Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

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

BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member

Edit/disclaimer: This is just a concept. We don't know what the PVP will be like in EQN. My intuition says it will be open-world PVP, but I hear all of the people who are saying SOE isn't stupid enough to make their new game into something that enables griefing. So here's my concept around how they could successfully execute it and keep the game fun:

 

So basically the whole would is made of destructible materials and anyone can attack you anywhere. BUT--here's how griefing is strongly limited:

Kingdoms govern territories and set the laws within them. Peaceful kingdoms would decree that unprovoked attack or theft are serious offenses. Powerful kingdoms have elite guards throughout cities and roaming the countryside. They also have some kind of magical fortifications on their buildings that give them unnaturally high resistance to attack. There would be massive 'starter' kingdoms with all of these amenities maxed out at the highest grade to virtually guarantee the safety of innocent people.

Players can go out into the fronteir, which is basically a lawless open world, to build their own stuff. They can claim whatever territory they want, but holding onto it takes money and smarts. It's a risk v.s. reward proposition.

You could set a house down and pay into protection like personal guards and magical barriers to protect your property. This would be cost-prohibitive to all but the richest barons. Most people would want to band together and take advantage of economies of scale by forming towns/cities and paying into a tax that affords higher grades of protection. It would cost more to protect a larger territory, but you could set laws that give your citizens exclusive access to the resources in the area - anyone who tries to take them or mess with your people gets mauled by the guards. You could, of course, have peace treaties with neighbouring kingdoms that allow more leniency toward your friends. Maybe the neighbouring kingdom has great supplies of lumber, whereas you have all of the steel. You could do commerce and keep each other safer from attack. (Like an actual bonus to your protection grade for allying with other kingdoms.)

The fronteir is where a lot of the risk/reward is in terms of resources and the further out you go the more rewards you can reap. The catch is, you move further away from civilization and have to defend yourself and may not have allies nearby.

So I see the game having a few very very safe cores in the form of massive 'starter' kingdoms with the highest grade of protection. (To keep it from being too themeparky, maybe the NPCs are actually running the economy necessary to pay for this. It would be like a model of a fully-formed kingdom to give players a taste of what's possible.)

The starter kingdoms would have all of the basics. You can go fight mobs, mine, craft, etc. within the boundaries of the kingdom and if you're doing it close to the many roaming guards then your safety is virtually assured. There could be roads between the cities with protection, so there is decent game within and between these cities.

And let's say you could expand on the starter cities by building on their perimeters. You'd pay taxes but your houses would get the grade A protection of the major cities. Maybe you can even buy homes inside the major cities for a fortune.

But the real rewards - the glittering prizes - would be out on the fronteir where the risk is greatest. That's where most of the PVP would be, and it would really be a free-for-all. It should cost a lot to get virtually unassailable defenses throughout a large territory, so a kingdom could go to war with you if you aren't rich enough to defend all of the resources you've got your eyes on. The world would be big enough that it's really unlikely all of the resources could be well protected. There would be a lot of strategy here - like do I invest in heavily protecting a relatively small area where my citizens live, or can I risk spreading those defenses thinner to keep a lucrative mine under our control? Protecting territory wears away at your economy, so you have to strike a balance in order to survive and grow.

One closing thought - the starter kingdoms would need to have the strictest laws about peace to prevent griefing: If you're a member of that kingdom, with the ultimate protection on all of your assets, you couldn't use that as a base of operations to go to war on an honourable kingdom out in the fronteir as they can't even retaliate. Your kingdom would call you a war monger and banish you if you did this - giving you all your resources to basically leave and start over somewhere else. HOWEVER, if there are truly notorious 'evil' kingdoms that prey on others, perhaps they would be fair game.

For anyone who read the whole thing - thank you. My idea basically gives a pretty nifty game to those who don't like PVP. There's risk to the greatest rewards, but you can band together as a community to lower that risk.

«1345678

Comments

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Stevens Point, WIPosts: 392Member Uncommon
    Or...seperate servers.

    Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
    Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
    Currently Playing: GW2

    Nytlok Sylas
    80 Sylvari Ranger

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member
    This game will only have one server. The day of the shards are dead.
  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member

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

     

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

     

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    One shard that everyone actually shares only works for EvE because very little is actually rendered. Even if there was only a "Norrath" server it would need to be broken into "Channels" to be playable.

    OP that is a great idea and very passionately expressed. I know how important a good environment for PvP is and how it can make a game seem so much more alive.

