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

124678

Comments

  • SiugSiug Member UncommonPosts: 1,257
    Originally posted by Panzerbase
    Your typical I need the maximum number of easy ganks thread to prove my self worth. 

    Cannot agree more.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    Originally posted by Panzerbase
    Your typical I need the maximum number of easy ganks thread to prove my self worth. 

    Cannot agree more.

     

    Where are you getting this from?

     

    I put a lot of thought and time into designing a concept that would give people who don't enjoy PVP a way to play this without being griefed constantly. You guys are now making me wish SOE would just forget about you and make it FFA.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    When the insults start coming out over a different idea, that is usually a sign that someone is insecure.

    The insults may be due to your lack of understanding of what players want.

    You proposed idea would be great for a "PVP + Rules server", when people want pvp but don't want a FFA gankfest.  However, there are many people out there that hate pvp and don't want anything to do with it. There are many people out there that want fully unbridled and unhindered pvp.

    Your proposal is a sort of middle ground, but is sure to not appeal to people who want either

    -A lot of pvp

    -No pvp.

    So you're missing to big chunks of players with your idea.

    When it boils down to it, a lot of people really don't want any sort of pvp.  Also, forcing pvp on people who don't want it isn't conducive of a healthy community.  A great community is one that wants to be a part of the game, not just little bits and pieces of it.

    It's the difference between a volunteer and a draftee.  I personally want to pvp a lot, but I want to pvp against other players who enjoy the thrill and challenge of pvp.  Not against some PVE players who just want to mind their own business.  That way I get more challenging and rewarding encounters.

    This is all a moot point though, EQN will have different server rule sets, (PVE, FFA PVP, Team PVP, RP, etc etc)  At the very least it will have two server types (PVP and PVE).  Or PVP will be completely seperate from the PVE gameplay (e.g. GW2 tPvP and WvWvW)

    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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    When the insults start coming out over a different idea, that is usually a sign that someone is insecure.

    Well, their only counter-argument is "we don't want it" which isn't exactly a good argument. They naturally become insecure because the Smedley quotes paint a picture of a game built ground up with world PVP.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554

    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Originally posted by Bidwood
    When the insults start coming out over a different idea, that is usually a sign that someone is insecure.

    The insults may be due to your lack of understanding of what players want.

    You proposed idea would be great for a "PVP + Rules server", when people want pvp but don't want a FFA gankfest.  However, there are many people out there that hate pvp and don't want anything to do with it. There are many people out there that want fully unbridled and unhindered pvp.

    Your proposal is a sort of middle ground, but is sure to not appeal to people who want either

    -A lot of pvp

    -No pvp.

    So you're missing to big chunks of players with your idea.

    When it boils down to it, a lot of people really don't want any sort of pvp.  Also, forcing pvp on people who don't want it isn't conducive of a healthy community.  A great community is one that wants to be a part of the game, not just little bits and pieces of it.

    It's the difference between a volunteer and a draftee.  I personally want to pvp a lot, but I want to pvp against other players who enjoy the thrill and challenge of pvp.  Not against some PVE players who just want to mind their own business.  That way I get more challenging and rewarding encounters.

    This is all a moot point though, EQN will have different server rule sets, (PVE, FFA PVP, Team PVP, RP, etc etc)  At the very least it will have two server types (PVP and PVE).  Or PVP will be completely seperate from the PVE gameplay (e.g. GW2 tPvP and WvWvW)

    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    Originally posted by Bidwood
    When the insults start coming out over a different idea, that is usually a sign that someone is insecure.

    Well, their only counter-argument is "we don't want it" which isn't exactly a good argument. They naturally become insecure because the Smedley quotes paint a picture of a game built ground up with world PVP.

     

    @Gallus85 - My concept would definitely cater to those who want a lot of PVP. They'd be getting it for sure in the frontier. The people who want NO PVP would be out of luck. But the people who are willing to accept some PVP and can tolerate the occasional griefer would fit right in too. That's perhaps a bigger group than you think.

     

    So in other words, it's only the people who have zero tolerance for the risk of griefing that would be left out because there would always be that risk, even in the kingdoms where you're virtually safe from all unconsensual PVP. I believe that group is a minority and really hope SOE leaves them in the dust this time around.

     

    @ice-vortex - I see your point. There was actually a lot more support for sandboxes with PVP outside this forum. I think it's going to take SOE a lot of careful change management to explain this to fans of the franchise in a way that won't totally piss them off. I think he has been trying to subtly manage expectations for a long time, but people aren't listening.

     

     

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    EQN may very well be EvE like, though I doubt it. I believe Smed is a true gamer and is very passionate. If you look at the main events people dislike him over however you see it's times when he's needed to be a President first, gamer second.

    PvP is preferred by the minority, that can plainly be seen not just by posts or polls here but in the populations of MMOs across the board. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just reality.

    Could EQN be a big shared world where PvP players come before PvE? Sure, anything is possible until the 2nd. Being EQN is a F2P game it would take some stones to do that. SoE would be taking a major loss simply because they didn't want to have seperate servers. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.
  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by Aelious
    EQN may very well be EvE like, though I doubt it. I believe Smed is a true gamer and is very passionate. If you look at the main events people dislike him over however you see it's times when he's needed to be a President first, gamer second.

