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.
More than likely, the game mechanics will not allow you to blow up the world right away. Just as in any well built mmorpg...the players start off weak and humble and must work towards thriving within the lands and carving their own destiny. So I predict at least 4 months before any player will have access to spells that can truly cause large mayhem. Time will tell.
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.
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world, filled with easy pray pvers victims, (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps. that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else. it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.
a pver isen't only the typical squeeshy fearful crafter or the traditional barkeeper that hides behind the desk, that's a stereotype some people seem to have when they think of pvers, or carebears as some others like to use. you have a whole lot of different playing styles when you say pve, the sameway pvp isen't only about grief and pking.
casual players , raiders, explorers, crafters, socialisers, roleplayers. people who enjoys pvp and pve whenever they want, and not when little bob wants them to.
if a mmo wants to be financially very succesful and not just do ok, devs should consider them all. instead of going the , Eve online niche path only.
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.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm sure the spell would be an epic one time loot of sorts that you may get. Be the first one to down a roaming dragon that just spawned and the lucky person that got he one time spell could decide on which part of the world it could destroy. Something along those lines.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I kind of agree with your last sentence but it all depends on how pvp is handled. I dont like pvp servers but they will be required if the only option for pve'ers is an open world, ruleless gank fest. It just will not work. So that brings us back to the OP...... What should the compromise be?
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.
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.
If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45. If you want to kill someone, go right ahead. The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa. There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively. If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.
Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag. (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
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.
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.
If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45. If you want to kill someone, go right ahead. The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa. There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively. If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.
Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag. (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).
That's a horrible idea. As you said, nobody's ever going to kill anybody without a "consent flag." How is that a good system? If you wanted a system that dropped PKing down to 0, then you'd just make it so nobody could attack anybody else unless they were flagged. The point of bounty hunting (and similar) systems is that it mitigates crimes, but doesn't outright get rid of them. That's the point of having risk/reward.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I kind of agree with your last sentence but it all depends on how pvp is handled. I dont like pvp servers but they will be required if the only option for pve'ers is an open world, ruleless gank fest. It just will not work. So that brings us back to the OP...... What should the compromise be?
I never said there should be no rules. In fact basically NOBODY says there should 0 rules. Sandbox advocates like the idea of soft systems like bounty hunting, jail time, etc. Stuff that the community can be involved in and police themselves.
There shouldn't be any "compromise." Not if you mean a compromise that involves people who want to pve/harvest/craft/etc in 100% safety. Those people will simply never coexist with the people that want a game that has penalties for death, risk/reward, pvp and is a sandbox. There's no such thing as a compromise between those two kinds of people.
People do know what they are taking about, you're not the be all, end all of MMO game design. If PvP sandbox design is so high maintenance it's no wonder there aren't quality ones out there. I know SoE is not so closed minded by all the the comments that have been made. I'll be anxiously awaiting the reveal and when they say it won't be forced OWPvP I won't say anything about it here, there will be no need.
some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world, filled with easy pray pvers victims, (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps. that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else. it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.
a pver isen't only the typical squeeshy fearful crafter or the traditional barkeeper that hides behind the desk, that's a stereotype some people seem to have when they think of pvers, or carebears as some others like to use. you have a whole lot of different playing styles when you say pve, the sameway pvp isen't only about grief and pking.
casual players , raiders, explorers, crafters, socialisers, roleplayers. people who enjoys pvp and pve whenever they want, and not when little bob wants them to.
if a mmo wants to be financially very succesful and not just do ok, devs should consider them all. instead of going the , Eve online niche path only.
Nobody's going to make a game that everybody can enjoy. It's simply NOT possible. The only question is if SoE will cater to the pve crowd, the pvp crowd, or try to appease both and fail horribly.
Sandbox to me means player generated content. One example is Minecraft. There's no PvP in Minecraft. What on earth does sandbox have to do with PvP or fulldrop or risks or anything?
