Lead Game Designer answered, and here it is:
So there you have it folks a Bad design decision. Now this most likely means that PvP will continue to be all the rage on the PvP Servers(as it has ALWAYS been) and PvE'ers will continue to be safe from torment while enjoying their gaming experience.
Spoken like a true PR flack or politician... ^^ Avoiding Bad Design Decisions is usually a Good Idea (tm)... ^^ But keep in mind that judgement plays a role in deciding what a Bad Design Decision is, and that dear old Smed brought us the NGE, so I'd not really trust his judgement that much...^^
If they wanted to be open and above board, they would simply state in clear terms what type of PvP EQN would have. The fact that they aren't being open, speaks volumes.
It is a great marketing ploy. Let everyone discuss pvp pro or con for a month in context of EGN, EQN gets a ton of word of mouth, is on everyone's lips. Do this by answering vaguely every question put to them - been working fine so far.
It's working INCREDIBLY well !
They WANT to generate discussion, arguments and forum traffic.
By continuing to neither confirm nor deny anything but the absolutely wildest speculation, the SOE team allows all agendas to remain viable. That means everyone keeps on enthusiastically arguing that THEIR interpretation of the latest enigmatic phrase is the correct one.
There is no reason to try to re-invent the wheel. EQ's original PVP ruleset servers are ideal for EQ Next. Those three servers were great fun. Here is what you can expect:
Racial Teams PVP: Elves, Half Elves and High Elves
Humans, Barbarians and Erudites
Trolls, Iksars, Dark Elves and Ogres
Gnomes, Dwarves and Halflings
-You could loot all coin on an enemy plus one item, and there was a 8 level range difference where you could attack/be attacked.
Free for All PVP: Anyone could attack anyone with coin loot and there was a 4 level difference. This was the least popular of the PVP servers.
If they wanted to add another type of server they could add teams Diety server where you had Goods VS Neutrals VS Evils. This would allow some odd race/class/religion choices.
I think the MOST important thing about original EQ PVP was that there was NO SAFE ZONEs and no level limits. So as soon as you entered the world you could be attacked. The other crucial thing was the one item loot. Coin loot is meaningless, everyone banked. And full item loot is a massive hassle. But one item loot was great. You went out but were still fearful because you did not want to get ganked and lose a precious item....
I am awful at PVP, always have been and always will be, but I will be playing on a one item loot server/diety based teams if there is one. It ramps up the fun level dramatically.
But again, the KEY part is no safe zones, and ONE ITEM loot and all levels can PVP as soon as you enter the game. If you stray just a little bit, you open the way for exploits.
It's better if you don't worry about it. You won't get anything more than a few vague answers that sound like something you want to hear. SOE is just trying to get a lot of attention and build up hype at the moment. It's what they do and they're good at it. I won't be surprised if Smedley starts apologizing a week after release due to extremely disappointed players.
It's funny that some us believe that SoE is building something truly groundbreaking and next gen yet don't trust that they will get something like PvP implementation right.
Since we know nothing exactly yet how's about we hope for what we want? Convincing each other that what we want should be in EQN is fine but gets wierd when jabs start coming across.
There is no reason to try to re-invent the wheel. EQ's original PVP ruleset servers are ideal for EQ Next. Those three servers were great fun. Here is what you can expect:
Racial Teams PVP: Elves, Half Elves and High Elves
Humans, Barbarians and Erudites
Trolls, Iksars, Dark Elves and Ogres
Gnomes, Dwarves and Halflings
-You could loot all coin on an enemy plus one item, and there was a 8 level range difference where you could attack/be attacked.
Free for All PVP: Anyone could attack anyone with coin loot and there was a 4 level difference. This was the least popular of the PVP servers.
If they wanted to add another type of server they could add teams Diety server where you had Goods VS Neutrals VS Evils. This would allow some odd race/class/religion choices.
I think the MOST important thing about original EQ PVP was that there was NO SAFE ZONEs and no level limits. So as soon as you entered the world you could be attacked. The other crucial thing was the one item loot. Coin loot is meaningless, everyone banked. And full item loot is a massive hassle. But one item loot was great. You went out but were still fearful because you did not want to get ganked and lose a precious item....
I am awful at PVP, always have been and always will be, but I will be playing on a one item loot server/diety based teams if there is one. It ramps up the fun level dramatically.
But again, the KEY part is no safe zones, and ONE ITEM loot and all levels can PVP as soon as you enter the game. If you stray just a little bit, you open the way for exploits.