    PvP is preferred by the minority, that can plainly be seen not just by posts or polls here but in the populations of MMOs across the board. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just reality.

    Could EQN be a big shared world where PvP players come before PvE? Sure, anything is possible until the 2nd. Being EQN is a F2P game it would take some stones to do that. SoE would be taking a major loss simply because they didn't want to have seperate servers. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

    "PVP is preferred by the minority..."

     

    I disagree. The majority wants PVP without constant griefing. I think a lot of those people would be willing to try a revolutionary game where they only get griefed once in a while when they take risks and can have obvious ways to take control of their safety. With the rest of the game being so compelling it keeps them coming back for more.

     

    The problem with looking at servers in games with half-assed, poorly conceived PVP: All that tells you is the majority dislikes full PVP the way it has been conceived in the past, as it was always super-conducive to griefing.

     

    The other problem with accepting the status quo and giving players exactly what they seem to want: Devs can't keep up with the content churn. Players burn through the content and then leave and play another game, and the devs don't get the ROI you're suggesting. They may be getting 90 per cent of the gaming population, but they're getting them for a limited time and probably only raking in 20 per cent of the potential revenue. It would be better to have 40 per cent of the playerbase all the time and get 90 per cent of the potential revenue from them.

     

    This is where I believe EverQuest Next is going: Letting people create content and duke it out over resources, with very well conceived SANDBOX features to limit griefing instead of invisible themepark walls (e.g. EVE). What it boils down to is protecting kingdoms costs money. You can get amazing protection but it's going to cost you lots of taxes and/or resources. There are major starting kingdoms - and paths between them - that are run by NPCs, with maxed-out protection. So innocent people in these areas can essentially play the game with very little chance of being ganked. (Very similar concept to hi-sec in EVE.) They can even expand on these kingdoms and reap that protection by paying taxes. People who are more into the PVP and risk v.s. reward can go out into the 'frontier' area and establish their own kingdoms. But they have to fund the infrastructure/protection out of their own pockets.

     

    EQN will be F2P but the potential for monetizing this kind of system is ENORMOUS. I see a ton of whales getting super-addicted to funding their kingdoms and being barrons with their own communities. Losing the kingdom you and your friends worked hard to build to enemy forces that are wearing away at your economy? Not acceptable? No problem - just buy in-game currency and use it to purchase more protection.

     

    Edit: The more I think about this, the more clear it seems from a business perspective. It probably made sense to go with PVE-only themeparks in the past when people voted with their monthly subscriptions. But with the shift to F2P, you need ways to monetize games. Dev-generated content is not the answer. Player-generated content is part of it, but even more effective if people pay to protect their assets. It would be a bit of a grind in itself, because, at least on the frontier, vulnerable kingdoms would have be attacked.

     

    Why build on the frontier? Resources...  exotic locations... achievements.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by Aelious
    EQN may very well be EvE like, though I doubt it. I believe Smed is a true gamer and is very passionate. If you look at the main events people dislike him over however you see it's times when he's needed to be a President first, gamer second.

    PvP is preferred by the minority, that can plainly be seen not just by posts or polls here but in the populations of MMOs across the board. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just reality.

    Could EQN be a big shared world where PvP players come before PvE? Sure, anything is possible until the 2nd. Being EQN is a F2P game it would take some stones to do that. SoE would be taking a major loss simply because they didn't want to have seperate servers. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

    "PVP is preferred by the minority..."

     

    I disagree. The majority wants PVP without constant griefing. I think a lot of those people would be willing to try a revolutionary game where they only get griefed once in a while when they take risks and can have obvious ways to take control of their safety. With the rest of the game being so compelling it keeps them coming back for more.

     

    The problem with looking at servers in games with half-assed, poorly conceived PVP: All that tells you is the majority dislikes full PVP the way it has been conceived in the past, as it was always super-conducive to griefing.

     

    The other problem with accepting the status quo and giving players exactly what they seem to want: Devs can't keep up with the content churn. Players burn through the content and then leave and play another game, and the devs don't get the ROI you're suggesting. They may be getting 90 per cent of the gaming population, but they're getting them for a limited time and probably only raking in 20 per cent of the potential revenue. It would be better to have 40 per cent of the playerbase all the time and get 90 per cent of the potential revenue from them.

     

    This is where I believe EverQuest Next is going: Letting people create content and duke it out over resources, with very well conceived SANDBOX features to limit griefing instead of invisible themepark walls (e.g. EVE). What it boils down to is protecting kingdoms costs money. You can get amazing protection but it's going to cost you lots of taxes and/or resources. There are major starting kingdoms - and paths between them - that are run by NPCs, with maxed-out protection. So innocent people in these areas can essentially play the game with very little chance of being ganked. (Very similar concept to hi-sec in EVE.) They can even expand on these kingdoms and reap that protection by paying taxes. People who are more into the PVP and risk v.s. reward can go out into the 'frontier' area and establish their own kingdoms. But they have to fund the infrastructure/protection out of their own pockets.

     

    EQN will be F2P but the potential for monetizing this kind of system is ENORMOUS. I see a ton of whales getting super-addicted to funding their kingdoms and being barrons with their own communities. Losing the kingdom you and your friends worked hard to build to enemy forces that are wearing away at your economy? Not acceptable? No problem - just buy in-game currency and use it to purchase more protection.

