Most of the arguments spew from the vocal PvPers constantly clamoring that EQN will be all bout PvP with non-consensual open world PvP which naturally gonna stir the pot for yet another pissing contest on these forums.
Most like to have the PvP option but what they don't want is non-consensual open world PvP which is the prime ingredients for a griefing gankfest MMO.
But I just don't see any company with any sort of intelligence going for a open-world non-consensual PvP model as you are drastically limiting your audience as polls have shown here if they are worth any evidence. If your making a niche game sure I think that will suite the company just fine but I really doubt SOE will fund EQN for only a niche audiance, they are in for the money not the ideal game for a certain crowd.
But really all that could mean is that they will be making the game with PvP having depth along with PvE. Too much do MMOs just tack on PvP as an afterthought that really doesn't have any depth. Queue for BGs or Arenas is not a PvP system with any depth.
EQN will be the next iteration of the EQ series not just a parallel universe. The MMO genre has evolved so much so naturally a replica of the old EQ games is outdated and obsolete so there will be some major differences and feel from the past titles.
There can be non-consensual PvP done right. I think a great system would be if there is a zone with high valued resources (Be it for crafting/etc, but in my case, preferably crafting) that has PvP enabled in it. No, you can't just unflag yourself and get what you want and bolt out of the zone. The zone always has PvP enabled in it. You want that 2h Axe that badly and need that last ingredient for it? Go into that PvP enabled zone and get out with it.
I'm not saying everything that would be good that is crafted has to be done in that method, but i'd like to see some challenge in getting certain stuff.
If we believe what was said - that the game was "designed from the ground up with PVP in mind" - then I don't see the server approach working. Because it would be hard to justify putting a lot of resources into doing it right and we'd just have one more failed design to throw on the scrap pile.
I think it's more likely to be a pillar integrated with the rest of the game... now whether that's non-consent, in specific zones, or something else, no one really has concrete evidence and we probably won't get any until Aug. 2.
But I'm really hoping for the full open-world stuff. For me, that would be a sign that a lot of thought and energy will be going into making it fun.
I really hope they use phasing. You could have both PvE and PvP "shards that phase together in certain areas. That way the majority of the world for both playstyles can be just that but "meet in the middle" for some PvP fun.
Look at PS2. If you made the areas where the bases are the "phased together" areas outside of that could be PvP for that shard and PvE for another shard.
Originally posted by Aelious I really hope they use phasing. You could have both PvE and PvP "shards that phase together in certain areas. That way the majority of the world for both playstyles can be just that but "meet in the middle" for some PvP fun.
Look at PS2. If you made the areas where the bases are the "phased together" areas outside of that could be PvP for that shard and PvE for another shard.
Isn't Planetside 2 PVP everywhere between factions?
I know a lot has changed and they scrapped a couple of iterations of the game since then, but I think this is significant. The strongest counter-arguments against PVP as a pillar for the game have been that EQ was never about PVP and SOE wouldn't risk losing legacy players. But based on the link above it looks like they weren't weren't too concerned about that 3 years ago.
This comes back to all the hints SOE has been giving us about how this game is not a direct sequel like EQ2 but a parallel universe - something new and different. And they're going to continue to support all three games...
Several people here have pointed out that the kind of sandbox Smedley described needs PVP to work, but we didn't have much to support it other than ambiguous statements from him on twitter. I think this info from the very conception of EQN is important and we should all keep it in mind in order to not be too disappointed if it ends up being the case on Aug. 2.
This is just another example of people inferring based on very little.
Just because they have decided to think about pvp from the very start does not mean that they were not worried about risking "legacy players".
It means they decided to think about the best way to integrate pvp. It does not mean that they want to force everyone to pvp. Whats the best way to integrate pvp in a game where you have different players wanting different things?
to think about it from the very start of design.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Sorry, for clarification I was saying take the ps2 system and change it for EQN to make the bases represent the "phased" portion where pvp and pve shards meet and the rest of the world be PvP or PvE depending on what shard you are from.