Race wars servers had no item loot.
Rallos Zek (FFA PvP +- 4 Levels) was the only one, which is why it was the least popular while still a well populated server.
After they started talking about pvp, I thought about how I'd actually prefer if the game had some open pvp (which normally doesn't interest me).
But not if it's just going to be FFA get ganked anywhere for no reason PVP. So assuming they want to add meaningful PVP to the game but don't want it to be to the detriment of people that aren't interested in just getting pointlessly ganked while raising skills, that's the direction I'd like it to head anyway.
It could be implying "open world PVP is bad design" or he could mean "our version of open world PVP is good design, you'll like it more than you can imagine".
The tweet is self explanatory. In the context in which the question was asked, it is the Lead Designers opinion that "forced non-consensual" PvP is bad game design.
To try to spin this to mean anything else is being disingenious.
I feel he is hinting it as a bad design choice and I completely agree. There needs to be some 'limitations' in how things are done, whether its just making it a consensual thing, or having certain areas which its only accepted in, having factions or using guild as an alignment, or having a crime system in place to punish the bad players...
Something really rather then free Open PvP. Its just a horrible mess of chaos, often a very unfun one except for 1 or 2 people with the gear and power to kill others without having much skill being required in the process, then repeating it over and over to cause grief and pain rather then doing anything 'productive'.
Only the rabid , delusional , gankaholic PvP types can actually believe Everquest Next would have non consensual PvP. Most likely PvP will be in the game but not forced on PvE people who love questing and enjoying the game without getting jumped on.
The tweet is self explanatory. In the context in which the question was asked, it is the Lead Designers opinion that "forced non-consensual" PvP is bad game design.
To try to spin this to mean anything else is being disingenious.
I dont want forced PvP but this twitter means very little. Taking it to mean anything other then they want to avoid bad game design is reaching. It could just mean their PvP system is better then most. I still hope PvP in EQN is a little more themepark then the rest of the game. Something like DAoC or ESO PvP system IMO would rock. A map where you goto PvP and PvE player need never go there.
Originally posted by flizzer Only the rabid , delusional , gankaholic PvP types can actually believe Everquest Next would have non consensual PvP. Most likely PvP will be in the game but not forced on PvE people who love questing and enjoying the game without getting jumped on.
This site is full of delusional people. There will be lots of people that believe that ffa pvp is going to be the only option up until the time where they try and attack someone and can't.
Then it will be off the the forums to call the game another fail mmo.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
Sorry for butting in... the answer is very vague and is far from any assured truth, hammer or otherwise.
Honestly we don't know what the ruleset will be, all the interviews, tweets, etc. have been cryptic. We know conflict is important, we know there won't be hand holding, and more recently we know that they will avoid "bad design decisions" but given SOE's track record with EQ2 their NOT "bad designs" could turn out to be simply horrible instead :P
I wouldn't proclaim PvE or PvP until we see the next batch interviews in August.
Tallon Zek server most certainly DID have item loot. I played exclusively on that server and was looted constantly..lol. I think they changed both Tallon and Vallon to coin only loot around 2001 or some time near that, and it was a bad change.
Originally posted by adderVXI Why cant we just have a flagging system like SWG was? All those people wanting the pvp excitement can have it. That would cut out the killing of level 2 people in starter areas though which is perhaps the real goal.
I've been trying to make ppl listen by suggesting the same thing, just look on the first page and in other threads.
That system is the best possible one, that will make most ppl happy, and it's the closest we will get to open world pvp.
The problem is that nobody listens. lol
Your right, the only people that could be unhappy with that set up is the aholes that want to gank pve'ers over and over.
The flagging system of SWG is actually better than full open world pvp in my opinion. There was nothing more fun than going into Coronet flagged on my jedi or main and walking around all the other players too afraid to go overt and attack me because they didn't want to die and become flagged for pvp themselves.
I'm glad you think so...
Anyways, you didn't play on Farstar did ya? There was a sith doing exactly what you're talking about... Could stand outside of Coronet spaceport, but nobody would touch him, lol. Well known for being a badass player, heh...
The tweet is self explanatory. In the context in which the question was asked, it is the Lead Designers opinion that "forced non-consensual" PvP is bad game design.
To try to spin this to mean anything else is being disingenious.
I'd like to agree with you. But I am so jaded and cynical from years of double-speak and open ended statements that I simply refuse to believe anything a game dev says that isnt black and white and to the point, and even then, they still lie.