     

    Edit: The more I think about this, the more clear it seems from a business perspective. It probably made sense to go with PVE-only themeparks in the past when people voted with their monthly subscriptions. But with the shift to F2P, you need ways to monetize games. Dev-generated content is not the answer. Player-generated content is part of it, but even more effective if people pay to protect their assets. It would be a bit of a grind in itself, because, at least on the frontier, vulnerable kingdoms would have be attacked.

     

    Why build on the frontier? Resources...  exotic locations... achievements.

    A few problems with your reasoning.

    1.  You're assuming there is an actual large PVP centric group of gamers that would make up for the loss of PVE heavy players for MMORPGs.  This can be demonstrated to be false by looking at the popularity of pvp centric games and looking at MMORPs that offer servers for PVP and PVE players seperately.

    In EQ and EQ2 the amount of PVE servers dwarfed the PVP servers in both size of active population and total amount of the servers required to hold the PVP players.

    Mortal Online, Darkfall and other PVP centric MMORPGs have an extremely niche and small following.  One of the most established (and in my opinion the most well done) forced pvp experiences, eve, draws a user base of about 500k-400k, which is commendable, but no where near warrants the amount of time/money SOE has put into EQN.

    Looking at other games like WoW, the amount of PVP players are the stark minority vs the size of the PVE playerbase.

    So PVE players vastly out number the PVP population regardless of how you look at it.

    2. The PVP population itself is split in to many different categories of preferences and styles.  

    Some love the thrill of the gank and prefer unhindered open world FFA PVP with no consequences other than what other players make for them (player controlled policing)

    Some prefer completely balanced tournament style PVP where each team is equal in size and preferably are close/equal in gear/level ratings.

    Some people prefer Team PVP where they're automatically friends with some factions/races/classes and automatically enemies with others.  

    Take Aion for an example, which was a forced team pvp game, and you can see where PVP players reacted negatively to PVP restrictions.  At one point they decided they needed to not have open world PVE/PVP, and got rid of "Rifting", where you could go PVP in your enemy's PVE lands.  They got rid of this mechanic and then had central, separate PVP areas (aka Abyss *Basically your "frontier" idea) as the only PVP areas and it was met with extreme backlash from the PVP community of the game.

    Some people prefer FFA pvp with rule sets like murder flags, jail time, etc.

    3.  You can have player created content, non-content churning, risk VS reward game play WITHOUT  ANY PVP AT ALL.  This should be apparent but many people including yourself seem to have a hard time grasping this.

     

    The bottom line.

    Your idea completely alienates PVE players all together.  Then you created a scenario that only appeals to a portion of the PVP population.

    People like you or I may enjoy this kind of experience, but understand that it's not realistic for EQN.  Niche of Niche is not the goal of a multi-million dollar flagship product. F2P works best when it appeals to a broad audience and attracts a huge surplus of players.  That way the money lost from every player that didn't buy the game is offset by the larger pool of players and the ones that choose to spend more.

    Anyway, nice try but it isn't going to happen lol.

    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 Gallus85
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by Aelious
    EQN may very well be EvE like, though I doubt it. I believe Smed is a true gamer and is very passionate. If you look at the main events people dislike him over however you see it's times when he's needed to be a President first, gamer second.

    PvP is preferred by the minority, that can plainly be seen not just by posts or polls here but in the populations of MMOs across the board. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just reality.

    Could EQN be a big shared world where PvP players come before PvE? Sure, anything is possible until the 2nd. Being EQN is a F2P game it would take some stones to do that. SoE would be taking a major loss simply because they didn't want to have seperate servers. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

    "PVP is preferred by the minority..."

     

    I disagree. The majority wants PVP without constant griefing. I think a lot of those people would be willing to try a revolutionary game where they only get griefed once in a while when they take risks and can have obvious ways to take control of their safety. With the rest of the game being so compelling it keeps them coming back for more.

     

    The problem with looking at servers in games with half-assed, poorly conceived PVP: All that tells you is the majority dislikes full PVP the way it has been conceived in the past, as it was always super-conducive to griefing.

     

    The other problem with accepting the status quo and giving players exactly what they seem to want: Devs can't keep up with the content churn. Players burn through the content and then leave and play another game, and the devs don't get the ROI you're suggesting. They may be getting 90 per cent of the gaming population, but they're getting them for a limited time and probably only raking in 20 per cent of the potential revenue. It would be better to have 40 per cent of the playerbase all the time and get 90 per cent of the potential revenue from them.

     

    This is where I believe EverQuest Next is going: Letting people create content and duke it out over resources, with very well conceived SANDBOX features to limit griefing instead of invisible themepark walls (e.g. EVE). What it boils down to is protecting kingdoms costs money. You can get amazing protection but it's going to cost you lots of taxes and/or resources. There are major starting kingdoms - and paths between them - that are run by NPCs, with maxed-out protection. So innocent people in these areas can essentially play the game with very little chance of being ganked. (Very similar concept to hi-sec in EVE.) They can even expand on these kingdoms and reap that protection by paying taxes. People who are more into the PVP and risk v.s. reward can go out into the 'frontier' area and establish their own kingdoms. But they have to fund the infrastructure/protection out of their own pockets.

     

    EQN will be F2P but the potential for monetizing this kind of system is ENORMOUS. I see a ton of whales getting super-addicted to funding their kingdoms and being barrons with their own communities. Losing the kingdom you and your friends worked hard to build to enemy forces that are wearing away at your economy? Not acceptable? No problem - just buy in-game currency and use it to purchase more protection.

