Howdy, Stranger!

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

PvP vs. PvE "Compromise"

1161719212234

Comments

  • NagelRitterNagelRitter Member Posts: 607

    The Twitter can be interpreted any number of ways. They could implement PvP into the game without making it EVE like. You can respect EVE without trying to copy it when making a game. Those Twitter statements are not by any means conclusive.

    Risk/reward is a silly mantra. I'm sorry, but that's actually not how life works.

    You can implement plenty of risk if you so please without EVE like FFA PvP.

    Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
    Currently playing: GW2, EVE
    Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Member UncommonPosts: 392
    Originally posted by NagelRitter

    The Twitter can be interpreted any number of ways. They could implement PvP into the game without making it EVE like. You can respect EVE without trying to copy it when making a game. Those Twitter statements are not by any means conclusive.

    Risk/reward is a silly mantra. I'm sorry, but that's actually not how life works.

    You can implement plenty of risk if you so please without EVE like FFA PvP.

    Original EQ had plenty of risk/reward on the PvE servers without the OWPvP. Plenty of ways to do it, I agree.

    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

  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by NagelRitter
     

    You're advocating for all this to be added to EQN, and trying to claim it's fun (for you, maybe, for others it's a limiting factor). That's my issue. You are basically giving me concrete proof of why this is a shitty setup for a PvEer so explain to me why you advocate this?

    Who's Advocating?

    We have a quote from Smed that he agrees that a true sandbox needs open world PVP that has real RISK/rewards.

    What do you have?  nothing.  I mean *looks up at the forum headline* yep this isn't a general discussion.  This is about EQN.

    image

    Nowhere in that conversation on twitter was EQN mentioned. 

    As far as having nothing? How about a quote from an actual developer? This one actually mentions EQN in it, unlike the one all the PvPers are clinging to.

    Clinging?  LOL

    Bad game design does not mean no PVP.  What it does mean is no ganking/abuse.  Which is good.

     

    As for Smedley's response.  It would require the President SOE to personally think that Sandbox games should have Open World PVP, while the Sandbox game based off the IP he helped create did not have it.  You can think that if you want.  I find that prospect HIGHLY unlikely.  But we'll find out next week.

     

  • Trudge34Trudge34 Member UncommonPosts: 392
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Originally posted by jdnyc
    Originally posted by NagelRitter
     

    You're advocating for all this to be added to EQN, and trying to claim it's fun (for you, maybe, for others it's a limiting factor). That's my issue. You are basically giving me concrete proof of why this is a shitty setup for a PvEer so explain to me why you advocate this?

    Who's Advocating?

    We have a quote from Smed that he agrees that a true sandbox needs open world PVP that has real RISK/rewards.

    What do you have?  nothing.  I mean *looks up at the forum headline* yep this isn't a general discussion.  This is about EQN.

    image

    Nowhere in that conversation on twitter was EQN mentioned. 

    As far as having nothing? How about a quote from an actual developer? This one actually mentions EQN in it, unlike the one all the PvPers are clinging to.

    Clinging?  LOL

    Bad game design does not mean no PVP.  What it does mean is no ganking/abuse.  Which is good.

     

    As for Smedley's response.  It would require the President SOE to personally think that Sandbox games should have Open World PVP, while the Sandbox game based off the IP he helped create did not have it.  You can think that if you want.  I find that prospect HIGHLY unlikely.  But we'll find out next week.

     

    Yep, clinging to a quote that has no reference to the game we're talking about while mine is a direct reference to non consensual pvp in EQN. Keep clinging on to that. Probably won't be any different than when Smed said they like permadeath for EQN and dispelled by one of the devs.

    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

  • KezzadrixKezzadrix Member Posts: 90
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    EVE style with hi sec for the people who don't like PVP. You're welcome.

    Or Wushu style with separate continents.

    Works out effectively the same as separate servers, but that really offends some people, for some reason no one quite understands.

    "Someone I can't see is enjoying this game in a way that I don't like! Summon the media, I need to hold a press conference. This cannot be allowed to continue."

    I understand my reason, but maybe you won't.  I don't see why it would be better to have 1 server with 2 continents (maybe more, just example.)  1 with PvP and 1 without.  This means I as a player who would prefer a PVE game would be limited to the one continent and PVPers would likely spend most of their time on one continent.

    or

    Have a PvP server seperate from PVE server, that way PVE players can enjoy the whole world doing what we enjoy and PVPers can enjoy the whole world doing what they enjoy.  Makes more sense to me.