If you spend your entire life building houses in the game and nothing else it's still a sandbox.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW Currently playing: GW2, EVE Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
do you have a better solution? no ofcourse not, all you want is that they design the game, specially for you and for whatever it is you want, so sorry to burst your bouble dude, suggest you to make your own game.
at the end. the devs will do whatever they think will be better for the company financially, regardless of what you, me or anybody here thinks or wants.
we just gonna have to wait and see. we can't force people to play games, that they don't like.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I kind of agree with your last sentence but it all depends on how pvp is handled. I dont like pvp servers but they will be required if the only option for pve'ers is an open world, ruleless gank fest. It just will not work. So that brings us back to the OP...... What should the compromise be?
I never said there should be no rules. In fact basically NOBODY says there should 0 rules. Sandbox advocates like the idea of soft systems like bounty hunting, jail time, etc. Stuff that the community can be involved in and police themselves.
There shouldn't be any "compromise." Not if you mean a compromise that involves people who want to pve/harvest/craft/etc in 100% safety. Those people will simply never coexist with the people that want a game that has penalties for death, risk/reward, pvp and is a sandbox. There's no such thing as a compromise between those two kinds of people.
I didn't say that you said 0 rules. i was just saying that I agree we should not have pvp servers and pve servers. But if we don't have any rules then it wont work. So again, back to the OP, what compromises (rules) should it have?
And one last thing. Please dont lump people who dont want FFA pvp with people who dont want death penalties, have risk/reward and be a sandbox. You can ahve any of that without doing a lick of pvp.
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...
Well, you can introduce really big PvP zones like in GW2, with faction's castles to conquer etc. etc. not only battlegrounds and arena...just to make an example.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I kind of agree with your last sentence but it all depends on how pvp is handled. I dont like pvp servers but they will be required if the only option for pve'ers is an open world, ruleless gank fest. It just will not work. So that brings us back to the OP...... What should the compromise be?
I never said there should be no rules. In fact basically NOBODY says there should 0 rules. Sandbox advocates like the idea of soft systems like bounty hunting, jail time, etc. Stuff that the community can be involved in and police themselves.
There shouldn't be any "compromise." Not if you mean a compromise that involves people who want to pve/harvest/craft/etc in 100% safety. Those people will simply never coexist with the people that want a game that has penalties for death, risk/reward, pvp and is a sandbox. There's no such thing as a compromise between those two kinds of people.
I didn't say that you said 0 rules. i was just saying that I agree we should not have pvp servers and pve servers. But if we don't have any rules then it wont work. So again, back to the OP, what compromises (rules) should it have?
And one last thing. Please dont lump people who dont want FFA pvp with people who dont want death penalties, have risk/reward and be a sandbox. You can ahve any of that without doing a lick of pvp.
And I'm saying no compromise will be good enough. People have requirements for games that are dealbreakers for other people.
I specifically mentioned "pvp" in that list because I know how non-pvp people like to pick out phrases and words that hurt their feelings.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I kind of agree with your last sentence but it all depends on how pvp is handled. I dont like pvp servers but they will be required if the only option for pve'ers is an open world, ruleless gank fest. It just will not work. So that brings us back to the OP...... What should the compromise be?
I never said there should be no rules. In fact basically NOBODY says there should 0 rules. Sandbox advocates like the idea of soft systems like bounty hunting, jail time, etc. Stuff that the community can be involved in and police themselves.
There shouldn't be any "compromise." Not if you mean a compromise that involves people who want to pve/harvest/craft/etc in 100% safety. Those people will simply never coexist with the people that want a game that has penalties for death, risk/reward, pvp and is a sandbox. There's no such thing as a compromise between those two kinds of people.
I didn't say that you said 0 rules. i was just saying that I agree we should not have pvp servers and pve servers. But if we don't have any rules then it wont work. So again, back to the OP, what compromises (rules) should it have?