Can we quit with the 2011 and 2010 EQ FanFaire presentations.
Everquest Next was scrapped about a year and ago and a retool to this sandbox was made. Nothing taken from those fan shows can be thought of as probable in the game.
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!!!
Can we quit with the 2011 and 2010 EQ FanFaire presentations.
Everquest Next was scrapped about a year and ago and a retool to this sandbox was made. Nothing taken from those fan shows can be thought of as probable in the game.
3 more weeks and hopefully there will be more sense than nonsense here.
Can we quit with the 2011 and 2010 EQ FanFaire presentations.
Everquest Next was scrapped about a year and ago and a retool to this sandbox was made. Nothing taken from those fan shows can be thought of as probable in the game.
^This......
Smed said they were very unhappy with with the look and feel and direction of the gameplay and they scrapped the whole lot and started again, so if the OP is so willing to take the 2010 comments at face value then logically it would then apply that it was bloody awful and they scrapped it a bit later.
Problem with cherry picking comments is it cuts both ways, what I said above is an example, the reality is, I don't flaming well know what on earth EQn will be, and that applies to everyone else clutching at straws...
The official announcement is so close now, it really beggers belief that some of you are still so desperate to invent anything you think is plausible to suit your own personnel whims and desires, its in a black box, one that has been the most complete and successful in MMO history, I think any information that was supposed to have been leak/slipped or plain old comments should be taken with a big grain of salt, they have been playing the mysterious hype card.
Can we quit with the 2011 and 2010 EQ FanFaire presentations.
Everquest Next was scrapped about a year and ago and a retool to this sandbox was made. Nothing taken from those fan shows can be thought of as probable in the game.
Scrapped almost 2 years ago by now. It was a year and a half ago around SOE Live last year.
Originally posted by kruler
Originally posted by azzamasin
Can we quit with the 2011 and 2010 EQ FanFaire presentations.
Everquest Next was scrapped about a year and ago and a retool to this sandbox was made. Nothing taken from those fan shows can be thought of as probable in the game.
^This......
Smed said they were very unhappy with with the look and feel and direction of the gameplay and they scrapped the whole lot and started again, so if the OP is so willing to take the 2010 comments at face value then logically it would then apply that it was bloody awful and they scrapped it a bit later.
Problem with cherry picking comments is it cuts both ways, what I said above is an example, the reality is, I don't flaming well know what on earth EQn will be, and that applies to everyone else clutching at straws...
The official announcement is so close now, it really beggers belief that some of you are still so desperate to invent anything you think is plausible to suit your own personnel whims and desires, its in a black box, one that has been the most complete and successful in MMO history, I think any information that was supposed to have been leak/slipped or plain old comments should be taken with a big grain of salt, they have been playing the mysterious hype card.
So much hostility. Yes, I'm grasping at straws, because that's all we have to go by. If there's no point in doing that then what point is there in visiting these threads at all until Aug. 2?
The reason they scrapped plans from the previous fan-faires is that they wanted the game to be "revolutionary" rather than just an evolution of what they did before. That doesn't mean every aspect of what they were going for was garbage. And in my opinion, scrapping the principle "designed from the ground up with PVP in mind" would be a step backwards.
Considering that pretty much every sandbox currently available is all PvP focused (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc), if EQN also follows suit with the exact same sort of focus than they only have themselves to blame for it not being as popular as it could be. It's well known that PvE focused gamers outnumber PvP by a large margin, so it wouldn't take a genius to look at the current playfield and see that PvP focused sandboxes >>>> PvE focused sandboxes in number (as far as what's available currently on the market). So if they can't figure out it's time to make a good game for the group that is currently empty of something to play then, as I said, only have themselves to blame.
Originally posted by Margulis Considering that pretty much every sandbox currently available is all PvP focused (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc), if EQN also follows suit with the exact same sort of focus than they only have themselves to blame for it not being as popular as it could be. It's well known that PvE focused gamers outnumber PvP by a large margin, so it wouldn't take a genius to look at the current playfield and see that PvP focused sandboxes >>>> PvE focused sandboxes (as far as what's available to play). So if they can't figure out it's time to make a good game for the group that is currently empty of something to play then, as I said, only have themselves to blame.