     

    This cancer of an idea is debunked almost every time it's brought up. If it's possible to take pvp out of the game without ruining the game itself or in-game economy, that means that pvp isn't an important or meaningful part of the game. Thats not what we want. We don't just want instanced arenas or battlegrounds that dont mean anything. We want a game that includes pvp, pve, harvesting, crafting etc all as essential parts of the game.

    I don't see why you couldn't get everything you want on a PVP server that's filled with others that want the same thing.

  • mos0811mos0811 Member Posts: 173
    Originally posted by NagelRitter
    Originally posted by mos0811

    Do PvE players get upset when they wipe on a raid because someone didn't pull their weight?  Why does getting upset have to be just a PvP mindset.

    I would love for EQN to be a PvP game, and keep EQ1 and EQ2 as the franchise PvE games.  If it's not fun then don't play it.  But I think that EvE has done a good job of adding PvE elements to a huge PvP game; but it's still a PvP centric game at its core.

    I don't recall saying anything about people getting upset. There's a distinct difference in dying in a raid and to a ganker, though, which has that element of cheapness. Most combat in EVE is extremely cheap, it's old players with scary ships shooting rookies and miners. This is in contrast to a raid, where a strong group willingly came to challenge a monster. Very, very different.

    Also, most FFA PvP games have full loot. Most PvE encounters don't take your loot forever.

    You have just listed the things that follow EVE in its existence - the permanent PvP mindset. If you are playing a game with a PvP mindset, constant looking over your shoulder and worrying about gankers and having to modify your entire game towards gankers, you're playing a PvP centered game where PvE is an afterthought. a) is it really hard for you to understand that many people out there do not like this at all; b) explain to me why a PvE oriented player would want any of this? PvE oriented players want a PvE game, it makes sense.

    Originally posted by jdnyc

    Who's Advocating?

    I don't know, the person I was responding to, maybe?

    You will always see me advocate for full backpack looting, not equipped items.

    A. I get that some players don't like it, if they don't then don't play the game.  The more you bring up the differences the more hard line I get about wanting a PvP game from EQN (don't think I'm gonna get it, but the more I want it).

    B. EvE offers something to PvE players that PvE games don't - freedom.  To some the it might even be more risk vs reward, while to others they may like space games and EvE is in my opinion the best space mmoRPG on the market.

    On a side note I have never expressed a interest in FFA PvP; I have always been interested in asset destruction and territory control.  FFA PvP carries a connotation of mass chaos.  I enjoy the conflict but I'm not interested in chaos within the game.  FFA PvP seems like a battle ground just on a way larger scale, where everyone runs around for points,  or just to randomly kill.  FFA PvP doesn't have anything to do with actual guild objectives and ownership.  Now when it comes to open world PvP where you can PvP anywhere with consequences like you have in EvE, then I'm all for that.

  • KezzadrixKezzadrix Member Posts: 90
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    EVE style with hi sec for the people who don't like PVP. You're welcome.

    Or Wushu style with separate continents.

    Works out effectively the same as separate servers, but that really offends some people, for some reason no one quite understands.

    "Someone I can't see is enjoying this game in a way that I don't like! Summon the media, I need to hold a press conference. This cannot be allowed to continue."

    I understand my reason, but maybe you won't.  I don't see why it would be better to have 1 server with 2 continents (maybe more, just example.)  1 with PvP and 1 without.  This means I as a player who would prefer a PVE game would be limited to the one continent and PVPers would likely spend most of their time on one continent.

    or

    Have a PvP server seperate from PVE server, that way PVE players can enjoy the whole world doing what we enjoy and PVPers can enjoy the whole world doing what they enjoy.  Makes more sense to me.

    Critical mass of players.  No one enjoys being on empty servers.  I personally love to have PvE players in my PvP games; because it makes the world more alive.  Actually buying from a player and not an NPC broker is more "immersive", it's more relational and in the end makes the experience more meaningful.  I don't know what word describes the type of PvP player I'm getting at, but "good" PvP players don't just recklessly go around killing lowbies, griefing or ganking.  It's a minority few in the PvP crowd that want to limit a players fun.  What a lot of PvP player want is some good competitive fun with players that enjoy PvP as well.  For me single player PvP is not as fun as group PvP.  I love sieges, group battles and watching a group of 3 out think and out play a group of 10.  It's those types of non-scripted fights I love.