And one last thing. Please dont lump people who dont want FFA pvp with people who dont want death penalties, have risk/reward and be a sandbox. You can ahve any of that without doing a lick of pvp.
And I'm saying no compromise will be good enough. People have requirements for games that are dealbreakers for other people.
I specifically mentioned "pvp" in that list because I know how non-pvp people like to pick out phrases and words that hurt their feelings.
I dont know, Eve has compromises and there are pve and pvp in that game. WoW is pretty popular and there are pvp and pve people in that game also. I think you are just listening to the exetremists on both sides and giving up. I much ratehr try to see what rule sets we could develop and fix the "problem" if there really is one.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
do you have a better solution? no ofcourse not, all you want is that they design the game, specially for you and for whatever it is you want, so sorry to burst your bouble dude, suggest you to make your own game.
THERE IS NO SOLUTION! Yes, I want them to design a game I want to play.... you don't? What the hell is with you non-pvp crowd who treats every game like it has to be some mutual thing. How can you say that I should make my own game? Can't I say the same thing about you? You want a game I don't want, I want a game you don't want. Who the hell are you to claim that I'm infringing on YOUR game?
And seriously? That's your response? I tell you how silly your plan is, and your defense is just "do you have a better idea?" Separate servers for pvp and non-pvp are a RIDICULOUS idea and implementing such a system is NOT a compromise. It's merely giving you what YOU WANT and shafting the rest of us. Don't act like it's a compromise. You get the game you want, we don't.
at the end. the devs will do whatever they think will be better for the company financially, regardless of what you, me or anybody here thinks or wants.
we just gonna have to wait and see. we can't force people to play games, that they don't like.
Hopefully SoE makes the game that the community wants, not what is going to score them the quickest buck... that's the kind of attitude that gave us the terrible MMO's that we have today.
Sandbox to me means player generated content. One example is Minecraft. There's no PvP in Minecraft. What on earth does sandbox have to do with PvP or fulldrop or risks or anything?
If you spend your entire life building houses in the game and nothing else it's still a sandbox.
There is pvp in minecraft, there just aren't many weapons. But you can kill and loot other people in minecraft. It doesn't matter one way or the other but I just thought it was funny that the example YOU use actually supports my argument.
But in truth like I said it doesn't matter. I specifically said that you can have a sandbox with no pvp, it's just kind of an unnatural state. It's not that pvp is sandbox, but restricting pvp is anti-sandbox.
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.
If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45. If you want to kill someone, go right ahead. The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa. There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively. If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.
Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag. (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).
That's a horrible idea. As you said, nobody's ever going to kill anybody without a "consent flag." How is that a good system? If you wanted a system that dropped PKing down to 0, then you'd just make it so nobody could attack anybody else unless they were flagged. The point of bounty hunting (and similar) systems is that it mitigates crimes, but doesn't outright get rid of them. That's the point of having risk/reward.
Dropping PKing to 0 is exactly what the PvE player wants. When they want to be safe, they are safe from other players. Anywhere. They still have to deal with the environment (factions, mobs, etc). If I'm willing to indulge in PvP, I simply turn the PvP flag on. Otherwise, you will pay the consequences.
It isn't a horrible system, especially if the PvP flag can be toggled only very infrequently. An hour since the last PvP action could keep the killer from escaping to 'safety', and you can still enact bounties. (Bounty hunting, like all other in-game consequences, doesn't work -- every PvP player is busy doing their own thing when there's a criminal to punish).
And note, I never said anything about not being able to kill a player who isn't currently PvP flagged; doing so just has a consequence that you find objectionable. This system does not prohibit the bad behavior or put any kind of restrictions on it.
Please note: This system requires a subscription, or at least a valid credit card to create / operate an account. To me, that's the worst part of this mechanism.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
they will take their money somewhere else.
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
do you have a better solution? no ofcourse not, all you want is that they design the game, specially for you and for whatever it is you want, so sorry to burst your bouble dude, suggest you to make your own game.
