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

123578

Comments

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

    1. Didn't skip anything. Yes, people refer to them as sandbox as you have constantly done so, but you aren't talking about real sandbox games.

    2. You could, but with what source? Your post would eventually just be moderated as soon as a moderater checked what you deleted and what you wrote.

    3. No, the Foundry doesn't modify the world, it creates a completely separate instance which isn't apart of the world. As sandbox is s subcategory of an open world game, it is required to be an open world game and players need the ability to modify that world.

    4. Never said it required PVE or PVP to be sandbox. Did you miss my continual usage of PVE sandbox and PVP sandbox earier?

    5. Never said it had to create everything in the world either. Housing would certainly be a sandbox feature, but if that isn't the core of the game, it wouldn't be a sandbox game.

     

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

    I am not equating it to population size. I am equating it to world size. You need a larger populace than EVE to fill a world larger than EVE. There's no going off on a tangent here. I gave you a reason why there probably won't be separate shards.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554

    Gallus85, can you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? There's no need attack the character of icevortex and I just because you don't like what we're saying.

     

    I have to reiterate an earlier argument. Population numbers are not the ultimate measure of an MMO's success.

     

    It depends more on how much revenue the developers can make from the game.

     

    In a free-to-play game, let's say you have six million players. A relatively small percentage of them are actually paying--they're called "whales"--and they're paying a lot. Sometimes thousands of dollars a month. This is their major hobby and they have disposable income to burn but they need compelling reasons to spend.

     

    A sandbox in itself would give whales a lot to spend money on. But a sandbox where they have to defend their assets from other players would make even more, because the whales would have to replenish defenses eroded by player conflict.

     

    Let's say I'm a whale and I've built a kingdom. I'm literally it's king and I've got an awesome community of players living in my kingdom. We've meticulously created this place that we're really proud of. Then an army comes and starts picking away at. I have lots of money in the bank and I can use it to keep our little sandbox utopia going. It's like kids putting more quarters into the classic arcade machine. I remember burning through my dad's pocket as a kid because I needed "just one more to beat the boss!!!! Come on, dad, we're so close!!!" It's a really addictive thing where you feel like so much is at stake and before you know it you've spent a lot trying to hold onto your progress.

     

    At the end of the day, EQN could have 500k players and be more profitable than an MMO with 6 million players provided they have an addictive enough money sink for the whales.

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

    1. Didn't skip anything. Yes, people refer to them as sandbox as you have constantly done so, but you aren't talking about real sandbox games.

    2. You could, but with what source? Your post would eventually just be moderated as soon as a moderater checked what you deleted and what you wrote.

    3. No, the Foundry doesn't modify the world, it creates a completely separate instance which isn't apart of the world. As sandbox is s subcategory of an open world game, it is required to be an open world game and players need the ability to modify that world.

    4. Never said it required PVE or PVP to be sandbox. Did you miss my continual usage of PVE sandbox and PVP sandbox earier?

    5. Never said it had to create everything in the world either. Housing would certainly be a sandbox feature, but if that isn't the core of the game, it wouldn't be a sandbox game.

     

    Real sandbox* is subjective.  As I already pointed out, most listed "real sandbox games" aren't even what you'd consider a game because they tend to lack rules and goals(and there for by definition can not be a game*), or are just tool kits for creating something.

    I could find many sources that support the idea that Sandbox is synonymous with open world free roaming and has less or nothing to do with UGC.  I have done it before when educating people on what is and isn't a sandbox.

    The world is instanced or not instanced doesn't make it any more or less sandbox.  Each minecraft game is it's own instance, it's still a sandbox.  We want* a combination of PVE (UGC and dev created), world modifying tools and for them to all be out in an open uninstanced world, but these are not requirements of a sandbox*.  They're just the hallmarks of the ones some of us want to play.

    I lumped you in with the other people who think PVP is required for a sandbox, if you don't think that, I apologize.

    What you feel is needed at the core of the game, and how many features a game needs to be a sandbox is both subjective and irrelevant for this conversation. 

    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 Bidwood

    Gallus85, can you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? There's no need attack the character of icevortex and I just because you don't like what we're saying.