    But at the end of a fight, if I need a repair, I would rather go to a non-PvP player to get my things fixed, I would rather help guard a non-PvP player from a dangerous mob they can't get past.  PvE players are great for PvP games, if the PvE players would just give them a chance.

    I am not a big fan of PVP myself, not in MMORPGs anyway.  There are tons of players that are though and I don't think a PVP server would be empty at all.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by NagelRitter
    Originally posted by mos0811

    ...if the PvE players would just give them a chance.

    Stop griefing them. Stop treating them like shit. Stop perceiving them as second class. Stop asking developers to make their lives harder. Stop calling them casuals, carebears, and noobs. Not you, individually, but the general class.

    Then, maybe.

    Until then, you're all just a bunch of bullies. Nobody wants to play with bullies, nor do PvEers want to fund your bullying activities or pay you protection money.

    Originally posted by jdnyc

    I think that's what they really want.

    No, most sandbox PvE fans want something like SWG, a solid sandbox without FFA PvP. Begone with your elitism.

     

    Why are you so against having villains? I for one don't want everybody to play by the rules. I want there to be assholes. It makes for memorable moments when you and your clan gang up to take the bully down. Community driven policing was a very real thing in UO, and that was despite the fact that they were given basically no reason to do so. If they had an actual, profitable bounty hunting option, it would have been even better than it was!

    Good points, and chiming in I would agree as long as the each side understand that it can happen.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense that you would agree that by logging into a PvP server you have given your consent to get killed, oh I mean to PvP.  :D

    It's when someone isn't being a jerk and they are randomly griefed that a lot of PvE players take offense to.  They are minding their own business and here some PvP player just wants to ruin their only hour on line this week.

    There are villains in EvE, and they make gate camps fun.  I agree if the devs can limit griefing with a good game mechanic I'm all for it.  I don't want to see limited play when someone actually needs to be taught a lesson.  It's been an interesting discussion and it will be neat to see what next week brings us.

    I think it's important to "limit griefing" in a smart and interesting way though. Not just some debuff of 10% less hp for every person you kill or something like that. I mean something community driven like a jailing system, or a bounty hunter system, or something involving notoriety like reds not being allowed in most towns, etc.

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Holophonist

    You're right in that a majority does not make something better or worse, taste is opinionated. In your opinion a PvP game is better, in mine it's better to have consent, so there is no movement of the line of which is better.

    I don't care about the theoretical debate of PvE vs. PvP and if I did I would be doing it in The Pub. My argument directly relates to the gameplay state if EQN and what is likely to be seen from those that decide forced PvP or consensual PvP. I don't see forced PvP being in EQN, I may be wrong and if I am I'll still play it because I like PvP but I think it would be a mistake.

    As you said we don't know who would prefer a game with PvP if A or B was done to make it different. That's why I doubt SoE will pull that trigger, it's too uncertain. The issue of forced PvP goes beyond sandbox or themepark gameplay to know how people would react. Besides, SoE said its something we haven't seen before, right? Well we've seen many PvP sandboxes :)
  • GholosGholos Member Posts: 209

    I have read many posts in this thread...but i m still convinced that the best way to introduce PvP in EQN is via PvP zones/battlegrounds, so everyone can freely decide when and where do PvP and not be forced in doing it.

    In my opinion EQN should be a PvE focused game as the tradition of this title.

    image


    "Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
    -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.

  • NagelRitterNagelRitter Member Posts: 607
    Originally posted by mos0811

    A. I get that some players don't like it, if they don't then don't play the game.  The more you bring up the differences the more hard line I get about wanting a PvP game from EQN (don't think I'm gonna get it, but the more I want it).

    Well, by that logic, you don't have to play EQN if it's not made for you. I don't think it will be. It's a huge stretch for EQN to suddenly become this super hardcore FFA PvP game. I can imagine PvP implemented in many ways but not that way.

    EVE already exists. Go play it.

    B. EvE offers something to PvE players that PvE games don't - freedom.  To some the it might even be more risk vs reward, while to others they may like space games and EvE is in my opinion the best space mmoRPG on the market.

    PvE players do not gain any freedom whatsoever from EVE... I am not sure what you mean.

    EVE's PvP means limitation on where PvE players can go or how they can play. They can't go to lowsec, or nullsec, or WH-space. They can't carry too many items in high sec. They can't breathe incorrectly in highsec. There's no freedom.