THERE IS NO SOLUTION! Yes, I want them to design a game I want to play.... you don't? What the hell is with you non-pvp crowd who treats every game like it has to be some mutual thing. How can you say that I should make my own game? Can't I say the same thing about you? You want a game I don't want, I want a game you don't want. Who the hell are you to claim that I'm infringing on YOUR game?
This is the point: we want two totaly different types of game, so simply the compromise is impossible.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it" -Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
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...
Well, you can introduce really big PvP zones like in GW2, with faction's castles to conquer etc. etc. not only battlegrounds and arena...just to make an example.
Guildwars 2 had a few bright ideas with how they did battlegrounds and a few let downs as well.
First off there was no negative to pvp death besides having to run from a part you had captured.
Then there was also very minimal benefit this had on the regular part of the game world and economy.
I did enjoy that they continued your exp as you played pvp.
The setup felt contrived at times with no lasting benefit beyond a few bonuses here and there.
I like that you picked up on GW2 battlegrounds though. They at least took a crack at it.
As I see it though, there should be no different gear for pvp or pve. gear is gear is gear. You yourself can decide what gear you want based on the rule set.
Maybe the rules of the game call for looting of one item on your corpse or in your bag. Then you may try to play in no drop armor that can't be looted or perhaps bone armor that is easy to come by and if it breaks or gets taken it's not the end of the world.
Or the loot something from your bag deal. That may mean you would want to pack light or make you think about taking a different route that may be more safe if traveling with goods. Or perhaps go in groups so that if PvP happens you will at least be able to maybe fend off another group...strength in numbers.
What I am trying to paint here is the importance of why PvP and PvE shouldn't be seperated entirely and made into two different games tacked on to each other. They belong in the same game. That is part of what makes multi-player fun sometimes, and if you take it away you are left with farmville, or sims, or a single player game against only ai with a grouping ability tacked on.
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.
If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45. If you want to kill someone, go right ahead. The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa. There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively. If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.
Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag. (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).
That's a horrible idea. As you said, nobody's ever going to kill anybody without a "consent flag." How is that a good system? If you wanted a system that dropped PKing down to 0, then you'd just make it so nobody could attack anybody else unless they were flagged. The point of bounty hunting (and similar) systems is that it mitigates crimes, but doesn't outright get rid of them. That's the point of having risk/reward.
Dropping PKing to 0 is exactly what the PvE player wants. When they want to be safe, they are safe from other players. Anywhere. They still have to deal with the environment (factions, mobs, etc). If I'm willing to indulge in PvP, I simply turn the PvP flag on. Otherwise, you will pay the consequences.
It isn't a horrible system, especially if the PvP flag can be toggled only very infrequently. An hour since the last PvP action could keep the killer from escaping to 'safety', and you can still enact bounties. (Bounty hunting, like all other in-game consequences, doesn't work -- every PvP player is busy doing their own thing when there's a criminal to punish).
And note, I never said anything about not being able to kill a player who isn't currently PvP flagged; doing so just has a consequence that you find objectionable. This system does not prohibit the bad behavior or put any kind of restrictions on it.
Please note: This system requires a subscription, or at least a valid credit card to create / operate an account. To me, that's the worst part of this mechanism.
Yes... I know that's what the pve player wants. I'm saying it's dumb because it's not different than just turning off non-consensual pvp.
What does this ridiculous system accomplish that simply turning off non-consensual pvp wouldn't? It's another one of these "compromises" that simply gives you what you want and not what we want. There's 0 reason to have it, so it's a bad idea.
Yes... I know that's what the pve player wants. I'm saying it's dumb because it's not different than just turning off non-consensual pvp.
What does this ridiculous system accomplish that simply turning off non-consensual pvp wouldn't? It's another one of these "compromises" that simply gives you what you want and not what we want. There's 0 reason to have it, so it's a bad idea.