    I still don't see how it would appeal to PvE players however. It's like asking PvP players to like battlegrounds if they added this feature or that feature. "what if we make the map more expansive?". It's a deal breaker plain and simple. The main arguments against PvP for PvEers: wasted time, more annoyance and griefing are still there. It doesn't matter how many restrictions or rewards you put in to pretty it up it doesn't matter.

    Again, amazing write-up and on a PvP server would make PvPers jump for joy and I hope SoE does that. Unless you give players the ability to completely opt out the feeling won't change I don't think.
  • Gallus85Gallus85 Winter Park, FLPosts: 1,092Member
    Originally posted by nerovipus32
    This game will only have one server. The day of the shards are dead.

    PS2 even has multiple servers.

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

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

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

    Just FYI.

     

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

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

    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

  • McSireMcSire Toronto, ONPosts: 43Member
    Why would you not want griefing? that's part of the fun in World PvP.

    image
  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAPosts: 924Member Uncommon

    A noble idea, but it really does not inhibit griefing; it only makes it a tiny bit more difficult.   Guards like you propose seem to be nothing more than a costly form of insurance for your property or your self.   In a level based system (as I expect EQN to be), guards have levels, players have levels.  Sooner or later, griefers will outlevel your guards, or form gank squads (raids?) to kill your guards, leaving the players and property vulnerable to attack and destruction.   Three hours of dieing to a grief squad just trying to get back to your supposed safe area will drive customers away.

    But the point is that while the suggestions you make are good, they aren't a deterrent to griefing.  There is no form of in-game punishment that works (jail, 'murderer' flags -- camp to a different character and continue).   Even if you manage to disallow the offender to not switch characters, that just drives the griefer to forums like this with tales of how 'PVP is wrong' and 'SOE is evil'.  There simply cannot be in-game consequences for bad behavior; at best, the company can only hope to drive the socially-impaired customer away.

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Winter Park, FLPosts: 1,092Member
    Originally posted by McSire
    Why would you not want griefing? that's part of the fun in World PvP.

    My wife and I love roaming around and killing unsuspecting people.  But I understand that this does not appeal to everyone.  Or even a majority of players.

    This is a moot point.  The servers will have different rules and different world locations to help players get matched with other like-time zones and to get better ping..

    There isn't going to be one massive PVP server in your back yard and screw everyone else lol.  Dream big 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 Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    @Aelious - thanks for the nice comments. =)

    @McSire - The people who have fun giving and receiving grief could duke it out on the frontier. They could even go to great lengths to mess with someone inside a heavily protected area. But it would be really rare for those who try to avoid griefers to be griefed because there's a lot of protection. The idea is no invisible walls in a sandbox, but people can protect themselves with lots of sand. ;)
  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    One shard that everyone actually shares only works for EvE because very little is actually rendered. Even if there was only a "Norrath" server it would need to be broken into "Channels" to be playable.

    OP that is a great idea and very passionately expressed. I know how important a good environment for PvP is and how it can make a game seem so much more alive.

    I still don't see how it would appeal to PvE players however. It's like asking PvP players to like battlegrounds if they added this feature or that feature. "what if we make the map more expansive?". It's a deal breaker plain and simple. The main arguments against PvP for PvEers: wasted time, more annoyance and griefing are still there. It doesn't matter how many restrictions or rewards you put in to pretty it up it doesn't matter.

    Again, amazing write-up and on a PvP server would make PvPers jump for joy and I hope SoE does that. Unless you give players the ability to completely opt out the feeling won't change I don't think.

    I'm not sure what you mean by channels, but each continent in Norrath could be hosted on different server clusters, similar to how EvE hosts 5-10 low population systems on a server, while a system like Jita is hosted on a server cluster.  EvE's dedication to a single world for the players has inspired them to look at newer technology to sustain their one world.  Most developers go the easy route and just create multiple instances. 

    2-4 NPC cities that kept players "safe" within their borders is a great idea.  It allows for guilds to create their own territories and gives PvP a purpose.  One of the huge benefits to EvE PvP as a PvEr is that you can have PvP players protect you while hauling goods through space, or protect systems where you mine etc.  It doesn't always have to be a gankfest when you think about open world PvP. 

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by Aelious
    One shard that everyone actually shares only works for EvE because very little is actually rendered. Even if there was only a "Norrath" server it would need to be broken into "Channels" to be playable.

    OP that is a great idea and very passionately expressed. I know how important a good environment for PvP is and how it can make a game seem so much more alive.

    I still don't see how it would appeal to PvE players however. It's like asking PvP players to like battlegrounds if they added this feature or that feature. "what if we make the map more expansive?". It's a deal breaker plain and simple. The main arguments against PvP for PvEers: wasted time, more annoyance and griefing are still there. It doesn't matter how many restrictions or rewards you put in to pretty it up it doesn't matter.

