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

135678

Comments

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Why is everyone clinging to conventional wisdom about what makes money in MMOs when World of Warcraft is dying and devs everywhere can't keep up with the content churn? The old rules went out the window. Times are changing...  honestly looking forward to saying "I told you so" when EQN has PVP as an integral pillar and is successful.
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    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 changing players modifying the world in that quote.

    lol read the whole quote not just the part you read as supporting PvP.

    "We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do"

    "imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."

    and  "players get bored doing it over and over again (battlegrounds)"

    also "a very narrow example, is battlegrounds" followed by "players get bored doing it".

    Now I expect there to be some form of PvP play in EQ Next, because there always seems to be in AAA MMORPGs.  But this quote and all the other quotes can be read and re-read in a variety of ways, they are all deliberately vague and ambiguous.

    August 2nd will start to tell the tale.

     

     

     

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554

    I've never seen people so polarized over such a superficial issue.

     

    Smedley is a social media Dread Lord and/or the traditional "PVE" fanbase is in for a MAJOR surprise.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    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 changing players modifying the world in that quote.

    lol read the whole quote not just the part you read as supporting PvP.

    "We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do"

    "imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."

    and  "players get bored doing it over and over again (battlegrounds)"

    also "a very narrow example, is battlegrounds" followed by "players get bored doing it".

    Now I expect there to be some form of PvP play in EQ Next, because there always seems to be in AAA MMORPGs.  But this quote and all the other quotes can be read and re-read in a variety of ways, they are all deliberately vague and ambiguous.

    August 2nd will start to tell the tale.

    The 'we're' in that sentence is Smedley and company, not the players.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    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 changing players modifying the world in that quote.

    lol read the whole quote not just the part you read as supporting PvP.

    "We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do"

    "imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."

    and  "players get bored doing it over and over again (battlegrounds)"

    also "a very narrow example, is battlegrounds" followed by "players get bored doing it".

    Now I expect there to be some form of PvP play in EQ Next, because there always seems to be in AAA MMORPGs.  But this quote and all the other quotes can be read and re-read in a variety of ways, they are all deliberately vague and ambiguous.

    August 2nd will start to tell the tale.

    The 'we're' in that sentence is Smedley and company, not the players.

     

    I don't really understand the objection to your interpretation of the quote...

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Those quotes combined with this Twitter conversation simply puts a lot more weight to the game being built ground up for PVP.
  • Trudge34Trudge34 Member UncommonPosts: 392

    This part of that conversation tells us the biggest thing they're doing to the game, which is why I'm thinking people hoping for a balls out sandbox are going to be disappointed.

    "We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making."

    Combined with the tweet that says SWG players will be happy with EQN makes me think PvE players will be very happy with enhanced AI and a living, breathing world to explore.

    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

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by Trudge34

    This part of that conversation tells us the biggest thing they're doing to the game, which is why I'm thinking people hoping for a balls out sandbox are going to be disappointed.

    "We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making."

    Combined with the tweet that says SWG players will be happy with EQN makes me think PvE players will be very happy with enhanced AI and a living, breathing world to explore.

    I don't think anyone is really arguing against the PVE interpretations. I'm sure there will be excellent PVE.

     

    The part that is being questioned is all the stuff Smedley implied about PVP. Check the link in my sig for a bunch (but not all) of it.

  • grimfallgrimfall Member UncommonPosts: 1,153
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Those quotes combined with this Twitter conversation simply puts a lot more weight to the game being built ground up for PVP.

    So, it's got permadeath too, then, right?

    There's no way in hell the game is going to have open world non-consensual PVP.

    To get back to the original post, it's just "let's have safe zones, but not technically safe zones, just pratical safe zones".  If a programmer was to read that they would translate that into 'That is what we call in the programming business' a big fucking waste of time".

    "Alot of people are concerned about non consent pvp. in Details

    Darrin McPherson ‏@JButlerSOE @pentapod while I cannot comment directly on this concern I can say that we avoid bad design decisions."
     
    Non-consensual PVP is a bad design decision which will not be implemented.  Tattoo it on your eyelids, whatever you need to do, but get over it.
     
    "So basically the whole would is made of destructible materials and anyone can attack you anywhere. BUT--here's how griefing is strongly limited:" Wrong, fail.  They've already said they're not putting it in.
     
    Now, there may be PVP servers, or PVP flagging, like original EQ, but you will not be able to gank people who aren't interested in fighting with you.  Sorry.
  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167

    here's the thing: this misses the point entirely.