But it hasn't turned off non-consensual PvP. Make the dollar values $5 or $50 or $500. That's simply a matter of scale. My choice of $50 did make its point -- it drew a reaction.
The PvP game you want includes living targets. I can appreciate that. I even want that myself at times. But I don't want someone to be able to attack me when I'm at 30% health from fighting a mob, or I'm distracted with working on a complex crafting project, get tied up by the interface while I'm typing a long message to someone, or simply be afk for an extended period. The problem with safe zones is that they aren't where interesting things are. There are times I simply don't want to be a target. (And if DAoC taught me anything, I'm a target).
Look at it this way, a PvP player in an Open World, PvP environment can unilaterally impose their style of game play on the PvE player. The PvE player has no reciprocal method for imposing their game style on the PvP player. A payment is some compensation for this imposition.
What I've proposed is a method of bypassing all the limitations of in-game consequences. You can't log off, switch characters or turn your computer off to avoid it. And it is a tangible form of a consequence, not a 'murderer' flag or long in-game timers. They can simply be ignored while the killer gloats of their latest kill to their cronies.
I have thought about in-game punishment quite a bit. This is the only mechanism that would actually solve the problem. But it certainly wouldn't be popular.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
More than likely, the game mechanics will not allow you to blow up the world right away. Just as in any well built mmorpg...the players start off weak and humble and must work towards thriving within the lands and carving their own destiny. So I predict at least 4 months before any player will have access to spells that can truly cause large mayhem. Time will tell.
My concern isn't really with how harsh the anti-griefing system is, but just how it's executed. If it's like the PS2 anti-griefing system, that'll be a huge turn off for me. As far as I know, in PS2 if you shoot teammates too often, your gun gets locked down.... not very interesting.
just add pvp and pve servers and problem solved, everyone wins.
i find it funny how so many, pvpers get upset when pvers state that they rather have their own server . no matter how hard and how loud or vocal you get. people that don't care about forced pvp, won't share your playing style. so is very unlikely they will buy the game wich such system.
some of the pvpers envision this perfect sandbox world, filled with easy pray pvers victims, (crafters or cookie makers) that they can gank at ease every 4 steps. that's why they get frustrated when they see , pvers rather play something else. it is hard to adknowledge that the world isen't about what we want only.
a pver isen't only the typical squeeshy fearful crafter or the traditional barkeeper that hides behind the desk, that's a stereotype some people seem to have when they think of pvers, or carebears as some others like to use. you have a whole lot of different playing styles when you say pve, the sameway pvp isen't only about grief and pking.
casual players , raiders, explorers, crafters, socialisers, roleplayers. people who enjoys pvp and pve whenever they want, and not when little bob wants them to.
if a mmo wants to be financially very succesful and not just do ok, devs should consider them all. instead of going the , Eve online niche path only.
i totally agree with you
STOP THIS NONSENSE! Quoted from earlier in this thread:
"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."
To think that separate pvp and pve servers is an acceptable compromise is basically just admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about.
I kind of agree with your last sentence but it all depends on how pvp is handled. I dont like pvp servers but they will be required if the only option for pve'ers is an open world, ruleless gank fest. It just will not work. So that brings us back to the OP...... What should the compromise be?
Something else that's not been tried, a cash shop-type approach.
If one player kills another player without consent (a flag), the game automatically charges the killer's credit card for $50 and credits the victim for $45. If you want to kill someone, go right ahead. The consequences are resolved between the killer and Mr. Visa. There's no other consequence in-game that will work as consistently or as effectively. If that somehow doesn't stop Mr. Gates from slaughtering PvE players, simply have an escalating cost.
Novel, unique, and no one's going to kill someone without a consent flag. (Just because it hasn't been tried doesn't mean it would be acceptable to the players).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
That's a horrible idea. As you said, nobody's ever going to kill anybody without a "consent flag." How is that a good system? If you wanted a system that dropped PKing down to 0, then you'd just make it so nobody could attack anybody else unless they were flagged. The point of bounty hunting (and similar) systems is that it mitigates crimes, but doesn't outright get rid of them. That's the point of having risk/reward.
