Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Concept: How EQN could have open-world PVP and strongly limit griefing

245678

Comments

  • ropeniceropenice Member UncommonPosts: 588
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by ropenice
    Originally posted by mos0811

     

    EvE is host to multi-national corps/alliances.  The Russians, Germans, Americans etc. all play in the same world.  How they code for those ping issues is part of smart coding.  However I also believe we will see a few servers and not just one.

    I disagree that PvP has to have restrictive anti-pvp rule sets.  I like to PvP, and it's not to just kill; my preference is asset destruction, the destruction of guild assets of enemy guilds.  Personally I don't think they are targeting a PvE crowd with EQ Next.  I don't know that it will be a PvP game, but I feel it won't be the traditional EQ1/2 PvE games we have seen from the IP in the past.  So yes, I do think that SOE will alienate the minority EQ1/2 crowd in hopes of gaining ground on PvP types, and casual gamers.

    Not sure i see your reasoning here. You say SOE will forgo the larger numbers of PvE players-making it a niche PVP game with low pop? And you lump in casual gamers with PvP types? Most casual gamers do PvE, and don't usually have the time or desire to get into the guild vs guild fighting where you have to put in time to build character up (or get geared) and have to be on at certain times for their scheduled battles. Same as with raids, casuals don't have the time or dedication to do that. If EQN goes PvP centric, without PvE servers, they won't make the kind of money SOE wants. Maybe I'm missing something.

    I apologize, I was thinking casual FPS gamers.  It has been said that they might port EQN to the Playstation 4.  Most people I know that play the PS3 are not in depth 12 hour MMO gamers.

    Developers have gone after the rainbow and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, only to get there and realize it was a mirage.  Look at all of the games that have failed in the eyes of the public over the last 5 years.  Vanguard at one time was touted as being a WoW killer.  I feel that developers need to go after the niche market again and have numerous games with minimal subscribers.  SOE could be doing this - they have EQ1 (250k), EQ2 (250k) and EQN (500k) for subs.  Don't take subs away from your traditional PvE games, but build upon that with an IP that is more PvP focused.

    People need fun games to play.  WoW holds the market on the casual fantasy MMO.  Give the players something different so they have a choice.  EQ1 hasn't been around because of it's innovations, it's around because it is fun for the people still playing it.  $200M games are not needed, how about the $20M game that could be just as fun and more successful.

    I can't address your raid comment directly, but I have always felt that vertical character development was bad design.  Casual players should be able to raid from day 1, if they have the skill.  Get angry now all you people that feel that time equals something in a game.  I loved Shadowbane because it took 3 days to get a max level character; then you could join in the banes and "end game" content.  Three days is all it should take for a player to enjoy end game.  I would prefer that we had more horizontal character development, where characters are fleshed out.  For instance all characters start with 50k HP and a proper power amount.  If they want more damage they sacrifice HP or Power for the damage.  But each player has the basics to jump right into end game content.   It's a different kind of thought process, which breaks away from gear progression and traditional leveling.

    I get you now. You do make good points. I don't really get into the modern raiding. 50 people get together to do the traditional routine to beat said boss. Hitting the same buttons, using the same tactics, etc boring to me. I raided some in EQ1, but was in a friendly middle size guild and there wasn't the elitism, or gear checking stuff going on, just delving deep into a dungeon or zone to see how far we could get.

    you might be right where they want to corner a niche market by doing it "right" to attract and keep them, niche markets are usually loyal and not as fickle as casuals. But the PvP has to have some "world" ramifications or at least a good reason to be doing it. Not just zerging around. I usually do PvE, but would always have a toon or 2 on pvp servers. Never lasted though as pops would drop or bad pvp design.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092

    Originally posted by mos0811

    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by nerovipus32
    This game will only have one server. The day of the shards are dead.

    PS2 even has multiple servers.

    First of all, there's a ping thing we online gamers worry about, and the only effective way to get better ping is to be closer to the server.  Distance almost entirely makes up your ping.

    So there will at least be East Coast US, West Coast US, an EU server and I hope one for my Aussy Koalas down under (Sucks to be you guys always playing on US servers with 400+ ping, I feel for you)

    Then there will be pvp and non pvp servers for each one of these sets.

    Just FYI.

     

    Also, the only way to prevent griefing is to implement very restrictive anti-pvp rule sets.  Like making you KOS to NPCs, death penalties after murders, etc etc.  Which would not be what pvp players want (They want to... I dunno.... kill lots* of people?  Not one or two a week).