Every time someone suggests Everquest NEXT will be an OW FFA PvP game I get this vision of Smed and Smokejumper making the announcement at SOE Live and being carried bodily from the room and thrown into the nearest pool while a queue forms of people seeking to checkout of the casino and get a refund for two nights accommodation.
Originally posted by Margulis Considering that pretty much every sandbox currently available is all PvP focused (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc), if EQN also follows suit with the exact same sort of focus than they only have themselves to blame for it not being as popular as it could be. It's well known that PvE focused gamers outnumber PvP by a large margin, so it wouldn't take a genius to look at the current playfield and see that PvP focused sandboxes >>>> PvE focused sandboxes (as far as what's available to play). So if they can't figure out it's time to make a good game for the group that is currently empty of something to play then, as I said, only have themselves to blame.
There are many sandbox games that have limited or no pvp that do well. PVP has nothing to do with a sandbox or vice versa. Sandbox is due to player want and the large open worlds sandbox games provide.
Sandbox is all about exploration, crafting, building, housing, social interaction, player based economy, player based content, and so much more.
You do not need pvp in a sandbox to be successful, but it helps having that choice and freedom to get away from the norm for awhile. SO many people buy into that pvp = gankfest it isn't even funny. I have played many sandbox games and pvp games and rarely if at all get ganked. Just so many people here have no clue what the term "ganked" really means and people fear it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar to EVE with lawless areas, and adventure areas that are relatively safe from PVP. The lawless areas could be used as an option for highly valuable resources. As could high end adventure areas (PVE)..More risk more reward would be the point here. It would also explain the idea behind a game designed around PVP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So much hostility. Yes, I'm grasping at straws, because that's all we have to go by. If there's no point in doing that then what point is there in visiting these threads at all until Aug. 2?
The reason they scrapped plans from the previous fan-faires is that they wanted the game to be "revolutionary" rather than just an evolution of what they did before. That doesn't mean every aspect of what they were going for was garbage. And in my opinion, scrapping the principle "designed from the ground up with PVP in mind" would be a step backwards.
What's happening is what Sherlock Holmes refers to as "Theorizing before the facts".
Instead of looking at facts and then forming theories, the facts are forced to fit the theories.
Yeah, I can't wait until August 2nd. It's like our very own mystery.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I can see PVP working but i really hope we get our own PVE server. But if it has non con PVP then they could make it so that if you dont fight back you become invincible that would stop the gankers .
Originally posted by Bidwood So much hostility. Yes, I'm grasping at straws, because that's all we have to go by. If there's no point in doing that then what point is there in visiting these threads at all until Aug. 2?The reason they scrapped plans from the previous fan-faires is that they wanted the game to be "revolutionary" rather than just an evolution of what they did before. That doesn't mean every aspect of what they were going for was garbage. And in my opinion, scrapping the principle "designed from the ground up with PVP in mind" would be a step backwards.
What's happening is what Sherlock Holmes refers to as "Theorizing before the facts".
Instead of looking at facts and then forming theories, the facts are forced to fit the theories.
Yeah, I can't wait until August 2nd. It's like our very own mystery.
Also known as hypothesising. A hypothesis comes before a theory and is based on observation of a phenomenon. In this case what we have seen and heard from tweets, interviews etc.
From wikipedia "A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation."
We can't really put forth any theories until we can test our hypothesises.
Originally posted by Margulis Considering that pretty much every sandbox currently available is all PvP focused (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc), if EQN also follows suit with the exact same sort of focus than they only have themselves to blame for it not being as popular as it could be. It's well known that PvE focused gamers outnumber PvP by a large margin, so it wouldn't take a genius to look at the current playfield and see that PvP focused sandboxes >>>> PvE focused sandboxes (as far as what's available to play). So if they can't figure out it's time to make a good game for the group that is currently empty of something to play then, as I said, only have themselves to blame.