    But, yeah, the spacey thing is probably one of the few reasons certain people play EVE even if they are not huge fans of the overall implementation.

    On a side note I have never expressed a interest in FFA PvP; I have always been interested in asset destruction and territory control.  FFA PvP carries a connotation of mass chaos.

    I call a game FFA PvP if shooting at anyone at random is technically possible.

     

    Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
    Currently playing: GW2, EVE
    Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?

  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Smed said they like permadeath for EQN and dispelled by one of the devs.

    Within hours of the tweet and Smed shortly after said he was being sarcastic.

    It's okay.  If I'm right, I'll hand you a tissue.  If I'm wrong, I'll be just as happy because I'll have a sandbox game.

    Having PVP isn't mandatory for me.  I just think there will be because of Smed's comment. 

  • DAS1337DAS1337 Member UncommonPosts: 2,610

    It's always a lack of restrictions that ruins any possibility of PVP and PVE to co-exist.  Always.

     

    The whole point is to strike a balance, but developers aren't willing to go to the lengths it would take in order to get there.  The whole concept is to make it so being a douche PVP'er is possible (IE murderer, criminal, ganker, griefer), but not easy.  The whole idea is to have a system in place to push most players away from senseless violence.

     

    You've seen developers try things like Trammel in UO.  That was a knee jerk reaction to casuals being upset over being killed and looted.  Splitting a sandbox world into two worlds is not the answer if you're striving for a balance.  Then you've seen Mortal Online try the same system, but without Trammel.  In a FPS where aim is king, exploits happen and a flagging system fails the developers.  It's proven, every time, it fails.  You see Darkfall ARENA turn into just that.  It has no restrictions on your actions, no limitations, no consequences.  It is literally one big PvP arena, and a sandbox world simulator can not be successful int hat type of environment.  EVE has artificial restrictions based on where you are.  It kind of flies in the face of the idea of a sandbox game.  While the system works, it really doesn't make much sense in the real world.  Even so, it might be the best option that we have available to us.

     

    I like the idea of creating systems to promote PvP to PvP players.  For instance, joining empires and being part of an army.  Those players do their fighting in mostly dedicated locations.  Their job is to protect not only their territory, but their crafters and explorers.  If you add a reputation system to that, with murder counts, and serious skill or stat penalties for doing things that you shouldn't (Killing innocents, crafters, newbies, ganking, griefing), then less people will be inclined to do so.  Design those systems to support each other.  Add bounty hunting with skills that make it very hard for exploiting players do anything but log off or hide.  Don't allow those people to access cities.  Have wandering guards.  Make it nearly as impossible as you can for those people. 

     

    Developers won't go that route, because they still think senseless PVP'ers is their target audience when it comes to this RPG sandboxes.  Why, you ask?  No idea, ask one of them.

  • MoonBeansMoonBeans Member Posts: 173

    i think the only none pvp sandbox mmo, was SWG.   that's what many pvers have in mind.

     

    i've been playing pvp games for a very long time, but i most admit i grew bored of pvp in mmo.   if i really want to pvp, i would rather get a shooter.

    the only MMO i've played with great fun pvp was Daoc.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by grimfall

     

     It's a minority few in the PvP crowd that want to limit a players fun.  What a lot of PvP player want is some good competitive fun with players that enjoy PvP as well.  For me single player PvP is not as fun as group PvP.  I love sieges, group battles and watching a group of 3 out think and out play a group of 10.  It's those types of non-scripted fights I love.

    But at the end of a fight, if I need a repair, I would rather go to a non-PvP player to get my things fixed, I would rather help guard a non-PvP player from a dangerous mob they can't get past.  PvE players are great for PvP games, if the PvE players would just give them a chance.

    The thing is, that the developers have always relied on these "good" PVP players to police the bad ones, and at a game level (not saying no one has ever done it), the good PVP players have always failed.  Every single game. As long as the gankers are allowed to flourish, they will continue ganking.  The developers have to police them because the "good" PVP guys won't do it, or won't do it consistently enough.

    What do you mean by failed? The point isn't to make it so nobody PK's ever, and there are 0 griefers. The point is to create an interesting eco system where you can punish the people who do choose to murder or grief or whatever else. If you make a clan-focused game that has profitable and interesting reasons to police the world, I promise you it will turn into an incredible system that will lead to amazing memories for everybody involved. You already had grass roots examples of this in UO with basically NO incentive or system in place to police the world. Imagine if you gave them a reason.