    So they basically have to split the servers or they'll neglect large portions of the population.  Either the PVEers or the PVPers.

    EvE is host to multi-national corps/alliances.  The Russians, Germans, Americans etc. all play in the same world.  How they code for those ping issues is part of smart coding.  However I also believe we will see a few servers and not just one.

    I disagree that PvP has to have restrictive anti-pvp rule sets.  I like to PvP, and it's not to just kill; my preference is asset destruction, the destruction of guild assets of enemy guilds.  Personally I don't think they are targeting a PvE crowd with EQ Next.  I don't know that it will be a PvP game, but I feel it won't be the traditional EQ1/2 PvE games we have seen from the IP in the past.  So yes, I do think that SOE will alienate the minority EQ1/2 crowd in hopes of gaining ground on PvP types, and casual gamers.

    Originally posted by Waterlily

    Although I'm a PVE player, I wonder why people assume EQNext will have good PVP. The EQ franchise and the people behind it have no experience with PVP whatsoever, EQ's PVP was terrible and has been ignored for 14 years, EQ2's PVP was just as bad, in fact so was Vanguard's.

    So we're assuming that people who have never produced a PVP game, have no experience with the pitfalls of PVP, are going to produce an amazing form of PVP? 

    Well... I guess miracles happen sometimes.

    Originally posted by Waterlily

    Originally posted by mos0811

    SOE doesn't need to know how to produce good PvP in order for good PvP to take place.  They need to know how to correctly code good combat; which I think they have done in both EQ and EQ2 along with PS2.   

    You think EQ PVP was a success?

    @mos  EvE is a very different beast from what EQN is going to be combat wise (EvE is playable with out having sharp ping).  Regardless of what kind of combat system EQN has, it will not be like eve and the ping will matter a lot more.  Take a tab target combat system like aion for example, I can go through double the amount of skills when I have 40 ping vs when I have 250-300 pings (The difference in a fight between me on an east coast server vs someone playing from France / Germany.)

    In an action based game aiming with high ping becomes much harder and landing skills becomes more difficult. (Most FPS servers boot people after 250 ping).

    Point is, don't compare eve to EQN lol.  Ping is going to matter and they're not going to glorify one time zone and piss everyone else off.

    As for "I disagree that PvP has to have restrictive anti-pvp rule sets.",  You can disagree but you will be wrong.  In a server where you're going to force PVE and PVP players to play together you would need really restrictive rule sets to give both players something they want (PVE wants some protection / reduced PVP and PVP people want to kill players).

    So you can't have your cake and eat it too.  The only way non-restrictive PVP ruleset will work is if they split the servers, PVE and PVP.  That gives each set of players what they want without watering down the experience either type of player wants.

    @Waterlily  People enjoyed the EQ and EQ2's pvp dynamics and how it affected contested content and Planetside / Planetside 2 are completely PVP games.  SOE can make PVP games just fine.  The planetside franchise is arguably one of the better PVP games to ever grace the PC actually.

     

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by PsychoticHamster
    You more or less just described CU. Literally aside from players starting their own kingdoms, the concept you just  wrote a wall of text about is already in use from Camelot unchained. Not sure on how economics work in CU but it might be only within factions.

    Sounds like a cool game. =) But my idea kind of relies on players being able to go build settlements around resources and turn them into kingdoms. The whole idea of building castles in the sandbox. ;)

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I agree it's unlikely to have shards when they seem to be moving more towards super-massive integrated worlds like Planetside 2. One world would support the "largest sandbox ever" concept.

    I don't expect this to appeal to the folks who never want to encounter PVP. But I'm curious to see how others feel about it. If there HAD to be open-world PVP in the game, do you see this limiting the griefing and giving everyone a way to have fun?

    I rather have a lower power gap between noobs and vets together with no way to check out the actual level/power of a player.

    I do remember baiting griefers in Lineage with my high level elf, they were jumping me pretty often in the noob areas and the elf craft area but didn't know that my guildes asked me to take care of them. Never made the first blow and let them attack me (I am not much into attacking lower level players unless provoked). I also rarely saw one of them ganking noobs in the same area again after they got a lesson from me. I just wish I could hear their screams when I kick out my top level spells. :)

    Make it so killing someone never is 100% safe and make it so people not always can judge if you are an easy kill or not and griefing usually go down fast. Of course in Lineage you always risked losing an random item so high level noob gankers had way more to loose if they were killed in the noob area then what they earned.