There are many sandbox games that have limited or no pvp that do well. PVP has nothing to do with a sandbox or vice versa. Sandbox is due to player want and the large open worlds sandbox games provide.
The reason I highlighted your comment is because I'm curious where all these sandbox games are that have little to no pvp. Please do tell.
Sandbox is all about exploration, crafting, building, housing, social interaction, player based economy, player based content, and so much more.
You do not need pvp in a sandbox to be successful, but it helps having that choice and freedom to get away from the norm for awhile. SO many people buy into that pvp = gankfest it isn't even funny. I have played many sandbox games and pvp games and rarely if at all get ganked. Just so many people here have no clue what the term "ganked" really means and people fear it.
And in general, who are you talking to? lol. You quoted my post but then everything that you're saying pretty much is in response to nothing I actually said.
Actually now I went back and read it again and it was a little confusing. Please read the edited version.
Some might get a wrong interpretation of that sentence.
One of the issues EQ and EQ2 had was that there was a conflict between pve mechanics and the later introduced pvp. Both games were not designed to have pvp and once they introduced the pvp they had to deal with a lot problems of things not working in pvp and pve. This lead to two different rule-sets and some ugly changes to certain skills.
The intention of the comment form Fan Faire was to make sure that players won't get the same issue eq(eq2 had once pvp was introduced. By no means they wanted to hint that the role of pvp will be significantly larger.
Some might get a wrong interpretation of that sentence.
One of the issues EQ and EQ2 had was that there was a conflict between pve mechanics and the later introduced pvp. Both games were not designed to have pvp and once they introduced the pvp they had to deal with a lot problems of things not working in pvp and pve. This lead to two different rule-sets and some ugly changes to certain skills.
The intention of the comment form Fan Faire was to make sure that players won't get the same issue eq(eq2 had once pvp was introduced. By no means they wanted to hint that the role of pvp will be significantly larger.
THANK YOU! I know a big part of the population prefers to think about present realities and concrete facts and dislikes hypotheses or talking about future possibilities. There are psychological theories to back this up. These, I suspect, are the folks who say we know nothing right now and there is no point discussing.
On the other hand there are those people who spend a lot of time envisioning what the future might look like with intuition and minimal facts.
Comments
There can be non-consensual PvP done right. I think a great system would be if there is a zone with high valued resources (Be it for crafting/etc, but in my case, preferably crafting) that has PvP enabled in it. No, you can't just unflag yourself and get what you want and bolt out of the zone. The zone always has PvP enabled in it. You want that 2h Axe that badly and need that last ingredient for it? Go into that PvP enabled zone and get out with it.
I'm not saying everything that would be good that is crafted has to be done in that method, but i'd like to see some challenge in getting certain stuff.
If we believe what was said - that the game was "designed from the ground up with PVP in mind" - then I don't see the server approach working. Because it would be hard to justify putting a lot of resources into doing it right and we'd just have one more failed design to throw on the scrap pile.
I think it's more likely to be a pillar integrated with the rest of the game... now whether that's non-consent, in specific zones, or something else, no one really has concrete evidence and we probably won't get any until Aug. 2.
But I'm really hoping for the full open-world stuff.
For me, that would be a sign that a lot of thought and energy will be going into making it fun.
Look at PS2. If you made the areas where the bases are the "phased together" areas outside of that could be PvP for that shard and PvE for another shard.
Isn't Planetside 2 PVP everywhere between factions?
This is just another example of people inferring based on very little.
Just because they have decided to think about pvp from the very start does not mean that they were not worried about risking "legacy players".
It means they decided to think about the best way to integrate pvp. It does not mean that they want to force everyone to pvp. Whats the best way to integrate pvp in a game where you have different players wanting different things?
to think about it from the very start of design.
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
Can we quit with the 2011 and 2010 EQ FanFaire presentations.
Everquest Next was scrapped about a year and ago and a retool to this sandbox was made. Nothing taken from those fan shows can be thought of as probable in the game.