     

    I have to reiterate an earlier argument. Population numbers are not the ultimate measure of an MMO's success.

     

    It depends more on how much revenue the developers can make from the game.

     

    In a free-to-play game, let's say you have six million players. A relatively small percentage of them are actually paying--they're called "whales"--and they're paying a lot. Sometimes thousands of dollars a month. This is their major hobby and they have disposable income to burn but they need compelling reasons to spend.

     

    A sandbox in itself would give whales a lot to spend money on. But a sandbox where they have to defend their assets from other players would make even more, because the whales would have to replenish defenses eroded by player conflict.

     

    At the end of the day, EQN could have 500k players and be more profitable than an MMO with 6 million players provided they have an addictive enough money sink for the whales.

    Yes, which can work better when you don't alienate either player base and accommodate as many play styles as possible (Which SOE is going to do).

    The reason I'm posting has nothing to do with disliking anything.  I personally like your ideas because I'm a pvper.  A server with your ideas with all the players on the server who want to play by those rules would be fun, imho.  

    I'm just pointing out why you're wrong about what EQN is going to be.

    I'm not doing any ad hominem attacks.  Pointing out my disbelief in something you guys said that was incorrect or narrow minded is not an ad hominem attack.  I really am shocked at some of the things you've built up in your head.

    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

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    ice-vortex @Gallus85 ; please I am beginning to think you two should get a room, agree to disagree and move on.
  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Gallus85, can you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? There's no need attack the character of icevortex and I just because you don't like what we're saying.

     

    I have to reiterate an earlier argument. Population numbers are not the ultimate measure of an MMO's success.

     

    It depends more on how much revenue the developers can make from the game.

     

    In a free-to-play game, let's say you have six million players. A relatively small percentage of them are actually paying--they're called "whales"--and they're paying a lot. Sometimes thousands of dollars a month. This is their major hobby and they have disposable income to burn but they need compelling reasons to spend.

     

    A sandbox in itself would give whales a lot to spend money on. But a sandbox where they have to defend their assets from other players would make even more, because the whales would have to replenish defenses eroded by player conflict.

     

    At the end of the day, EQN could have 500k players and be more profitable than an MMO with 6 million players provided they have an addictive enough money sink for the whales.

    I actually think the vast majority of their money will come from cosmetics and Player Studio. I wouldn't be surprised if it went beyond items, but expanded into whole building and city designs for player cities and shops, as well as all the various items that goes in them. You could have one of the standard cities or for some money an intricately detailed city.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    ice-vortex @Gallus85 ; please I am beginning to think you two should get a room, agree to disagree and move on.

    I like educating people.

    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 ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Gallus85, can you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? There's no need attack the character of icevortex and I just because you don't like what we're saying.

     

    I have to reiterate an earlier argument. Population numbers are not the ultimate measure of an MMO's success.

     

    It depends more on how much revenue the developers can make from the game.

     

    In a free-to-play game, let's say you have six million players. A relatively small percentage of them are actually paying--they're called "whales"--and they're paying a lot. Sometimes thousands of dollars a month. This is their major hobby and they have disposable income to burn but they need compelling reasons to spend.

     

    A sandbox in itself would give whales a lot to spend money on. But a sandbox where they have to defend their assets from other players would make even more, because the whales would have to replenish defenses eroded by player conflict.

     

    At the end of the day, EQN could have 500k players and be more profitable than an MMO with 6 million players provided they have an addictive enough money sink for the whales.

    I actually think the vast majority of their money will come from Player Studio. I wouldn't be surprised if it went beyond items, but expanded into whole building and city designs for player cities and shops, as well as all the various items that goes in them. You could have one of the standard cities or for some money an intricately detailed city.

     

    I'm thinking the same thing, but there's a lot more money to be made if you have to rebuild stuff that gets destroyed and paying taxes to hold onto territory. I believe territory disputes would result in a pissing contest of spending among whales.

  • hayes303hayes303 Member UncommonPosts: 425
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 
  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Gallus85, can you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? There's no need attack the character of icevortex and I just because you don't like what we're saying.

     

    I have to reiterate an earlier argument. Population numbers are not the ultimate measure of an MMO's success.