    The griefer type in PvP usually are the most cowardly people in those games, if you make it harder for them to find and take down an easy victim the griefing do go down. Not that Lineage didn't have many griefers but it was funny enough nowhere near what EQ2 had early on the PvP servers.

    Having some safe areas don't really help that much sadly. Having some kind of knight class or bounty hunter that gets rewards for hunting down people flagged as criminals probably would work better. 

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740

    If you really want to "strongly limit griefing" there are only three ways:

    • put PvP on separate servers
    • have an opt out flag (PvP flag)
    • do not allow PvP at all
    Of these the most successful is the the third.  But of course you do not want to "strongly limit griefing" you want "open-world PvP"
    So you just want the appearance of control of griefing to lure in unsuspecting PvE players to provide a continuing stock of easy targets for the rabid but ineffectual PvP player,  these in turn provide the targets for the slightly better PvP players etc.
     
    In the end PvP play is self destructive egoism and should be discouraged, not pandered to.
  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554

    Originally posted by Loke666

    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I agree it's unlikely to have shards when they seem to be moving more towards super-massive integrated worlds like Planetside 2. One world would support the "largest sandbox ever" concept.

    I don't expect this to appeal to the folks who never want to encounter PVP. But I'm curious to see how others feel about it. If there HAD to be open-world PVP in the game, do you see this limiting the griefing and giving everyone a way to have fun?

    I rather have a lower power gap between noobs and vets together with no way to check out the actual level/power of a player.

    I do remember baiting griefers in Lineage with my high level elf, they were jumping me pretty often in the noob areas and the elf craft area but didn't know that my guildes asked me to take care of them. Never made the first blow and let them attack me (I am not much into attacking lower level players unless provoked). I also rarely saw one of them ganking noobs in the same area again after they got a lesson from me. I just wish I could hear their screams when I kick out my top level spells. :)

    Make it so killing someone never is 100% safe and make it so people not always can judge if you are an easy kill or not and griefing usually go down fast. Of course in Lineage you always risked losing an random item so high level noob gankers had way more to loose if they were killed in the noob area then what they earned.

    The griefer type in PvP usually are the most cowardly people in those games, if you make it harder for them to find and take down an easy victim the griefing do go down. Not that Lineage didn't have many griefers but it was funny enough nowhere near what EQ2 had early on the PvP servers.

    Having some safe areas don't really help that much sadly. Having some kind of knight class or bounty hunter that gets rewards for hunting down people flagged as criminals probably would work better. 

    Originally posted by craftseeker

    If you really want to "strongly limit griefing" there are only three ways:

    • put PvP on separate servers
    • have an opt out flag (PvP flag)
    • do not allow PvP at all
    Of these the most successful is the the third.  But of course you do not want to "strongly limit griefing" you want "open-world PvP"
    So you just want the appearance of control of griefing to lure in unsuspecting PvE players to provide a continuing stock of easy targets for the rabid but ineffectual PvP player,  these in turn provide the targets for the slightly better PvP players etc.
     
    In the end PvP play is self destructive egoism and should be discouraged, not pandered to.

     

    @Locke666 - I agree 100 per cent that levels should be hidden so people don't know the strength of their targets. If the game allows vanity slots too like DCUO, that would add to the ambiguity - because I could be decked out in the strongest armour stat-wise and actually look like I'm wearing a paper bag. This could really level the playing field by ensuring every PVP encounter is a risk. That alone would be a deterrent to a lot of unnecessary PVP.

     

    @craftseeker - Them's fightin' words! I love PVP. It may be "self-destructive egoism", but you're no better. We're both sitting at a computer watching our toons look cool doing stuff. My stuff involves outsmarting other human beings. Your stuff involves outsmarting a scripted opponent that has the intelligence quotient of a peanut.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by Golelorn

    I know this for a fact. There will be no open world pvp in EQNm except on special servers. Take it to the bank.

     

    You know nothing.

    Open world where almost everything you see is destructible.  Do you suppose this will be done through a series of honor duels?

    Get real.


  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Golelorn

    I know this for a fact. There will be no open world pvp in EQNm except on special servers. Take it to the bank.

     

    You know nothing.

    Open world where almost everything you see is destructible.  Do you suppose this will be done through a series of honor duels?

    Get real.