     

    Edit: The more I think about this, the more clear it seems from a business perspective. It probably made sense to go with PVE-only themeparks in the past when people voted with their monthly subscriptions. But with the shift to F2P, you need ways to monetize games. Dev-generated content is not the answer. Player-generated content is part of it, but even more effective if people pay to protect their assets. It would be a bit of a grind in itself, because, at least on the frontier, vulnerable kingdoms would have be attacked.

     

    Why build on the frontier? Resources...  exotic locations... achievements.

    A few problems with your reasoning.

    1.  You're assuming there is an actual large PVP centric group of gamers that would make up for the loss of PVE heavy players for MMORPGs.  This can be demonstrated to be false by looking at the popularity of pvp centric games and looking at MMORPs that offer servers for PVP and PVE players seperately.

    In EQ and EQ2 the amount of PVE servers dwarfed the PVP servers in both size of active population and total amount of the servers required to hold the PVP players.

    Mortal Online, Darkfall and other PVP centric MMORPGs have an extremely niche and small following.  One of the most established (and in my opinion the most well done) forced pvp experiences, eve, draws a user base of about 500k-400k, which is commendable, but no where near warrants the amount of time/money SOE has put into EQN.

    Looking at other games like WoW, the amount of PVP players are the stark minority vs the size of the PVE playerbase.

    So PVE players vastly out number the PVP population regardless of how you look at it.

    2. The PVP population itself is split in to many different categories of preferences and styles.  

    Some love the thrill of the gank and prefer unhindered open world FFA PVP with no consequences other than what other players make for them (player controlled policing)

    Some prefer completely balanced tournament style PVP where each team is equal in size and preferably are close/equal in gear/level ratings.

    Some people prefer Team PVP where they're automatically friends with some factions/races/classes and automatically enemies with others.  

    Take Aion for an example, which was a forced team pvp game, and you can see where PVP players reacted negatively to PVP restrictions.  At one point they decided they needed to not have open world PVE/PVP, and got rid of "Rifting", where you could go PVP in your enemy's PVE lands.  They got rid of this mechanic and then had central, separate PVP areas (aka Abyss *Basically your "frontier" idea) as the only PVP areas and it was met with extreme backlash from the PVP community of the game.

    Some people prefer FFA pvp with rule sets like murder flags, jail time, etc.

    3.  You can have player created content, non-content churning, risk VS reward game play WITHOUT  ANY PVP AT ALL.  This should be apparent but many people including yourself seem to have a hard time grasping this.

     

    The bottom line.

    Your idea completely alienates PVE players all together.  Then you created a scenario that only appeals to a portion of the PVP population.

    People like you or I may enjoy this kind of experience, but understand that it's not realistic for EQN.  Niche of Niche is not the goal of a multi-million dollar flagship product. F2P works best when it appeals to a broad audience and attracts a huge surplus of players.  That way the money lost from every player that didn't buy the game is offset by the larger pool of players and the ones that choose to spend more.

    Anyway, nice try but it isn't going to happen lol.

     

    Way too many claims about what people want without a lot of numbers to back them up.

     

    I'm not willing to accept server populations in existing MMOs because most have failed to implement PVP successfully.

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

     

    Way too many claims about what people want without a lot of numbers to back them up.

     

    I'm not willing to accept server populations in existing MMOs because most have failed to implement PVP successfully.

    You're just being blatantly ignorant to reality.

    I backed up my claims with numerous examples and I can provide many more.

    UO was forced PVP and a peak player population of 100k.  When Trammel launched with the Renaissance expansion it brought non consensual PVP ruleset and then achieved a 250k peek player base. 150% improvement when they offered non-consensual PVP.

    Then you simply say "they never did it right".  By what standards?  People enjoy all sorts of different things.  What you may hate another person may love.  The system you dreamed up in your head is a system many PVPers would loath and zero pure PVE players would enjoy.

    The fact of the matter is that all sorts of PVP games have launched over the years, with many different styles and rule sets.  FFA pvp, FFA pvp with rules, Team PVP, arena PvP, 3 way RvRvR pvp and all of these have launched in all sorts of different flavors and none of them have surpassed the popularity of PVE.

    Why?  I can tell you why.  It's not a fault of the PVP system, it's the fact that that a much larger player population wants nothing* to do with PVP.

    Do the research before you speak.  You sound like you've lived under a rock for the past 15 years lol.  Seriously, I'm a huge competitive PVPer, don't think that I* personally dislike your idea.  I'm just educating you on why it's not realistic.

    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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Aelious
    EQN may very well be EvE like, though I doubt it. I believe Smed is a true gamer and is very passionate. If you look at the main events people dislike him over however you see it's times when he's needed to be a President first, gamer second.

    PvP is preferred by the minority, that can plainly be seen not just by posts or polls here but in the populations of MMOs across the board. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just reality.

    Could EQN be a big shared world where PvP players come before PvE? Sure, anything is possible until the 2nd. Being EQN is a F2P game it would take some stones to do that. SoE would be taking a major loss simply because they didn't want to have seperate servers. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

    If sandbox PVPers are a minority, what are sandbox PVEers? Every PVE game people have put forth in this type of argument has been a themepark game. The two game styles are completely different. The only popular PVE sandbox games are extremely casual such as Minecraft, Second Life, and Free Realms. Is that really the type of player base anyone here wants to attract?