     

    It depends more on how much revenue the developers can make from the game.

     

    In a free-to-play game, let's say you have six million players. A relatively small percentage of them are actually paying--they're called "whales"--and they're paying a lot. Sometimes thousands of dollars a month. This is their major hobby and they have disposable income to burn but they need compelling reasons to spend.

     

    A sandbox in itself would give whales a lot to spend money on. But a sandbox where they have to defend their assets from other players would make even more, because the whales would have to replenish defenses eroded by player conflict.

     

    At the end of the day, EQN could have 500k players and be more profitable than an MMO with 6 million players provided they have an addictive enough money sink for the whales.

    I actually think the vast majority of their money will come from Player Studio. I wouldn't be surprised if it went beyond items, but expanded into whole building and city designs for player cities and shops, as well as all the various items that goes in them. You could have one of the standard cities or for some money an intricately detailed city.

     

    I'm thinking the same thing, but there's a lot more money to be made if you have to rebuild stuff that gets destroyed and paying taxes to hold onto territory. I believe territory disputes would result in a pissing contest of spending among whales.

    I actually think that would invoke the opposite. If people can lose it, they are far less likely to purchase it. You will probably buy plans that simply modify the type of building you want to build whenever you build it.

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

    I'm thinking the same thing, but there's a lot more money to be made if you have to rebuild stuff that gets destroyed and paying taxes to hold onto territory. I believe territory disputes would result in a pissing contest of spending among whales.

    And you don't think PVE can be made to attack and destroy stuff?

    Or that the assets themselves can be made in such a way that they degrade over time (Like normal homes, bridges, roads, mechines, etc)?

    Or a combination of both?

    Of course it can.

    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 hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

    Did you just skip the majority of the conversation? That '70% PVE' crowd on this forum are themepark players. EQN, whatever else it will be, is a sandbox, not a themepark. Most of those people want to chase after the next shiny magical item by doing constant dungeon crawling and raiding, not spend 3 hours digging into a hill to place a building.

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

    Did you just skip the majority of the conversation? That '70% PVE' crowd on this forum are themepark players. EQN, whatever else it will be, is a sandbox, not a themepark. Most of those people want to chase after the next shiny magical item by doing constant dungeon crawling and raiding, not spend 3 hours digging into a hill to place a building.

    You just keep the blinkers on sunshine, there are lots of polls on this site about EQN and they all go 60/40 70/30 PvE over PvP. Yes you have a number of friends out there that want PvP and they are quite vocal.  EQN will cater for PvP, and probably in a good way, but it will be a predominately PvE sandbox because that is what will generate the most cash long term.

    DF:UW and Camelot Unchained seem to be your best bets for Fantasy OW PvP but you will almost certainly get a server or two in EQN just not the whole game.

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    I don't understand:

    Why is it do important to PvP players that PvE players are forced to share a world with them? Why is having servers not acceptable?
  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

    Did you just skip the majority of the conversation? That '70% PVE' crowd on this forum are themepark players. EQN, whatever else it will be, is a sandbox, not a themepark. Most of those people want to chase after the next shiny magical item by doing constant dungeon crawling and raiding, not spend 3 hours digging into a hill to place a building.

    Incorrect.  You assume it's themepark players, yet when sandboxes have no-PVP, they are successful or become more successful.

    Remember the UO example?  They brough it in a PVE only world and got a +150% boost to the population.

    PVE free-roam open worlds (like Skyrim) and PVE "Real sandboxes" as you call them (Minecraft, Garry's Mod, Sim City, etc), are extremely big sellers.

    You're living in a fantasy world.

    There aren't many "sandbox" MMORPG games that are PVE oriented, but many of them are PVP oriented (Mortal online, Darkfall, etc) and have proven to do very poorly.  Eve seems to be the only real shining example and it doesn't come near matching the revenue of games like GW, GW2, Aion, SWTOR, WoW or other PVE oriented games.

    I just think it's funny that you think SOE is going to make a huge "change the world" "Poop your pants" MMORPG flagship title, with tons of development time/cost and they're going to make it a niche PVP title lol.