    This is why I adore you, Dullahan-chan.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by Waterlily

    Although I'm a PVE player, I wonder why people assume EQNext will have good PVP. The EQ franchise and the people behind it have no experience with PVP whatsoever, EQ's PVP was terrible and has been ignored for 14 years, EQ2's PVP was just as bad, in fact so was Vanguard's.

    So we're assuming that people who have never produced a PVP game, have no experience with the pitfalls of PVP, are going to produce an amazing form of PVP? 

    Well... I guess miracles happen sometimes.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.  Do some research on some of the developers and people involved in EQ Next at SOE and you will see how far from the truth that is.  I'm not even going to compile it here, its too long for a single post.

    Everquest 1 was a game designed around PvE, primarily because it was based on muds, tabletop and other old roleplaying games.  It was also created in the wake of a game wholly devoted to PvP, Ultima Online, so they wanted to be different.  That said, Everquest had a PvP server from the very start that became really popular and very overcrowded.  They ended up having to launch a number of other pvp servers, all of which were really well done.

    Bash EQ pvp all you want, but you clearly never played EQ on a PvP server during the classic era (launch-velious).  It was amazing, and to this day, hands down, the best pvp experience I've ever had in an mmo.  The reason being, it was the only game that ever had hardcore pvp in a game that was completely fun to play without PvP.  Everything from the diversity of classes, to the open world contested content and race wars, its simply unparalleled to this day.  Nearly every "PvP-centric" game, in turn, has been a bore and lacked different forms of meaningful progression because there is almost no long term goals or gameplay outside of pvp combat.  Thus their playerbase quickly fades away as players finish their houses and cities and find no other endgame than defending what they made.

    EQ PvP in 2013 in a sandbox environment has unlimited potential.


  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    What's the point of having FFA PvP is you're going to 'strongly' limit griefing? Especially since 'griefing' itself is open to interpretation? If a primary goal is to not have griefing, why have a system in place that allows it at all?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Golelorn I know this for a fact. There will be no open world pvp in EQNm except on special servers. Take it to the bank.  
    You know nothing.

    Open world where almost everything you see is destructible.  Do you suppose this will be done through a series of honor duels?

    Get real.




    How in the world do you know that the open world will have destructible environments?

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • azzamasinazzamasin Member UncommonPosts: 3,105
    Tying the cost of Anti griefing mechanisms to the economy and making it cost prohibited is even more stupid then making the game a FFA PvP MMO In the first place.

    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!!!

    image

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Member UncommonPosts: 392
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Waterlily

    Although I'm a PVE player, I wonder why people assume EQNext will have good PVP. The EQ franchise and the people behind it have no experience with PVP whatsoever, EQ's PVP was terrible and has been ignored for 14 years, EQ2's PVP was just as bad, in fact so was Vanguard's.

    So we're assuming that people who have never produced a PVP game, have no experience with the pitfalls of PVP, are going to produce an amazing form of PVP? 

    Well... I guess miracles happen sometimes.

    You have no idea what you're talking about.  Do some research on some of the developers and people involved in EQ Next at SOE and you will see how far from the truth that is.  I'm not even going to compile it here, its too long for a single post.

    Everquest 1 was a game designed around PvE, primarily because it was based on muds, tabletop and other old roleplaying games.  It was also created in the wake of a game wholly devoted to PvP, Ultima Online, so they wanted to be different.  That said, Everquest had a PvP server from the very start that became really popular and very overcrowded.  They ended up having to launch a number of other pvp servers, all of which were really well done.

    It was based around PvE because the devs had such a horrible time in Ultima Online due to griefing they didn't want it in their game.

    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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Dullahan

    Originally posted by Golelorn I know this for a fact. There will be no open world pvp in EQNm except on special servers. Take it to the bank.  
    You know nothing.

     

    Open world where almost everything you see is destructible.  Do you suppose this will be done through a series of honor duels?

    Get real.



    How in the world do you know that the open world will have destructible environments?

     

    From a John Smedley interview.

    http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=30916&storypage=2

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by Dullahan Originally posted by Golelorn I know this for a fact. There will be no open world pvp in EQNm except on special servers. Take it to the bank.  
    You know nothing.   Open world where almost everything you see is destructible.  Do you suppose this will be done through a series of honor duels? Get real.
    How in the world do you know that the open world will have destructible environments?  
    From a John Smedley interview.

    http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=30916&storypage=2




    All of that could be done without any PvP at all. And you'll notice he didn't mention PvP. I wouldn't take too much of what he says to heart myself.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Golelorn

    I know this for a fact. There will be no open world pvp in EQNm except on special servers. Take it to the bank.