I never said there should be no rules. In fact basically NOBODY says there should 0 rules. Sandbox advocates like the idea of soft systems like bounty hunting, jail time, etc. Stuff that the community can be involved in and police themselves.
There shouldn't be any "compromise." Not if you mean a compromise that involves people who want to pve/harvest/craft/etc in 100% safety. Those people will simply never coexist with the people that want a game that has penalties for death, risk/reward, pvp and is a sandbox. There's no such thing as a compromise between those two kinds of people.
People do know what they are taking about, you're not the be all, end all of MMO game design. If PvP sandbox design is so high maintenance it's no wonder there aren't quality ones out there. I know SoE is not so closed minded by all the the comments that have been made. I'll be anxiously awaiting the reveal and when they say it won't be forced OWPvP I won't say anything about it here, there will be no need.
Nobody's going to make a game that everybody can enjoy. It's simply NOT possible. The only question is if SoE will cater to the pve crowd, the pvp crowd, or try to appease both and fail horribly.
Sandbox to me means player generated content. One example is Minecraft. There's no PvP in Minecraft. What on earth does sandbox have to do with PvP or fulldrop or risks or anything?
If you spend your entire life building houses in the game and nothing else it's still a sandbox.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
do you have a better solution? no ofcourse not, all you want is that they design the game, specially for you and for whatever it is you want, so sorry to burst your bouble dude, suggest you to make your own game.
at the end. the devs will do whatever they think will be better for the company financially, regardless of what you, me or anybody here thinks or wants.
we just gonna have to wait and see. we can't force people to play games, that they don't like.
I didn't say that you said 0 rules. i was just saying that I agree we should not have pvp servers and pve servers. But if we don't have any rules then it wont work. So again, back to the OP, what compromises (rules) should it have?
And one last thing. Please dont lump people who dont want FFA pvp with people who dont want death penalties, have risk/reward and be a sandbox. You can ahve any of that without doing a lick of pvp.
Well, you can introduce really big PvP zones like in GW2, with faction's castles to conquer etc. etc. not only battlegrounds and arena...just to make an example.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
And I'm saying no compromise will be good enough. People have requirements for games that are dealbreakers for other people.
I specifically mentioned "pvp" in that list because I know how non-pvp people like to pick out phrases and words that hurt their feelings.
I dont know, Eve has compromises and there are pve and pvp in that game. WoW is pretty popular and there are pvp and pve people in that game also. I think you are just listening to the exetremists on both sides and giving up. I much ratehr try to see what rule sets we could develop and fix the "problem" if there really is one.
THERE IS NO SOLUTION! Yes, I want them to design a game I want to play.... you don't? What the hell is with you non-pvp crowd who treats every game like it has to be some mutual thing. How can you say that I should make my own game? Can't I say the same thing about you? You want a game I don't want, I want a game you don't want. Who the hell are you to claim that I'm infringing on YOUR game?
And seriously? That's your response? I tell you how silly your plan is, and your defense is just "do you have a better idea?" Separate servers for pvp and non-pvp are a RIDICULOUS idea and implementing such a system is NOT a compromise. It's merely giving you what YOU WANT and shafting the rest of us. Don't act like it's a compromise. You get the game you want, we don't.
Hopefully SoE makes the game that the community wants, not what is going to score them the quickest buck... that's the kind of attitude that gave us the terrible MMO's that we have today.
There is pvp in minecraft, there just aren't many weapons. But you can kill and loot other people in minecraft. It doesn't matter one way or the other but I just thought it was funny that the example YOU use actually supports my argument.
But in truth like I said it doesn't matter. I specifically said that you can have a sandbox with no pvp, it's just kind of an unnatural state. It's not that pvp is sandbox, but restricting pvp is anti-sandbox.