    The only example of a PVE sandbox that isn't casual with any kind of popularity was Star Wars Galaxies from a decade ago. If one wants to look at the current MMORPG player base to determine what will or will not be successful, looking at a Star Wars IP game from a decade ago that peaked at less than what EVE has now and started rapidly declining just as quickly as all the themepark PVE games today is hardly the best plan. They even tried to turn it into a themepark to stop the decline.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Aelious
    EQN may very well be EvE like, though I doubt it. I believe Smed is a true gamer and is very passionate. If you look at the main events people dislike him over however you see it's times when he's needed to be a President first, gamer second.

    PvP is preferred by the minority, that can plainly be seen not just by posts or polls here but in the populations of MMOs across the board. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just reality.

    Could EQN be a big shared world where PvP players come before PvE? Sure, anything is possible until the 2nd. Being EQN is a F2P game it would take some stones to do that. SoE would be taking a major loss simply because they didn't want to have seperate servers. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

    If sandbox PVPers are a minority, what are sandbox PVEers? Every PVE game people have put forth in this type of argument has been a themepark game. The two game styles are completely different. The only popular PVE sandbox games are extremely casual such as Minecraft, Second Life, and Free Realms. Is that really the type of player base anyone here wants to attract?

    The only example of a themepark sandbox that isn't casual with any kind of popularity was Star Wars Galaxies from a decade ago. If one wants to look at the current MMORPG player base to determine what will or will not be successful, looking at a game from a decade ago hat peaked at less than what EVE has now and started rapidly declining just as quickly as all the themepark PVE games today is hardly the best plan. They even tried to turn it into a themepark to stop the decline.

    Free realms has like 8 million users.  I think SOE would be tickled to death to get that many players for EQN.

    The point is that no forced PVP game has ever matched the popularity of PVE games.  EQN will have open world pvp, already confirmed, but there will be PVE only servers.  That's the major point being made.

    It's not* going to force PVP on players.  They know that would only hurt it's chances of success.

    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

  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,514
    Originally posted by nerovipus32
    This game will only have one server. The day of the shards are dead.

    Haha, keep dreaming...

    I wish(and hope) you are right though.  Hardly any MMOs to date have managed to stick with the one server universe.

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Nice angle but the sandbox element has nothing to do with PvP/PvE preferences. Even then EQN is to be a "sandbox-ish" title, not a pure sandbox so it can have aspects of both.

    There are entirely too many variables to come to a concrete assessment on this. The info that is there shows PvP as a minority but when aspect that other titles just haven't done it right there is really no way to prove it or discredit it, it becomes a fantasy aspect.
  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Nice angle but the sandbox element has nothing to do with PvP/PvE preferences. Even then EQN is to be a "sandbox-ish" title, not a pure sandbox so it can have aspects of both.

    There are entirely too many variables to come to a concrete assessment on this. The info that is there shows PvP as a minority but when aspect that other titles just haven't done it right there is really no way to prove it or discredit it, it becomes a fantasy aspect.

    Exactly, I'd say a game like Skyrim is a "Sandbox" game.  The world completely open to explore right from the start, you can be/do anything you want, it's completely open and free.  More freedom than most games give you anyway, and it's a completely PVE experience.

    I suspect EQN will be more advanced (city / house building, intricate crafting system, etc etc), but I think it will follow a lot of the same mechanics and ideas we see in a game like Skyrim.  I think the kiddies on here call it a "Sandpark", because for it to be a "Sandbox" it would have to be EQN + garry's mode or Minecraft creative mode, which we know isn't going to be happening.

    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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Aelious
    EQN may very well be EvE like, though I doubt it. I believe Smed is a true gamer and is very passionate. If you look at the main events people dislike him over however you see it's times when he's needed to be a President first, gamer second.

    PvP is preferred by the minority, that can plainly be seen not just by posts or polls here but in the populations of MMOs across the board. It's not a knock on PvP, it's just reality.

    Could EQN be a big shared world where PvP players come before PvE? Sure, anything is possible until the 2nd. Being EQN is a F2P game it would take some stones to do that. SoE would be taking a major loss simply because they didn't want to have seperate servers. Any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense.

    If sandbox PVPers are a minority, what are sandbox PVEers? Every PVE game people have put forth in this type of argument has been a themepark game. The two game styles are completely different. The only popular PVE sandbox games are extremely casual such as Minecraft, Second Life, and Free Realms. Is that really the type of player base anyone here wants to attract?

    The only example of a themepark sandbox that isn't casual with any kind of popularity was Star Wars Galaxies from a decade ago. If one wants to look at the current MMORPG player base to determine what will or will not be successful, looking at a game from a decade ago hat peaked at less than what EVE has now and started rapidly declining just as quickly as all the themepark PVE games today is hardly the best plan. They even tried to turn it into a themepark to stop the decline.

    Free realms has like 8 million users.  I think SOE would be tickled to death to get that many players for EQN.

    The point is that no forced PVP game has ever matched the popularity of PVE games.  EQN will have open world pvp, already confirmed, but there will be PVE only servers.  That's the major point being made.

    It's not* going to force PVP on players.  They know that would only hurt it's chances of success.