    You know nothing.

    Open world where almost everything you see is destructible.  Do you suppose this will be done through a series of honor duels?

    Get real.

    How about through an entirely PvE action.

    A raid force is fighting for its life against the giant Gila monster, raid leader says 'this is serious folks Steuben throw the "Holy Handgrenade of Antioch"',  'but that is just too powerful', says Steuben, 'throw it damm it', says the raid leader.

    "Cataclysm could take place because someone cast a spell that is powerful enough to do something major."

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960

    The most telling PVP quote from Smedley is:

    "We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,722

    The only way i see open world pvp without griefing (or at least strongly limiting it) is having pvp flag always on only withing 5 level brackets. If someone is higher than you by more than 5 levels they cannot attack you unless you manually flag for pvp.

     

    THat is if the game is gear based like wow and EQ2, and not player-skill based. If its player-skill based and gear has no impact then there shouldnt be a problem.





  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by rojo6934

    The only way i see open world pvp without griefing (or at least strongly limiting it) is having pvp flag always on only withing 5 level brackets. If someone is higher than you by more than 5 levels they cannot attack you unless you manually flag for pvp.

     

    THat is if the game is gear based like wow and EQ2, and not player-skill based. If its player-skill based and gear has no impact then there shouldnt be a problem.

    It really doesn't matter if it is skills or levels as long as the power curve as shallow. The steep power curve is really the bane of both PVE and PVP. In PVE it makes most of the old content irrelevant to higher level players.

  • StrommStromm Member Posts: 243
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Or...seperate servers.

    LOL. Well played. :-)

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The most telling PVP quote from Smedley is:

    "We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

    ... and that to can be read many ways.  Doing battlegrounds/war fronts etc over and over is boring:  PvP is boring.

    Imagine the entire world is part of the interaction:  whatever you do in the environment causes the environment to react.  Start harvesting trees, tree spirits, ents, wild druids etc come to defend the forest.  Dig a mine, earth elementals and other creatures might react. The environment is constantly reactive and interactive.  No PvP required to have "a lot more to do in between expansions".

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The most telling PVP quote from Smedley is:

    "We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

    ... and that to can be read many ways.  Doing battlegrounds/war fronts etc over and over is boring:  PvP is boring.

    Imagine the entire world is part of the interaction:  whatever you do in the environment causes the environment to react.  Start harvesting trees, tree spirits, ents, wild druids etc come to defend the forest.  Dig a mine, earth elementals and other creatures might react. The environment is constantly reactive and interactive.  No PvP required to have "a lot more to do in between expansions".

    You can try to twist and squirm away from that quote, but you can't. Any knowledge of the English language will tell you the words 'that interaction' is referring specifically to battlegrounds he referenced in the previous sentence. He said absolutely nothing about players modifying the world in that quote.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554

    The people who are denying Smedley quotes are going to be losing their poop on Aug. 2 when he gives his statements context with official announcements.

     

    It's not each statement considered on its own, but the 'big picture' they paint as a whole. Read between the lines: there will be open-world PVP with risk v.s. reward. If you don't like that, you can hope for systems to limit griefing. If that's not good enough, you can stay on EQ1 or EQ2 - SOE already said this game won't cut into their playerbase.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The most telling PVP quote from Smedley is:

    "We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

    ... and that to can be read many ways.  Doing battlegrounds/war fronts etc over and over is boring:  PvP is boring.

    Imagine the entire world is part of the interaction:  whatever you do in the environment causes the environment to react.  Start harvesting trees, tree spirits, ents, wild druids etc come to defend the forest.  Dig a mine, earth elementals and other creatures might react. The environment is constantly reactive and interactive.  No PvP required to have "a lot more to do in between expansions".

    Exactly, my wife and I love pvp,especially open world pvp, but there are plenty of ways to have a sandbox experience without any PVP at all.

    The fact of the matter is that they're not going to create a game to soley appeal to the PVP loving minority crowd.

    There will be PVP servers and PVE servers to choose from, or there will be no pvp servers and PVP will be in designated areas (GW2 WvWvW style), seperate from the PVE experience.

    Don't fool yourself into thinking EQN is going to be a prettier mortal online.

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • bentrimbentrim Member UncommonPosts: 299
    I will pass on this game if there is open PVP (non consensual). A great way to ruin its link to the origional EQ.
Sign In or Register to comment.