    It just doesn't fit at all.

     

    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 craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

    Did you just skip the majority of the conversation? That '70% PVE' crowd on this forum are themepark players. EQN, whatever else it will be, is a sandbox, not a themepark. Most of those people want to chase after the next shiny magical item by doing constant dungeon crawling and raiding, not spend 3 hours digging into a hill to place a building.

    You just keep the blinkers on sunshine, there are lots of polls on this site about EQN and they all go 60/40 70/30 PvE over PvP. Yes you have a number of friends out there that want PvP and they are quite vocal.  EQN will cater for PvP, and probably in a good way, but it will be a predominately PvE sandbox because that is what will generate the most cash long term.

    DF:UW and Camelot Unchained seem to be your best bets for Fantasy OW PvP but you will almost certainly get a server or two in EQN just not the whole game.

    SOE already has a PVE sandbox game, it's called Free Realms.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Gallus85, can you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? There's no need attack the character of icevortex and I just because you don't like what we're saying.

     

    I have to reiterate an earlier argument. Population numbers are not the ultimate measure of an MMO's success.

     

    It depends more on how much revenue the developers can make from the game.

     

    In a free-to-play game, let's say you have six million players. A relatively small percentage of them are actually paying--they're called "whales"--and they're paying a lot. Sometimes thousands of dollars a month. This is their major hobby and they have disposable income to burn but they need compelling reasons to spend.

     

    A sandbox in itself would give whales a lot to spend money on. But a sandbox where they have to defend their assets from other players would make even more, because the whales would have to replenish defenses eroded by player conflict.

     

    At the end of the day, EQN could have 500k players and be more profitable than an MMO with 6 million players provided they have an addictive enough money sink for the whales.

    I actually think the vast majority of their money will come from Player Studio. I wouldn't be surprised if it went beyond items, but expanded into whole building and city designs for player cities and shops, as well as all the various items that goes in them. You could have one of the standard cities or for some money an intricately detailed city.

     

    I'm thinking the same thing, but there's a lot more money to be made if you have to rebuild stuff that gets destroyed and paying taxes to hold onto territory. I believe territory disputes would result in a pissing contest of spending among whales.

    I actually think that would invoke the opposite. If people can lose it, they are far less likely to purchase it. You will probably buy plans that simply modify the type of building you want to build whenever you build it.

     

    You are hoping for an EVE-style, world, right? I would like that too but...  I'm also getting the impression that player-constructed content in the EQN equivalent of "low sec" will be destructible. Isn't it more friendly to people who are less hardcore PVP to let them pay to protect their stuff?

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Member UncommonPosts: 960
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

    Did you just skip the majority of the conversation? That '70% PVE' crowd on this forum are themepark players. EQN, whatever else it will be, is a sandbox, not a themepark. Most of those people want to chase after the next shiny magical item by doing constant dungeon crawling and raiding, not spend 3 hours digging into a hill to place a building.

    Incorrect.  You assume it's themepark players, yet when sandboxes have no-PVP, they are successful or become more successful.

    Remember the UO example?  They brough it in a PVE only world and got a +150% boost to the population.

    PVE free-roam open worlds (like Skyrim) and PVE "Real sandboxes" as you call them (Minecraft, Garry's Mod, Sim City, etc), are extremely big sellers.

    You're living in a fantasy world.

    There aren't many "sandbox" MMORPG games that are PVE oriented, but many of them are PVP oriented (Mortal online, Darkfall, etc) and have proven to do very poorly.  Eve seems to be the only real shining example and it doesn't come near matching the revenue of games like GW, GW2, Aion, SWTOR, WoW or other PVE oriented games.

    I just think it's funny that you think SOE is going to make a huge "change the world" "Poop your pants" MMORPG flagship title, with tons of development time/cost and they're going to make it a niche PVP title lol.

    It just doesn't fit at all.

     

    Successful? If anything, they are casual. Free Realms, Minecraft, and Second Life are all the most successful sandbox games and they are all casual games.

    I remember UO. The population was growing steadily when it was PVP-only and continued for a year after PVE world was released until it peaked at 250k players only todrop off a cliff three years later.