     

    Maybe there is a magic game design balance where the destruction of gankers is rewarded so heavily that the PVP players will police them themselves (and such a mechanic isn't open for abuse), but until one is implemented you're never going to get the players who want to PVE and craft solely to play a PVP oriented game.

    My gosh everybody needs to stop pushing this idea that a game exists that can cater to everybody's playstyle. There is no and will never be a game like that. I don't want a game that attracts the people who want to harvest and pve in total 100% safety. I'm interested in a game that attracts people who are looking for a satisfying, difficult mmo that gives you a strong sense of risk/reward.

     

    Ganking is all about ruining another person's play experience.  When you design a game that lets one person ruin another's game experience, you are failing, and that is why all these games fail. 'Well, what about EVE?!?" Eve has large swaths of gank-free gamespace.  PVP is totally consensual, just like battlegrounds in WoW or arenas in the original EQ.

    Wrong on so many levels:

     

    1. Ganking is not all about ruining another person's play experience. In a full loot game, it's because he wants your stuff. He's a bandit, and you're the caravan. It's your job to harvest/pve/whatever intelligently and safely (banking often etc) to minimize your losses, and it's his job to kill you and take your stuff. And in my experience, it's still the pve/crafter character that's coming out on top in general, not the PK. The pve/harvester/crafter typically makes the most money.

     

    2. Getting ganked doesn't always ruin your playing experience. In the long run it can enhance your playing experience because it makes your victories that much sweeter. How can you love victory if you know nothing of loss??

     

    3. "These games" fail because they have low budgets, or they give in to the whims of people like you. UO failed AFTER trammel was implemented, SWG died AFTER CU. EVE is the most sandbox game out there and it's still going strong.

     

    4. Just because high-sec exists in EVE, doesn't mean the pvp is considered "consensual." Almost every ow pvp game has some safe zones of some sort. Whether it's in your own house, or (most commonly) in town. The main point is that you can stay safe if you want, but you're not going to be rewarded as much as if you ventured out into the dangerous world. For instance, in DFUW you can harvest in safe zones, but your harvesting will have a higher yield if you're in a more dangerous area.

  • NagelRitterNagelRitter Member Posts: 607

    DAS1337 gets it. Discourage griefing PvP and encourage fair PvP.

     

    Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
    Currently playing: GW2, EVE
    Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Holophonist

    You're right in that a majority does not make something better or worse, taste is opinionated. In your opinion a PvP game is better, in mine it's better to have consent, so there is no movement of the line of which is better.

    I don't care about the theoretical debate of PvE vs. PvP and if I did I would be doing it in The Pub. My argument directly relates to the gameplay state if EQN and what is likely to be seen from those that decide forced PvP or consensual PvP. I don't see forced PvP being in EQN, I may be wrong and if I am I'll still play it because I like PvP but I think it would be a mistake.

    As you said we don't know who would prefer a game with PvP if A or B was done to make it different. That's why I doubt SoE will pull that trigger, it's too uncertain. The issue of forced PvP goes beyond sandbox or themepark gameplay to know how people would react. Besides, SoE said its something we haven't seen before, right? Well we've seen many PvP sandboxes :)

    Well first of all I'm not trying to tell anybody what they do or don't like. I only ever join in on these discussions to point out SPECIFIC inconsistencies or inaccuracies in people's arguments/logic. I'm rarely taking part in the broader question of "should this game be pvp or not!!!?!?!?!?"

     

    On the other hand, I personally do believe a sandbox game with ow pvp, if done well, would objectively be the most satisfying mmo to play. It's easy to say "it's my opinion that Katy Perry is more talented than Dvorak and you can't tell me I'm wrong", but I don't buy it. I can't mathematically prove that sandbox games are better. However, it's pretty hard to deny that they're deeper and more depth leads to more satisfaction.

     

    When SoE says it's going to be something that we haven't seen before, they very well may be saying that it's something the AAA themepark crowd hasn't seen before. We truly have not seen a high budget fantasy sandbox game. We DEFINITELY haven't seen one with ow pvp and asset destruction. Shit, the only 2 non-instanced asset destruction mmo's that I can think of are DF and Shadowbane. I may be just having a blonde moment, but even there are others, they're not particularly popular and definitely not high budget.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by DAS1337

    It's always a lack of restrictions that ruins any possibility of PVP and PVE to co-exist.  Always.