    Again, amazing write-up and on a PvP server would make PvPers jump for joy and I hope SoE does that. Unless you give players the ability to completely opt out the feeling won't change I don't think.

    I'm not sure what you mean by channels, but each continent in Norrath could be hosted on different server clusters, similar to how EvE hosts 5-10 low population systems on a server, while a system like Jita is hosted on a server cluster.  EvE's dedication to a single world for the players has inspired them to look at newer technology to sustain their one world.  Most developers go the easy route and just create multiple instances. 

    2-4 NPC cities that kept players "safe" within their borders is a great idea.  It allows for guilds to create their own territories and gives PvP a purpose.  One of the huge benefits to EvE PvP as a PvEr is that you can have PvP players protect you while hauling goods through space, or protect systems where you mine etc.  It doesn't always have to be a gankfest when you think about open world PvP. 

    I like the way you think. =)

  • WaterlilyWaterlily parisPosts: 2,973Member Uncommon

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

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

    Well... I guess miracles happen sometimes.

  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by nerovipus32
    This game will only have one server. The day of the shards are dead.

    PS2 even has multiple servers.

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

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

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

    Just FYI.

     

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

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

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

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

  • MyrdynnMyrdynn Beaumont, CAPosts: 1,516Member Uncommon

    just put a +/- 3 levels on attacking, problem solved, I dont mind being ganked in world pvp, its fun, I do mind level 60 camping level 10 zones

     

  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by Waterlily

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

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

    Well... I guess miracles happen sometimes.

    Players make good PvP not companies.  If SOE creates ways for the players to engage in PvP on their own terms then the mechanics can always be balanced/changed.  For instance, they can always change the damage on spells; but if they don't allow guilds to build cities in outlying areas that can be destroyed, no amount of coding will fix their PvP.  Battlegrounds are not what I consider PvP, so adding BGs is never going to fix bad PvP.  Give players tools to create the conflict themselves, similar to how EvE has done it.

    SOE doesn't need to know how to produce good PvP in order for good PvP to take place.  They need to know how to correctly code good combat; which I think they have done in both EQ and EQ2 along with PS2.   This was my big frustration with SWTOR; the combat was fun, but the fighting over their "Open PvP zone" (which was in essence just a big BG) was a huge disappointment.  I wanted to see them create worlds where guilds could fight over the resources of the world.

    This concept goes hand in hand with why sandbox=PvP.  Now I'm not trying to start anything up here saying sandbox has to equal PvP, I'm merely stating why I believe that sandbox needs PvP in order for it to truly be sandbox.  As the OP has stated a sandbox PvP game does not have to equal a gankfest.  I support the design concept of the OP; I just hope that SOE had a similar vision when remaking EQN.

  • ropeniceropenice Lake Worth, FLPosts: 587Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mos0811

     

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

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

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

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member


    Originally posted by Waterlily Although I'm a PVE player, I wonder why people assume EQNext will have good PVP. The EQ franchise and the people behind it have no experience with PVP whatsoever, EQ's PVP was terrible and has been ignored for 14 years, EQ2's PVP was just as bad, in fact so was Vanguard's. So we're assuming that people who have never produced a PVP game, have no experience with the pitfalls of PVP, are going to produce an amazing form of PVP?  Well... I guess miracles happen sometimes.

    Originally posted by mos0811

    Originally posted by Gallus85

    Originally posted by nerovipus32 This game will only have one server. The day of the shards are dead.
    PS2 even has multiple servers. First of all, there's a ping thing we online gamers worry about, and the only effective way to get better ping is to be closer to the server.  Distance almost entirely makes up your ping. So there will at least be East Coast US, West Coast US, an EU server and I hope one for my Aussy Koalas down under (Sucks to be you guys always playing on US servers with 400+ ping, I feel for you) Then there will be pvp and non pvp servers for each one of these sets. Just FYI.   Also, the only way to prevent griefing is to implement very restrictive anti-pvp rule sets.  Like making you KOS to NPCs, death penalties after murders, etc etc.  Which would not be what pvp players want (They want to... I dunno.... kill lots* of people?  Not one or two a week). So they basically have to split the servers or they'll neglect large portions of the population.  Either the PVEers or the PVPers.
    EvE is host to multi-national corps/alliances.  The Russians, Germans, Americans etc. all play in the same world.  How they code for those ping issues is part of smart coding.  However I also believe we will see a few servers and not just one. I disagree that PvP has to have restrictive anti-pvp rule sets.  I like to PvP, and it's not to just kill; my preference is asset destruction, the destruction of guild assets of enemy guilds.  Personally I don't think they are targeting a PvE crowd with EQ Next.  I don't know that it will be a PvP game, but I feel it won't be the traditional EQ1/2 PvE games we have seen from the IP in the past.  So yes, I do think that SOE will alienate the minority EQ1/2 crowd in hopes of gaining ground on PvP types, and casual gamers.
    Originally posted by Myrdynn just put a +/- 3 levels on attacking, problem solved, I dont mind being ganked in world pvp, its fun, I do mind level 60 camping level 10 zones  
    @waterlily Perhaps they have access to subject matter experts on Planetside 2 and can lean on them to flesh out some of the mechanics.