    Free Realms had 20 million players last we heard and it is their game, why would they try to compete with themselves? Trying to repeat Free Realms by making another Free Realms is about as possible as creating another World of Warcraft by copying World of Warcraft. All they would end up doing at most would be to transfer their Free Realm player base from one game to another which equates to zero net gains.

    Your point is moot. It is far more complicated than the PVE vs PVP you are trying to distill it down to. There haven't exactly been any overly successful PVE games released on the western market the last few years. Just like there haven't been any overly successful themepark games. Why? Because that market is already monopolized by a single game and the market is saturated with games trying to pick up the remainders.

    There is absolutely zero evidence that having PVE-only sandbox will somehow increase its chance of success.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Nice angle but the sandbox element has nothing to do with PvP/PvE preferences. Even then EQN is to be a "sandbox-ish" title, not a pure sandbox so it can have aspects of both.

    There are entirely too many variables to come to a concrete assessment on this. The info that is there shows PvP as a minority but when aspect that other titles just haven't done it right there is really no way to prove it or discredit it, it becomes a fantasy aspect.

    Exactly, I'd say a game like Skyrim is a "Sandbox" game.  The world completely open to explore right from the start, you can be/do anything you want, it's completely open and free.  More freedom than most games give you anyway, and it's a completely PVE experience.

    I suspect EQN will be more advanced (city / house building, intricate crafting system, etc etc), but I think it will follow a lot of the same mechanics and ideas we see in a game like Skyrim.  I think the kiddies on here call it a "Sandpark", because for it to be a "Sandbox" it would have to be EQN + garry's mode or Minecraft creative mode, which we know isn't going to be happening.

    You are confusing open world and sandbox. All sandboxes are open world, but not all open world games are sandboxes. Skyrim has questlines with a linear story, the epitome of what a themepark is. A single player game is also a completely different player  base. People who play Skyrim aren't going to be happy with spending three hours carving out a hill just for a spot to place a building. Just as people who want to raid aren't going to want to spend three hours carving out a hill to place a building.

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

    Free Realms had 20 million players last we heard and it is their game, why would they try to compete with themselves? Trying to repeat Free Realms by making another Free Realms is about as possible as creating another World of Warcraft by copying World of Warcraft. All they would end up doing at most would be to transfer their Free Realm player base from one game to another which equates to zero net gains.

    Your point is moot. It is far more complicated than the PVE vs PVP you are trying to distill it down to. There haven't exactly been any overly successful PVE games released on the western market the last few years. Just like there haven't been any overly successful themepark games. Why? Because that market is already monopolized by a single game and the market is saturated with games trying to pick up the remainders.

    There is absolutely zero evidence that having PVE-only sandbox will somehow increase its chance of success.

    My point is not moot.  You're just not educated on the subject.  Free Realms is not competition for an enthusiast level game like EQN.

    GW2 was overly successful.  SWTOR (as bad as many of us think it was) went F2P and has like 2 or 3 million users now and is printing money lol.

    Aion has millions of users in asian and hundreds of thousands of players in US.

    There have been plenty of successes outside of WoW.

    Also, I never said that EQN was going to be PVE-Only sandbox.  That would be silly since Smedley already said it was going to have pvp.  However, it will also have PVE servers.  There's no reason why it won't and wouldn't make sense from a business standpoint.

    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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    Free Realms had 20 million players last we heard and it is their game, why would they try to compete with themselves? Trying to repeat Free Realms by making another Free Realms is about as possible as creating another World of Warcraft by copying World of Warcraft. All they would end up doing at most would be to transfer their Free Realm player base from one game to another which equates to zero net gains.

    Your point is moot. It is far more complicated than the PVE vs PVP you are trying to distill it down to. There haven't exactly been any overly successful PVE games released on the western market the last few years. Just like there haven't been any overly successful themepark games. Why? Because that market is already monopolized by a single game and the market is saturated with games trying to pick up the remainders.

    There is absolutely zero evidence that having PVE-only sandbox will somehow increase its chance of success.

    My point is not moot.  You're just not educated on the subject.  Free Realms is not competition for an enthusiast level game like EQN.

    GW2 was overly successful.  SWTOR (as bad as many of us think it was) went F2P and has like 2 or 3 million users now and is printing money lol.

    Aion has millions of users in asian and hundreds of thousands of players in US.

    There have been plenty of successes outside of WoW.

    Also, I never said that EQN was going to be PVE-Only sandbox.  That would be silly since Smedley already said it was going to have pvp.  However, it will also have PVE servers.  There's no reason why it won't and wouldn't make sense from a business standpoint.

    I didn't say it would be competition for an enthusiast level game like EQN, but you are the one that said SOE would love to have 8 million people for EQN like Free Realms has. The problem is there is no evidence of this mythical 'enthusiast' sandbox PVE crowd. The best anyone can come up with is Star Wars Galaxies from over a decade ago which peaked at 500k subscribers.

    I would call GW2 and SWTOR successful, but not overly so. We don't even know the active player base of GW2. 2-3 million players is pretty good for SWTOR compared to other PVE themeparks that are f2p. However, I don't think a short term burst of success is what SOE is after or they would have made it a WoW-clone.