It could be implying "open world PVP is bad design" or he could mean "our version of open world PVP is good design, you'll like it more than you can imagine".
lol i don't know how you got the later, I think PVPers need to be nervous with that tweet to be honest. When someone brings up "non-consent PVP" and one of the developers comments that they want to avoid BAD design decisions.
lol i don't know how you got the later, I think PVPers need to be nervous with that tweet to be honest. When someone brings up "non-consent PVP" and one of the developers comments that they want to avoid BAD design decisions.
I think thats honestly pretty crystal clear.
they only need to be nervous if they were really looking forward to ganking pve players. If they really wanted a pvp game I'm sure they'll still get one on their pvp server. they just wont have all the fodder some of them were hoping for.
I don't think it takes a genius lvl IQ to figure out forcing people into a situation they don't want to be in is " bad game design "
It could be implying "open world PVP is bad design" or he could mean "our version of open world PVP is good design, you'll like it more than you can imagine".
lol i don't know how you got the later, I think PVPers need to be nervous with that tweet to be honest. When someone brings up "non-consent PVP" and one of the developers comments that they want to avoid BAD design decisions.
I think thats honestly pretty crystal clear.
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
The tweet is self explanatory. In the context in which the question was asked, it is the Lead Designers opinion that "forced non-consensual" PvP is bad game design.
To try to spin this to mean anything else is being disingenious.
exactly i don't see how people on this forum are taking it any other way. I mean if the original tweeter said "how will PVP be handled" and the developer said "we will avoid bad design decisions", then i could understand all the interpretations. however the original tweeter brought up "non-consent PVP" specifically which brought out the "bad design decisions".
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
well heck, I like ffa pvp and I still wouldn't design an ffa pvp game if I wanted to capitalize on the greatest return I could get.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It could be implying "open world PVP is bad design" or he could mean "our version of open world PVP is good design, you'll like it more than you can imagine".
lol i don't know how you got the later, I think PVPers need to be nervous with that tweet to be honest. When someone brings up "non-consent PVP" and one of the developers comments that they want to avoid BAD design decisions.
I think thats honestly pretty crystal clear.
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
there is a huge difference when you talk about experiences you enjoy and coming out and saying something is a bad design decision.
what if Smed came out and said he enjoys playing Candy Crush in his free time, would you take it as EQNext will have tons of mini-games that resemble Candy Crush?
Comments
Of course the FFA PvP'ers want non-consensual PvP. Otherwise they wouldn't have anyone to play with.
As for the quote. You could read the reply either way really. So not point worrying about it, just wait till August.
It's working INCREDIBLY well !
They WANT to generate discussion, arguments and forum traffic.
By continuing to neither confirm nor deny anything but the absolutely wildest speculation, the SOE team allows all agendas to remain viable. That means everyone keeps on enthusiastically arguing that THEIR interpretation of the latest enigmatic phrase is the correct one.
There is no reason to try to re-invent the wheel. EQ's original PVP ruleset servers are ideal for EQ Next. Those three servers were great fun. Here is what you can expect:
Racial Teams PVP: Elves, Half Elves and High Elves
Humans, Barbarians and Erudites
Trolls, Iksars, Dark Elves and Ogres
Gnomes, Dwarves and Halflings
-You could loot all coin on an enemy plus one item, and there was a 8 level range difference where you could attack/be attacked.
Free for All PVP: Anyone could attack anyone with coin loot and there was a 4 level difference. This was the least popular of the PVP servers.
If they wanted to add another type of server they could add teams Diety server where you had Goods VS Neutrals VS Evils. This would allow some odd race/class/religion choices.
I think the MOST important thing about original EQ PVP was that there was NO SAFE ZONEs and no level limits. So as soon as you entered the world you could be attacked. The other crucial thing was the one item loot. Coin loot is meaningless, everyone banked. And full item loot is a massive hassle. But one item loot was great. You went out but were still fearful because you did not want to get ganked and lose a precious item....
I am awful at PVP, always have been and always will be, but I will be playing on a one item loot server/diety based teams if there is one. It ramps up the fun level dramatically.
But again, the KEY part is no safe zones, and ONE ITEM loot and all levels can PVP as soon as you enter the game. If you stray just a little bit, you open the way for exploits.
It's better if you don't worry about it. You won't get anything more than a few vague answers that sound like something you want to hear. SOE is just trying to get a lot of attention and build up hype at the moment. It's what they do and they're good at it. I won't be surprised if Smedley starts apologizing a week after release due to extremely disappointed players.