     

    those of us who don't want to be griefed in our PvE, are not asking for it to be limited, we don't want it at all.

     

     

     

    if folks want to flag themselves, or have an OW PvP continent, im all for it, im all for devs spending time and money on really, solidly supporting that style of play.

     

    "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

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Member UncommonPosts: 392

    Still not really sold on it. I don't have any doubt they'll have PvP servers, not one bit. The most interesting quote was what he said about everyone being everyone's content. That can be taken many different ways. I'd argue that in EQ1, everyone was everyone's content because absolutely everything in that game was interdependent on each other. The community was the core of the content for EQ in my opinion and the one thing that MMORPGs have to offer that no other genre has to offer. Not just something like a gaming community, but an actual world community much like your town you live in. People offering services for other services or money. Working together to achieve a common goal. Things that the original EQ did better than any second gen MMORPG in my opinion.

    All of this can be done independent of OWPvP, but it can also include it. With the new engine, it may be even easier to make different rule sets with completely destructible areas, buildings, keeps, whatever. That would make those servers that much better IMO. Not sure if I'd be tempted to roll on them or not though. The biggest detriment to me is the chance of OWPvP really happening when I really don't want it to. Thinking of EQ1 as an example, if I want to run to KC to group up, I have to run from FV to get there. I don't think anything would piss me off more than getting ganked in the FV tunnels on my way to group when really I just want to be left the f- alone so I can get to where I want to go.

    You really won't see me ever in full on anti-OWPvP. I just want a seperate PvE server to play on. Problem is, PvE has been as terrible, if not worse, than the PvP (according to PvP players I'm taking) in games the last near decade. In addition, the virtual world PvE players can't even get a decent indi sandbox because every indi sandbox that comes out has open PvP in it. Repopulation, Pathfinder Online, Darkfall, there was one that ice-vortex linked that looked awesome with world PvP in it. Why look at the EQ franchise, which as been dominantly PvE and piss your base off by forcing PvP on everyone? Does not make sense at all. They say they aren't targeting EQ players, but they'd be dumb not to seeing how loyal their base has been.

    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

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554

    I don't know what to say anymore, guys.

     

    It seems really clear to me that they're doing something different this time with PVP.

     

    I haven't seen one convincing counter-argument. Wonder if both "sides" are unable to see each other eye-to-eye.

     

    I guess we'll see on Aug. 2.

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521

    (Double Post from phone net hang)

     

    image

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    The 2nd will certainly answer many questions. It seems like the whole issue is here is whether there will be seperate servers. I don't think PvE players care what PvP is like as long as it's somewhere else.

    Expecting EQN to have PvP as a factor for everyone seems a little unbelievable IMO. The main nail in the coffin was the confirmation of the standard SoE F2P model. F2P relies on a bigger net and making a game based on what a smaller % of people like (30-40% globally) just doesn't make any sense. Go look at any server ratio or the population of PvP game.

    Yes, EvE has 500k but it's also a sub game.

    Now, if the argument is that on a PvP server there should be risk/reward and many compelling system involved that's fantastic. What I'm reading though is Smed comments on PvP and the assumption that they will apply to all players which because of the payment model I find hard to believe.
  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member EpicPosts: 3,466
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I've never seen people so polarized over such a superficial issue. Smedley is a social media Dread Lord and/or the traditional "PVE" fanbase is in for a MAJOR surprise.

     

    Nope because EQ has always had pvp or nearly always. Smed will use different server's to separate these rule sets, it really isn't a problem. Think you are in for a major surprise if you think Smed is going to turn EQNext into some sort of Dark Fall in Norrath and PVE comes second to PVP.

    If you really wanted the Pvp you describe you would be playing WurmOnline. Me thinks like a lot of you so called leet pvpers, you talk a good one but here you are on these forums when you could be wtf pawns in a real sandbox mmo which has the type of pvp you say you are looking for, right?




  • SneakyTurtleSneakyTurtle Member Posts: 41
    This in my honest opinion is a FANTASTIC idea! I would love it if EQN had something like this and I would crap my pants if they actually did it :) But alas.. we will all find out on AUGUST 2nd or 1st, I forgot and too lazy to look.

    - SneakyTurtle

  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,139

    "This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."

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

    They've put some thought into it I hope. There will be something in place that pleases the majority, not the vocal minority.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I don't know what to say anymore, guys.

     

    It seems really clear to me that they're doing something different this time with PVP.

     

    I haven't seen one convincing counter-argument. Wonder if both "sides" are unable to see each other eye-to-eye.