    I don't expect the 'world's largest sandbox' to have multiple shards. I expect one massive shard per region. Otherwise, it won't have enough players to fill up that world. From a business stand point, trying to appeal to everyone just means you won't appeal to anyone. If the game isn't built around PVP, they won't attract the PVPers. If it isn't built around PVE, they won't attract the PVEers. Unless there are literally two parallel games being developed, someone is going to get the short straw.

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

    You are confusing open world and sandbox. All sandboxes are open world, but not all open world games are sandboxes. Skyrim has questlines with a linear story, the epitome of what a themepark is. A single player game is also a completely different player  base. People who play Skyrim aren't going to be happy with spending three hours carving out a hill just for a spot to place a building. Just as people who want to raid aren't going to want to spend three hours carving out a hill to place a building.

    I'm not confusing anything.  The term sandbox is vague and means many things to many different people.  Skyrim has "quest lines" but you can progress through the game in any way you pleasem, with or without them.  Quests are just tools to present lore and stories to the player.  You can mix player generated content and quests and it would still be a "sandbox".  The key is in the presentation.  Like Skyrim, you can play the game for 1000 hours and never touch a single quest line and still have plenty of things todo.

     You can choose to be a thief that just pick pockets people all day and the mechanics of the game will progress your character even if that's the only thing you choose to do.

    A sandbox game can have quests.  A sandbox game can be void of crafting.  There are many ways to use the terms and the most universal is simply a game with a lot of freedom allowed to the player in how he or she plays.  What those freedoms are and what mechanics are in the game past that are completely subjective.

    UO is considered a sandbox but very often when people describe a sandbox it sounds nothing like UO.  Likewise when other people describe what sandbox means to them, they will describe Vanguard's FFA pvp server to the letter lol.

    Hope this helps you.

    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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    You are confusing open world and sandbox. All sandboxes are open world, but not all open world games are sandboxes. Skyrim has questlines with a linear story, the epitome of what a themepark is. A single player game is also a completely different player  base. People who play Skyrim aren't going to be happy with spending three hours carving out a hill just for a spot to place a building. Just as people who want to raid aren't going to want to spend three hours carving out a hill to place a building.

    I'm not confusing anything.  The term sandbox is vague and means many things to many different people.  Skyrim has "quest lines" but you can progress through the game in any way you pleasem, with or without them.  Quests are just tools to present lore and stories to the player.  You can mix player generated content and quests and it would still be a "sandbox".  The key is in the presentation.  Like Skyrim, you can play the game for 1000 hours and never touch a single quest line and still have plenty of things todo.

     You can choose to be a thief that just pick pockets people all day and the mechanics of the game will progress your character even if that's the only thing you choose to do.

    A sandbox game can have quests.  A sandbox game can be void of crafting.  There are many ways to use the terms and the most universal is simply a game with a lot of freedom allowed to the player in how he or she plays.  What those freedoms are and what mechanics are in the game past that are completely subjective.

    UO is considered a sandbox but very often when people describe a sandbox it sounds nothing like UO.  Likewise when other people describe what sandbox means to them, they will describe Vanguard's FFA pvp server to the letter lol.

    Hope this helps you.

    An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world

    Btw, your description of Skyrim could almost fit perfectly with describing World of Warcraft.

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

    I didn't say it would be competition for an enthusiast level game like EQN, but you are the one that said SOE would love to have 8 million people for EQN like Free Realms has. The problem is there is no evidence of this mythical 'enthusiast' sandbox PVE crowd. The best anyone can come up with is Star Wars Galaxies from over a decade ago which peaked at 500k subscribers.

    I would call GW2 and SWTOR successful, but not overly so. We don't even know the active player base of GW2. 2-3 million players is pretty good for SWTOR compared to other PVE themeparks that are f2p. However, I don't think a short term burst of success is what SOE is after or they would have made it a WoW-clone.

    I don't expect the 'world's largest sandbox' to have multiple shards. I expect one massive shard per region. Otherwise, it won't have enough players to fill up that world. From a business stand point, trying to appeal to everyone just means you won't appeal to anyone. If the game isn't built around PVP, they won't attract the PVPers. If it isn't built around PVE, they won't attract the PVEers. Unless there are literally two parallel games being developed, someone is going to get the short straw.

    Minecraft proved there's a PVE sandbox crowd.  Or did you forget about that?

    Garry's mod has sold over 1.4 million copies.

    GW2 is overly successful, as was GW1, unless you live in a world where selling millions of copies of a video game is not a "huge success".

    You know nothing about the game. Lets assume that it generates 500,000 users at it's peek.  So you're saying if they had a PVP and PVE server for each region (Lets say EU, US E, US W, and Aussy for my brothers and sisters down under.).

    500,000 subscribers would be like 1/3rd or 1/4th the amount of players SWTOR and GW2 have maintained, so that's not even a serious number, and even then that would still leave about 62,500 players PER SERVER with this kind of setup, and you think that's "Not enough"?

    Are you serious?

    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

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

    An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3] "Open world" and "free-roaming" suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. An "open world" game does not necessarily imply a sandbox. In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play.[5] Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world

    Btw, your description of Skyrim could almost fit perfectly with describing World of Warcraft.

    An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1] The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming".[2][3]

    1. You skipped this part^

    2. Citing wikipedia is really noob.  I could go on there right now and write whatever I want a sandbox to be.

    3.  "In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play." 

    Neverwinter has tools for players to modify the world and create how they play (Foundry).  Is never winter a sandbox?