     

    @mos0811 - I kind of hope you're right. But what I described is a way for SOE to get the market you described while making it possible for fans of their previous games to enjoy EQN. On the other hand, they did say this will be a different game and isn't expected to take all the players from the first two...  I guess you could be right.

     

    @Myrdynn - People will argue this point, so I'll just phrase it as my opinion: I feel that a sandbox can't have those artificial restrictions on who can attack who. You can only make the "sand" in the sandbox flexible enough that players can use it to protect themselves and limit their risk.

  • WaterlilyWaterlily parisPosts: 2,973Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mos0811

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

    You think EQ PVP was a success?

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by Waterlily
    Originally posted by mos0811

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

    You think EQ PVP was a success?

    They're just talking about the combat portion of those games.

  • ropeniceropenice Lake Worth, FLPosts: 587Member Uncommon
    Origin

    Players make good PvP not companies.  If SOE creates ways for the players to engage in PvP on their own terms then the mechanics can always be balanced/changed.  For instance, they can always change the damage on spells; but if they don't allow guilds to build cities in outlying areas that can be destroyed, no amount of coding will fix their PvP.  Battlegrounds are not what I consider PvP, so adding BGs is never going to fix bad PvP.  Give players tools to create the conflict themselves, similar to how EvE has done it.

    SOE doesn't need to know how to produce good PvP in order for good PvP to take place.  They need to know how to correctly code good combat; which I think they have done in both EQ and EQ2 along with PS2.   This was my big frustration with SWTOR; the combat was fun, but the fighting over their "Open PvP zone" (which was in essence just a big BG) was a huge disappointment.  I wanted to see them create worlds where guilds could fight over the resources of the world.

    This concept goes hand in hand with why sandbox=PvP.  Now I'm not trying to start anything up here saying sandbox has to equal PvP, I'm merely stating why I believe that sandbox needs PvP in order for it to truly be sandbox.  As the OP has stated a sandbox PvP game does not have to equal a gankfest.  I support the design concept of the OP; I just hope that SOE had a similar vision when remaking EQN.

    You're kind of contradicting yourself. You say companies don't make good pvp, but then say that the company has to design the game in certain ways to get good pvp. basically the world has to be designed for pvp, but unfortunately when games do this the resources taken a way from PvE will make that part not be as engaging which will drive off the majority of the playerbase, PvEers. I know PvP player don't like to hear it, but there are more PvEer and casuals out htere to get money from than PvPers. And to say PvP doesn't have to = gankfest, if its OW PvP then it will end up being ganky enough to run off the PvE crowd, which would mean SOE makes less money and I don't see them making that choice. You can't stop human nature with any pvp rules or consequences, if someone likes to gank, they will gank.  If PvEer even has 20-30 minutes taken away by someone who wants to gank lowbies-they will not play long.

  • GrymGrym Huntsville, ALPosts: 227Member

    "This is just a concept. We don't know what the PVP will be like in EQN

     

    In all of your "PvP in EQN" posts, this is the only thing you've written that is real.  We'll find out at the SOE Expo.

    (My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."

  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by ropenice
    Originally posted by mos0811

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • ComafComaf Chicago, ILPosts: 1,154Member Common
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Edit/disclaimer: This is just a concept. We don't know what the PVP will be like in EQN. My intuition says it will be open-world PVP, but I hear all of the people who are saying SOE isn't stupid enough to make their new game into something that enables griefing. So here's my concept around how they could successfully execute it and keep the game fun:

     

    So basically the whole would is made of destructible materials and anyone can attack you anywhere. BUT--here's how griefing is strongly limited:

    Kingdoms govern territories and set the laws within them. Peaceful kingdoms would decree that unprovoked attack or theft are serious offenses. Powerful kingdoms have elite guards throughout cities and roaming the countryside. They also have some kind of magical fortifications on their buildings that give them unnaturally high resistance to attack. There would be massive 'starter' kingdoms with all of these amenities maxed out at the highest grade to virtually guarantee the safety of innocent people.