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!!!
3 more weeks and hopefully there will be more sense than nonsense here.
^This......
Smed said they were very unhappy with with the look and feel and direction of the gameplay and they scrapped the whole lot and started again, so if the OP is so willing to take the 2010 comments at face value then logically it would then apply that it was bloody awful and they scrapped it a bit later.
Problem with cherry picking comments is it cuts both ways, what I said above is an example, the reality is, I don't flaming well know what on earth EQn will be, and that applies to everyone else clutching at straws...
The official announcement is so close now, it really beggers belief that some of you are still so desperate to invent anything you think is plausible to suit your own personnel whims and desires, its in a black box, one that has been the most complete and successful in MMO history, I think any information that was supposed to have been leak/slipped or plain old comments should be taken with a big grain of salt, they have been playing the mysterious hype card.
Scrapped almost 2 years ago by now. It was a year and a half ago around SOE Live last year.
Smedley said it was a good game for a themepark.
So much hostility. Yes, I'm grasping at straws, because that's all we have to go by. If there's no point in doing that then what point is there in visiting these threads at all until Aug. 2?
The reason they scrapped plans from the previous fan-faires is that they wanted the game to be "revolutionary" rather than just an evolution of what they did before. That doesn't mean every aspect of what they were going for was garbage. And in my opinion, scrapping the principle "designed from the ground up with PVP in mind" would be a step backwards.
Every time someone suggests Everquest NEXT will be an OW FFA PvP game I get this vision of Smed and Smokejumper making the announcement at SOE Live and being carried bodily from the room and thrown into the nearest pool while a queue forms of people seeking to checkout of the casino and get a refund for two nights accommodation.
There are many sandbox games that have limited or no pvp that do well. PVP has nothing to do with a sandbox or vice versa. Sandbox is due to player want and the large open worlds sandbox games provide.
Sandbox is all about exploration, crafting, building, housing, social interaction, player based economy, player based content, and so much more.
You do not need pvp in a sandbox to be successful, but it helps having that choice and freedom to get away from the norm for awhile. SO many people buy into that pvp = gankfest it isn't even funny. I have played many sandbox games and pvp games and rarely if at all get ganked. Just so many people here have no clue what the term "ganked" really means and people fear it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
What's happening is what Sherlock Holmes refers to as "Theorizing before the facts".
Instead of looking at facts and then forming theories, the facts are forced to fit the theories.
Yeah, I can't wait until August 2nd. It's like our very own mystery.
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
What's happening is what Sherlock Holmes refers to as "Theorizing before the facts".
Instead of looking at facts and then forming theories, the facts are forced to fit the theories.
Yeah, I can't wait until August 2nd. It's like our very own mystery.
Also known as hypothesising. A hypothesis comes before a theory and is based on observation of a phenomenon. In this case what we have seen and heard from tweets, interviews etc.
From wikipedia "A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation."
We can't really put forth any theories until we can test our hypothesises.
And in general, who are you talking to? lol. You quoted my post but then everything that you're saying pretty much is in response to nothing I actually said.
Actually now I went back and read it again and it was a little confusing. Please read the edited version.
Some might get a wrong interpretation of that sentence.
One of the issues EQ and EQ2 had was that there was a conflict between pve mechanics and the later introduced pvp. Both games were not designed to have pvp and once they introduced the pvp they had to deal with a lot problems of things not working in pvp and pve. This lead to two different rule-sets and some ugly changes to certain skills.
The intention of the comment form Fan Faire was to make sure that players won't get the same issue eq(eq2 had once pvp was introduced. By no means they wanted to hint that the role of pvp will be significantly larger.
Hopefully you're right
THANK YOU! I know a big part of the population prefers to think about present realities and concrete facts and dislikes hypotheses or talking about future possibilities. There are psychological theories to back this up. These, I suspect, are the folks who say we know nothing right now and there is no point discussing.
On the other hand there are those people who spend a lot of time envisioning what the future might look like with intuition and minimal facts.
Both are legitimate perspectives.