    Like I said, the term sandbox is completely up in the air.  It also doesn't require the presence of PVP, or PVE.  It also can be synonymous with open world with lots of freedom to explore. 

    It could also mean players have a hand in modifying the world (But does not mean that players have to create everything in side the world and it doesn't specify how much or how little they can modify the world).  The ability to add a house to the world is modifying it.  The ability to spawn 10000 dragons to kill everyone is also modifying 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

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    I didn't say it would be competition for an enthusiast level game like EQN, but you are the one that said SOE would love to have 8 million people for EQN like Free Realms has. The problem is there is no evidence of this mythical 'enthusiast' sandbox PVE crowd. The best anyone can come up with is Star Wars Galaxies from over a decade ago which peaked at 500k subscribers.

    I would call GW2 and SWTOR successful, but not overly so. We don't even know the active player base of GW2. 2-3 million players is pretty good for SWTOR compared to other PVE themeparks that are f2p. However, I don't think a short term burst of success is what SOE is after or they would have made it a WoW-clone.

    I don't expect the 'world's largest sandbox' to have multiple shards. I expect one massive shard per region. Otherwise, it won't have enough players to fill up that world. From a business stand point, trying to appeal to everyone just means you won't appeal to anyone. If the game isn't built around PVP, they won't attract the PVPers. If it isn't built around PVE, they won't attract the PVEers. Unless there are literally two parallel games being developed, someone is going to get the short straw.

    Minecraft proved there's a PVE sandbox crowd.  Or did you forget about that?

    Garry's mod has sold over 1.4 million copies.

    GW2 is overly successful, as was GW1, unless you live in a world where selling millions of copies of a video game is not a "huge success".

    You know nothing about the game. Lets assume that it generates 500,000 users at it's peek.  So you're saying if they had a PVP and PVE server for each region (Lets say EU, US E, US W, and Aussy for my brothers and sisters down under.).

    500,000 subscribers would be like 1/3rd or 1/4th the amount of players SWTOR and GW2 have maintained, so that's not even a serious number, and even then that would still leave about 62,500 players PER SERVER with this kind of setup, and you think that's "Not enough"?

    Are you serious?

    Minecraft is the epitome of a casual sandbox game. If Gary's mod is a 'sandbox game' then you might as well take it a step further and say Visual C++ is the most popular sandbox game in existence.

    EVE has 500k subscribers, they regularly have around 25 or 30k users on at once. EVE is currently the largest sandbox game right now. If EQN is going to be 'the largest sandbox game' then it has to be larger than EVE.

    Whether you have one shard or twenty shards, it takes the same amount of computational power and bandwidth to host 25k players at once,

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    I didn't say it would be competition for an enthusiast level game like EQN, but you are the one that said SOE would love to have 8 million people for EQN like Free Realms has. The problem is there is no evidence of this mythical 'enthusiast' sandbox PVE crowd. The best anyone can come up with is Star Wars Galaxies from over a decade ago which peaked at 500k subscribers.

    I would call GW2 and SWTOR successful, but not overly so. We don't even know the active player base of GW2. 2-3 million players is pretty good for SWTOR compared to other PVE themeparks that are f2p. However, I don't think a short term burst of success is what SOE is after or they would have made it a WoW-clone.

    I don't expect the 'world's largest sandbox' to have multiple shards. I expect one massive shard per region. Otherwise, it won't have enough players to fill up that world. From a business stand point, trying to appeal to everyone just means you won't appeal to anyone. If the game isn't built around PVP, they won't attract the PVPers. If it isn't built around PVE, they won't attract the PVEers. Unless there are literally two parallel games being developed, someone is going to get the short straw.

    Minecraft proved there's a PVE sandbox crowd.  Or did you forget about that?

    Garry's mod has sold over 1.4 million copies.

    GW2 is overly successful, as was GW1, unless you live in a world where selling millions of copies of a video game is not a "huge success".

    You know nothing about the game. Lets assume that it generates 500,000 users at it's peek.  So you're saying if they had a PVP and PVE server for each region (Lets say EU, US E, US W, and Aussy for my brothers and sisters down under.).

    500,000 subscribers would be like 1/3rd or 1/4th the amount of players SWTOR and GW2 have maintained, so that's not even a serious number, and even then that would still leave about 62,500 players PER SERVER with this kind of setup, and you think that's "Not enough"?

    Are you serious?

    Minecraft is the epitome of a casual sandbox game. If Gary's mod is a 'sandbox game' then you might as well take it a step further and say Visual C++ is the most popular sandbox game in existence.

    EVE has 500k subscribers, they regularly have around 25 or 30k users on at once. EVE is currently the largest sandbox game right now. If EQN is going to be 'the largest sandbox game' then it has to be larger than EVE.

    Whether you have one shard or twenty shards, it takes the same amount of computational power and bandwidth to host 25k players at once,

    Oh that's where you're confused.  You're equating what smed said about "Largest sandbox" and equating that to player population size. 

    That's not what he meant buddy lol.  Though on that note I have no doubt that EQN will pull in more players than eve does.

    Also I was talking about enough players to make the world work(Not feel empty).  I have no doubt that they can set up the servers in such a way that it's playable regardless of what size of players they want to accommodate.  Not sure why you're always going off on tangents.

    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

Sign In or Register to comment.