    Players can go out into the fronteir, which is basically a lawless open world, to build their own stuff. They can claim whatever territory they want, but holding onto it takes money and smarts. It's a risk v.s. reward proposition.

    You could set a house down and pay into protection like personal guards and magical barriers to protect your property. This would be cost-prohibitive to all but the richest barons. Most people would want to band together and take advantage of economies of scale by forming towns/cities and paying into a tax that affords higher grades of protection. It would cost more to protect a larger territory, but you could set laws that give your citizens exclusive access to the resources in the area - anyone who tries to take them or mess with your people gets mauled by the guards. You could, of course, have peace treaties with neighbouring kingdoms that allow more leniency toward your friends. Maybe the neighbouring kingdom has great supplies of lumber, whereas you have all of the steel. You could do commerce and keep each other safer from attack. (Like an actual bonus to your protection grade for allying with other kingdoms.)

    The fronteir is where a lot of the risk/reward is in terms of resources and the further out you go the more rewards you can reap. The catch is, you move further away from civilization and have to defend yourself and may not have allies nearby.

    So I see the game having a few very very safe cores in the form of massive 'starter' kingdoms with the highest grade of protection. (To keep it from being too themeparky, maybe the NPCs are actually running the economy necessary to pay for this. It would be like a model of a fully-formed kingdom to give players a taste of what's possible.)

    The starter kingdoms would have all of the basics. You can go fight mobs, mine, craft, etc. within the boundaries of the kingdom and if you're doing it close to the many roaming guards then your safety is virtually assured. There could be roads between the cities with protection, so there is decent game within and between these cities.

    And let's say you could expand on the starter cities by building on their perimeters. You'd pay taxes but your houses would get the grade A protection of the major cities. Maybe you can even buy homes inside the major cities for a fortune.

    But the real rewards - the glittering prizes - would be out on the fronteir where the risk is greatest. That's where most of the PVP would be, and it would really be a free-for-all. It should cost a lot to get virtually unassailable defenses throughout a large territory, so a kingdom could go to war with you if you aren't rich enough to defend all of the resources you've got your eyes on. The world would be big enough that it's really unlikely all of the resources could be well protected. There would be a lot of strategy here - like do I invest in heavily protecting a relatively small area where my citizens live, or can I risk spreading those defenses thinner to keep a lucrative mine under our control? Protecting territory wears away at your economy, so you have to strike a balance in order to survive and grow.

    One closing thought - the starter kingdoms would need to have the strictest laws about peace to prevent griefing: If you're a member of that kingdom, with the ultimate protection on all of your assets, you couldn't use that as a base of operations to go to war on an honourable kingdom out in the fronteir as they can't even retaliate. Your kingdom would call you a war monger and banish you if you did this - giving you all your resources to basically leave and start over somewhere else. HOWEVER, if there are truly notorious 'evil' kingdoms that prey on others, perhaps they would be fair game.

    For anyone who read the whole thing - thank you. My idea basically gives a pretty nifty game to those who don't like PVP. There's risk to the greatest rewards, but you can band together as a community to lower that risk.

    Nice writeup.  They need to build their mmorpg in a way to appeal to a fairly large audience (i.e., niche is nice but not financially supportive and will lend the cash shop way too much crap).

     

    Hence, separate servers from the start.  Build the title to have the basics:

     

    RP PvP

    RP PvE

    PVP

    PVE

    etc.

    Or How about a Kingdom server ala a Dark Age of Camelot game? (will NEVER happen - SOE just doesn't go this in depth for pvp).

    It's just not that difficult. 

    image
  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by Waterlily
    Originally posted by mos0811

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

    You think EQ PVP was a success?

    I was talking about combat - as in PvE combat.  Was combat in EQ1 engaging when you were fighting a mob?  If so, then I believe they could make PvP engaging in EQN.

    Good combat means the classes have roles, the classes are fun, the button mashing is large or small depending on the complexity of the class.  How a player takes a class and uses them to create good PvP is up to the player.

    Shadowbane and EvE - these are 2 good PvP games, but only 1 of them will scare away PvE crowds.

    I wish I could reply to a few other posts, but I have to go have a fun weekend.  Whatever SOE decides to do with the game, it will be up to each individual person on whether they want to play the game.  So far I haven't seen anything that will turn me off from trying it, and I normally play PvP games.

  • PsychoticHamsterPsychoticHamster Brooklyn, NYPosts: 97Member Common
    You more or less just described CU. Literally aside from players starting their own kingdoms, the concept you just  wrote a wall of text about is already in use from Camelot unchained. Not sure on how economics work in CU but it might be only within factions.

    image
«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.