Dropping PKing to 0 is exactly what the PvE player wants. When they want to be safe, they are safe from other players. Anywhere. They still have to deal with the environment (factions, mobs, etc). If I'm willing to indulge in PvP, I simply turn the PvP flag on. Otherwise, you will pay the consequences.
It isn't a horrible system, especially if the PvP flag can be toggled only very infrequently. An hour since the last PvP action could keep the killer from escaping to 'safety', and you can still enact bounties. (Bounty hunting, like all other in-game consequences, doesn't work -- every PvP player is busy doing their own thing when there's a criminal to punish).
And note, I never said anything about not being able to kill a player who isn't currently PvP flagged; doing so just has a consequence that you find objectionable. This system does not prohibit the bad behavior or put any kind of restrictions on it.
Please note: This system requires a subscription, or at least a valid credit card to create / operate an account. To me, that's the worst part of this mechanism.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This is the point: we want two totaly different types of game, so simply the compromise is impossible.
"Brute force not work? It because you not use enought of it"
-Karg, Ogryn Bone'ead.
Guildwars 2 had a few bright ideas with how they did battlegrounds and a few let downs as well.
First off there was no negative to pvp death besides having to run from a part you had captured.
Then there was also very minimal benefit this had on the regular part of the game world and economy.
I did enjoy that they continued your exp as you played pvp.
The setup felt contrived at times with no lasting benefit beyond a few bonuses here and there.
I like that you picked up on GW2 battlegrounds though. They at least took a crack at it.
As I see it though, there should be no different gear for pvp or pve. gear is gear is gear. You yourself can decide what gear you want based on the rule set.
Maybe the rules of the game call for looting of one item on your corpse or in your bag. Then you may try to play in no drop armor that can't be looted or perhaps bone armor that is easy to come by and if it breaks or gets taken it's not the end of the world.
Or the loot something from your bag deal. That may mean you would want to pack light or make you think about taking a different route that may be more safe if traveling with goods. Or perhaps go in groups so that if PvP happens you will at least be able to maybe fend off another group...strength in numbers.
What I am trying to paint here is the importance of why PvP and PvE shouldn't be seperated entirely and made into two different games tacked on to each other. They belong in the same game. That is part of what makes multi-player fun sometimes, and if you take it away you are left with farmville, or sims, or a single player game against only ai with a grouping ability tacked on.
Yes... I know that's what the pve player wants. I'm saying it's dumb because it's not different than just turning off non-consensual pvp.
What does this ridiculous system accomplish that simply turning off non-consensual pvp wouldn't? It's another one of these "compromises" that simply gives you what you want and not what we want. There's 0 reason to have it, so it's a bad idea.
But it hasn't turned off non-consensual PvP. Make the dollar values $5 or $50 or $500. That's simply a matter of scale. My choice of $50 did make its point -- it drew a reaction.
The PvP game you want includes living targets. I can appreciate that. I even want that myself at times. But I don't want someone to be able to attack me when I'm at 30% health from fighting a mob, or I'm distracted with working on a complex crafting project, get tied up by the interface while I'm typing a long message to someone, or simply be afk for an extended period. The problem with safe zones is that they aren't where interesting things are. There are times I simply don't want to be a target. (And if DAoC taught me anything, I'm a target).
Look at it this way, a PvP player in an Open World, PvP environment can unilaterally impose their style of game play on the PvE player. The PvE player has no reciprocal method for imposing their game style on the PvP player. A payment is some compensation for this imposition.
What I've proposed is a method of bypassing all the limitations of in-game consequences. You can't log off, switch characters or turn your computer off to avoid it. And it is a tangible form of a consequence, not a 'murderer' flag or long in-game timers. They can simply be ignored while the killer gloats of their latest kill to their cronies.
I have thought about in-game punishment quite a bit. This is the only mechanism that would actually solve the problem. But it certainly wouldn't be popular.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.