     

    The whole point is to strike a balance, but developers aren't willing to go to the lengths it would take in order to get there.  The whole concept is to make it so being a douche PVP'er is possible (IE murderer, criminal, ganker, griefer), but not easy.  The whole idea is to have a system in place to push most players away from senseless violence.

     

    You've seen developers try things like Trammel in UO.  That was a knee jerk reaction to casuals being upset over being killed and looted.  Splitting a sandbox world into two worlds is not the answer if you're striving for a balance.  Then you've seen Mortal Online try the same system, but without Trammel.  In a FPS where aim is king, exploits happen and a flagging system fails the developers.  It's proven, every time, it fails.  You see Darkfall ARENA turn into just that.  It has no restrictions on your actions, no limitations, no consequences.  It is literally one big PvP arena, and a sandbox world simulator can not be successful int hat type of environment.  EVE has artificial restrictions based on where you are.  It kind of flies in the face of the idea of a sandbox game.  While the system works, it really doesn't make much sense in the real world.  Even so, it might be the best option that we have available to us.

     

    I like the idea of creating systems to promote PvP to PvP players.  For instance, joining empires and being part of an army.  Those players do their fighting in mostly dedicated locations.  Their job is to protect not only their territory, but their crafters and explorers.  If you add a reputation system to that, with murder counts, and serious skill or stat penalties for doing things that you shouldn't (Killing innocents, crafters, newbies, ganking, griefing), then less people will be inclined to do so.  Design those systems to support each other.  Add bounty hunting with skills that make it very hard for exploiting players do anything but log off or hide.  Don't allow those people to access cities.  Have wandering guards.  Make it nearly as impossible as you can for those people. 

     

    Developers won't go that route, because they still think senseless PVP'ers is their target audience when it comes to this RPG sandboxes.  Why, you ask?  No idea, ask one of them.

    Your thoughts basically mirror mine. The only thing I would disagree with is the idea of "serious skill or stat penalties" for crimes. I'd prefer the more organic things you mentioned after that: bounty hunting, not being allowed in town, etc. You could even include jail time.

     

    Something that DF does do well is the importance of a player's name. You're only allowed 1 character per account and they don't offer name changes. People can be known assholes or known good guys or even known spies! There are a number of things that allow for this kind of phenomenon, some good and some bad.

     

    One of the good things that allow for this is the emphasis on clans. Your clan has a certain reputation, and in order to win the political game you want to make sure your members reflect your clans' ideals.

     

    One of the bad things is an unfortunate game mechanic (which was recently fixed). You couldn't "trade" a house for other items. You could only give your house to somebody. So a few trusted "middlemen" rose to the top becoming known as trusted traders and they were used for house transfers. 

     

     

    *EDIT* Also I'm not sure about the idea of having armies defend certain zones or whatever to keep the crafters safe.... it depends on what exactly you mean. I like the idea of a clan or nation being given the tools to try to make their land more safe, but I don't think there should ever be any kind of invulnerability simply because  your clan or nation still "controls" that area or anything like that. I think a cool aspect of the game could be an opposing nation sending in small raiding parties to slip in unnoticed and do damage. You could have guard towers or even npc lookouts/scouts keeping an eye out for reds, but I dislike anything anti-immersive like force fields around your body making you invulnerable.

  • jerlot65jerlot65 Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Op is basically describing DAOC's form of pvp, which I fully agree on.  Big open spaces with objectives that you can either zerg/raid big castles, small group guerrilla type warfare on smalleer tower castles, or even solo/duo assasinate/gank loners.  It was truly a good mix of pvp and pve.  That was until Mtythic ruined by making rvr no longer their focus.

    image
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    Well I think more than PvPers want a AAA sandbox. That's why the buzz is so big to your standard MMO players, we all want something deeper and different. If someone thinks PvE = themepark and PvP = sandbox I think that's a pretty narrow opinion. You can make a world completly devoid of PvP and still have it be a sandbox MMO.

    I honestly hope SoE has come up with something none of us have thought of because I'd love to engage in good, meaningful PvP but allow freedom for all.
  • Trudge34Trudge34 Member UncommonPosts: 392
    Originally posted by DAS1337

    You've seen developers try things like Trammel in UO.  That was a knee jerk reaction to casuals being upset over being killed and looted.

     

    You know what else was a reaction to people getting killed and griefed in UO?