     

    I guess we'll see on Aug. 2.

    Not sure how you're so confused on this subject.

    The game will have PVE and PVP servers.  PVP servers may/may not have some sort of anti-griefing mechanics, but there will be PVP servers.

    Just as there will be PVE servers for people who don't to PVP.  That's just a no brainer.

    You can have a sandbox world, risk vs reward, a great economy, without PVP on a strictly PVE server.  PVE content that kills you and breaks gear.  NPCs that attack and raid structures you've built.  Combat that effects the world.  Can all be done with PVE only.

    It can be done with PVP + PVE.  It can be done with only PVP.

    But if you think that they're developing this huge EQ franchise product and it's going to be forced PVP on all servers, you're just not logical in any sense.

    My wife and I will be roaming around the PVP lands because that's the kind of experience we enjoy, but we have zero doubt that EQN will also have a great PVE experience and there will be PVE only servers for those who want it.

    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

  • PanzerbasePanzerbase Member Posts: 423
    This is always a one sided argument, the pvp crew hoping to pull in the pve fans on the same server with some promise of fairness. Really? How often do you hear of pve players lobbying to have pvp players join pve play? So the truth is pvp is dead without the pve population and they know it. Given this expect the pve players to be given the bulk of the consideration. 
  • DeolusDeolus Member UncommonPosts: 392
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by Bidwood
     

    Not sure how you're so confused on this subject.

    The game will have PVE and PVP servers.  PVP servers may/may not have some sort of anti-griefing mechanics, but there will be PVP servers.

    Just as there will be PVE servers for people who don't to PVP.  That's just a no brainer.

    You can have a sandbox world, risk vs reward, a great economy, without PVP on a strictly PVE server.  PVE content that kills you and breaks gear.  NPCs that attack and raid structures you've built.  Combat that effects the world.  Can all be done with PVE only.

    It can be done with PVP + PVE.  It can be done with only PVP.

    But if you think that they're developing this huge EQ franchise product and it's going to be forced PVP on all servers, you're just not logical in any sense.

    My wife and I will be roaming around the PVP lands because that's the kind of experience we enjoy, but we have zero doubt that EQN will also have a great PVE experience and there will be PVE only servers for those who want it.

    I tend to agree with this.

    Just because things are destructible, it doesn't automatically mean that other players will have the means to destroy them. It could be purely npc / environmental destruction. Unless you are on a PvP server that is.

     

  • PanzerbasePanzerbase Member Posts: 423
    Your typical I need the maximum number of easy ganks thread to prove my self worth. 
  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092

    Originally posted by Panzerbase
    This is always a one sided argument, the pvp crew hoping to pull in the pve fans on the same server with some promise of fairness. Really? How often do you hear of pve players lobbying to have pvp players join pve play? So the truth is pvp is dead without the pve population and they know it. Given this expect the pve players to be given the bulk of the consideration. 

    Originally posted by Deolus

    I tend to agree with this.

    Just because things are destructible, it doesn't automatically mean that other players will have the means to destroy them. It could be purely npc / environmental destruction. Unless you are on a PvP server that is.

    @Deolus Thanks.  You agree because you have logic in your brain cells.

    @Panzerbase  Yes, that's exactly the kind of PVP gameplay I want.  I want to run around and attack PVE players that just want to craft/harvest fruit/kill NPCs in peace and have no desire to pvp back with me.

    Cuz that's where the real skill lies.  Ganking PVE players. lol

    Seriously though, do these kids even read what they type?

    It's ok.  I'm making a list of everything I've said and I'll be here on the 2nd to write a "What I said vs what came from SOE live."

    We'll see if I need re-education or if I'm a genius.

    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
    When the insults start coming out over a different idea, that is usually a sign that someone is insecure.
  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by SneakyTurtle
    This in my honest opinion is a FANTASTIC idea! I would love it if EQN had something like this and I would crap my pants if they actually did it :) But alas.. we will all find out on AUGUST 2nd or 1st, I forgot and too lazy to look.

    Almost forgot to say: Thank you!!

     

    Out of curiosity, what is your preferred playstyle?

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by Panzerbase
    Your typical I need the maximum number of easy ganks thread to prove my self worth. 

    Hillariously true..

    there will undoubtedly be a mix of servers, from PVE, to PVP and most likely RP, those that like the whole PVP thing can pick the relevant server, but of course, we already know what will happen, they'll end up playing on the PVE server because thats where the fun is, all the while whining about how little PVP is in the game. image

Sign In or Register to comment.