    Let's compare that to EVE, which ironically was released the same year UO started dropping in population. It has been growing steadily year after year since.

  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    Originally posted by Aelious
    I don't understand:

    Peace and harmony is not the Way of the Forum Warrior.

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

    Did you just skip the majority of the conversation? That '70% PVE' crowd on this forum are themepark players. EQN, whatever else it will be, is a sandbox, not a themepark. Most of those people want to chase after the next shiny magical item by doing constant dungeon crawling and raiding, not spend 3 hours digging into a hill to place a building.

    You just keep the blinkers on sunshine, there are lots of polls on this site about EQN and they all go 60/40 70/30 PvE over PvP. Yes you have a number of friends out there that want PvP and they are quite vocal.  EQN will cater for PvP, and probably in a good way, but it will be a predominately PvE sandbox because that is what will generate the most cash long term.

    DF:UW and Camelot Unchained seem to be your best bets for Fantasy OW PvP but you will almost certainly get a server or two in EQN just not the whole game.

    SOE already has a PVE sandbox game, it's called Free Realms.

    Yes they do, and guess what I expect a lot of the Free Realms features to be in EQ NEXT but aimed at an older demographic.

  • BidwoodBidwood Member Posts: 554
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by hayes303
    To have one super server that is straight pvp would be like SOE leaving money on the table. I can't see it happening. I suspect there will be a pvp server and then regular ruleset servers. 

    I expect an EVE setup where you have a large section of 'highsec' that is basically a safe area where people can build their houses and do some PVE in relative safety and then a massive PVP area where guild cities are built and territory control happens.

    LOL so PvE players (that seem to make up about 70%of the interest for EQN) should play in a small area leaving the rest of the world for the PvP players? 

    Of course you will, for a fee, conduct scenic tours of the wild outdoors for the poor ghetoised PvE players.  No face it ice-vortex your best hope is for a PvP shard/server or two while the mainstream population plays its PvE game.

    Did you just skip the majority of the conversation? That '70% PVE' crowd on this forum are themepark players. EQN, whatever else it will be, is a sandbox, not a themepark. Most of those people want to chase after the next shiny magical item by doing constant dungeon crawling and raiding, not spend 3 hours digging into a hill to place a building.

    Incorrect.  You assume it's themepark players, yet when sandboxes have no-PVP, they are successful or become more successful.

    Remember the UO example?  They brough it in a PVE only world and got a +150% boost to the population.

    PVE free-roam open worlds (like Skyrim) and PVE "Real sandboxes" as you call them (Minecraft, Garry's Mod, Sim City, etc), are extremely big sellers.

    You're living in a fantasy world.

    There aren't many "sandbox" MMORPG games that are PVE oriented, but many of them are PVP oriented (Mortal online, Darkfall, etc) and have proven to do very poorly.  Eve seems to be the only real shining example and it doesn't come near matching the revenue of games like GW, GW2, Aion, SWTOR, WoW or other PVE oriented games.

    I just think it's funny that you think SOE is going to make a huge "change the world" "Poop your pants" MMORPG flagship title, with tons of development time/cost and they're going to make it a niche PVP title lol.

    It just doesn't fit at all.

     

     

    I just did some math...  so it looks like GW2 has sold 3 million copies. At $50 a box they made $150 million off that game.

     

    Then there's EVE...  500k players - far less than GW2 - and at $50 per box they made $25 million... until you factor in the monthly fees. $15 x 12 months = 180. 180 x 500k = $90 million. So EVE has made more money than GW2 in the last two years alone...  and that's ignoring all of the revenue from the previous years.

     

    Not to mention, GW2 probably has lower returns when you consider the server infrastructure required to support six times as many players as EVE.

     

    This comes back to my point about population not meaning much. It's more about finding ways to monetize your game. I truly believe a modern sandbox with PVP will make more money than a PVE sandbox.

     

    Edit: Maybe the future is targeting 100 per cent of one market and taking all their money. SOE said EQN isn't going to replace EQ1 and EQ2, and isn't expected to steal their populations.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    GW2 has a cash shop instead of subs. Eve is a good example. But still net far less than GW2.

    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.