    EverQuest.

    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

  • KarbleKarble Member UncommonPosts: 750
    Originally posted by Gholos

    I have read many posts in this thread...but i m still convinced that the best way to introduce PvP in EQN is via PvP zones/battlegrounds, so everyone can freely decide when and where do PvP and not be forced in doing it.

    In my opinion EQN should be a PvE focused game as the tradition of this title.

    The idea of another Battleground, or PvP arena only......ugh...

    My concept is simply add an invisible circle around dungeon and high interest areas that flips a pvp teams or alignment flag on for all who enter. Once inside this circle you can be engaged at any time and you can also engage enemies as well. This will give PvE only/crafter only/role play only crowd a place to not be attacked much of the time. But if they want to delve into a dungeon they have heard about they also must either use cunning and tactics to avoid pvp, or engage in pvp on top of PvE in these spots.

    What I mean by cunning and tactics.....invis, maybe porting to a marked spot within the dungeon, Faster travel such as horse or spirit of wolf. Egressing your group out of possibly deadly pvp. All these are possibilities.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Member UncommonPosts: 2,091
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Well I think more than PvPers want a AAA sandbox. That's why the buzz is so big to your standard MMO players, we all want something deeper and different. If someone thinks PvE = themepark and PvP = sandbox I think that's a pretty narrow opinion. You can make a world completly devoid of PvP and still have it be a sandbox MMO.

    I honestly hope SoE has come up with something none of us have thought of because I'd love to engage in good, meaningful PvP but allow freedom for all.

    Well yes you can have a sandbox game that doesn't have pvp, but it's harder. OW pvp is inherently a sandbox feature. The idea of sandbox games is they don't restrict gameplay, and not letting somebody attack somebody else is restricting gameplay. It doesn't mean you have to have pvp to have a sandbox, and it doesn't mean putting pvp automatically makes it a sandbox. However, the question of whether or not there will be ow pvp is close to the top of a short list of questions people always ask about a game when it's announced. If the answer to that huge question is the less sandbox answer, that makes it that much harder for people to view it as a sandbox game.

  • azarhalazarhal Member RarePosts: 1,402
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    When SoE says it's going to be something that we haven't seen before, they very well may be saying that it's something the AAA themepark crowd hasn't seen before. We truly have not seen a high budget fantasy sandbox game. We DEFINITELY haven't seen one with ow pvp and asset destruction. Shit, the only 2 non-instanced asset destruction mmo's that I can think of are DF and Shadowbane. I may be just having a blonde moment, but even there are others, they're not particularly popular and definitely not high budget.

    The something we haven't seen before is probably more about the destroyable environment Smed talked about in an interview. Burning down forests? WoW Cataclysm happening because somebody cast a very powerful spell?

    If I take my only experience on a Minecraft server that had 2-3 guys spawning TNT cubes with the admin console and blow a part of the map (while I set fire to the forest with my lighter), EQN will be a barren wasteland in under a week time after release.

    Also, that level of destruction is well beyond open world PvP in my mind. Of course, Smed might have been exaggerating a bit... and the game anti-griefing system might be harsher than what PS2 is using too.

     

     

  • jdnycjdnyc Member UncommonPosts: 1,643
    Originally posted by azarhal
    Originally posted by Holophonist

    When SoE says it's going to be something that we haven't seen before, they very well may be saying that it's something the AAA themepark crowd hasn't seen before. We truly have not seen a high budget fantasy sandbox game. We DEFINITELY haven't seen one with ow pvp and asset destruction. Shit, the only 2 non-instanced asset destruction mmo's that I can think of are DF and Shadowbane. I may be just having a blonde moment, but even there are others, they're not particularly popular and definitely not high budget.

    The something we haven't seen before is probably more about the destroyable environment Smed talked about in an interview. Burning down forests? WoW Cataclysm happening because somebody cast a very powerful spell?

    If I take my only experience on a Minecraft server that had 2-3 guys spawning TNT cubes with the admin console and blow a part of the map (while I set fire to the forest with my lighter), EQN will be a barren wasteland in under a week time after release.

    Also, that level of destruction is well beyond open world PvP in my mind. Of course, Smed might have been exaggerating a bit... and the game anti-griefing system might be harsher than what PS2 is using too.

    I would think that accomplishing something of that nature would take a bit of time.  At least I hope it would. 

Sign In or Register to comment.