Since we know nothing exactly yet how's about we hope for what we want? Convincing each other that what we want should be in EQN is fine but gets wierd when jabs start coming across.
Race wars servers had no item loot.
Rallos Zek (FFA PvP +- 4 Levels) was the only one, which is why it was the least popular while still a well populated server.
Good news I guess.
After they started talking about pvp, I thought about how I'd actually prefer if the game had some open pvp (which normally doesn't interest me).
But not if it's just going to be FFA get ganked anywhere for no reason PVP. So assuming they want to add meaningful PVP to the game but don't want it to be to the detriment of people that aren't interested in just getting pointlessly ganked while raising skills, that's the direction I'd like it to head anyway.
Another Rorschach Test quote.
And more useless than most.
It could be implying "open world PVP is bad design" or he could mean "our version of open world PVP is good design, you'll like it more than you can imagine".
The tweet is self explanatory. In the context in which the question was asked, it is the Lead Designers opinion that "forced non-consensual" PvP is bad game design.
To try to spin this to mean anything else is being disingenious.
I feel he is hinting it as a bad design choice and I completely agree. There needs to be some 'limitations' in how things are done, whether its just making it a consensual thing, or having certain areas which its only accepted in, having factions or using guild as an alignment, or having a crime system in place to punish the bad players...
Something really rather then free Open PvP. Its just a horrible mess of chaos, often a very unfun one except for 1 or 2 people with the gear and power to kill others without having much skill being required in the process, then repeating it over and over to cause grief and pain rather then doing anything 'productive'.
At least someone enjoyed the bit of humor in the discussion.
Don't underestimate the power of the Purple Monkey Dishwasher!
I dont want forced PvP but this twitter means very little. Taking it to mean anything other then they want to avoid bad game design is reaching. It could just mean their PvP system is better then most. I still hope PvP in EQN is a little more themepark then the rest of the game. Something like DAoC or ESO PvP system IMO would rock. A map where you goto PvP and PvE player need never go there.
This site is full of delusional people. There will be lots of people that believe that ffa pvp is going to be the only option up until the time where they try and attack someone and can't.
Then it will be off the the forums to call the game another fail mmo.
Sorry for butting in... the answer is very vague and is far from any assured truth, hammer or otherwise.
Honestly we don't know what the ruleset will be, all the interviews, tweets, etc. have been cryptic. We know conflict is important, we know there won't be hand holding, and more recently we know that they will avoid "bad design decisions" but given SOE's track record with EQ2 their NOT "bad designs" could turn out to be simply horrible instead :P
I wouldn't proclaim PvE or PvP until we see the next batch interviews in August.
Tallon Zek server most certainly DID have item loot. I played exclusively on that server and was looted constantly..lol. I think they changed both Tallon and Vallon to coin only loot around 2001 or some time near that, and it was a bad change.
I'm glad you think so...
Anyways, you didn't play on Farstar did ya? There was a sith doing exactly what you're talking about... Could stand outside of Coronet spaceport, but nobody would touch him, lol. Well known for being a badass player, heh...
I forgot his name.
I'd like to agree with you. But I am so jaded and cynical from years of double-speak and open ended statements that I simply refuse to believe anything a game dev says that isnt black and white and to the point, and even then, they still lie.
lol i don't know how you got the later, I think PVPers need to be nervous with that tweet to be honest. When someone brings up "non-consent PVP" and one of the developers comments that they want to avoid BAD design decisions.
I think thats honestly pretty crystal clear.
they only need to be nervous if they were really looking forward to ganking pve players. If they really wanted a pvp game I'm sure they'll still get one on their pvp server. they just wont have all the fodder some of them were hoping for.
I don't think it takes a genius lvl IQ to figure out forcing people into a situation they don't want to be in is " bad game design "
Yes and the head of the company (smed) was talking about how great permadeath is and how much he loves ganking in eve. So it's probably best not to read into these things too much.
exactly i don't see how people on this forum are taking it any other way. I mean if the original tweeter said "how will PVP be handled" and the developer said "we will avoid bad design decisions", then i could understand all the interpretations. however the original tweeter brought up "non-consent PVP" specifically which brought out the "bad design decisions".
well heck, I like ffa pvp and I still wouldn't design an ffa pvp game if I wanted to capitalize on the greatest return I could get.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
there is a huge difference when you talk about experiences you enjoy and coming out and saying something is a bad design decision.
what if Smed came out and said he enjoys playing Candy Crush in his free time, would you take it as EQNext will have tons of mini-games that resemble Candy Crush?