Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
EQN = Fantasy based EVE
Ronin316
Member Posts: 12
I see alot of posts of people wanting EQN to be like a fantasy based EVE, and the more I thought about it the more interesting it sounded. If the world they are building for EQN is truly as massive as they would like us to believe then why couldn't they have a centralized or dispersed area for npc faction kingdoms. Where your factions and allegiances matter in reference to where you are and what you do. NPC controlled guards to keep those areas safe from lawlessness as it were. Then outside of that there would be those fringe areas still loosely controled by the npc factions but not as guarded and defended as the main kingdoms. Finally of course what one would equate to 0.0. Where you can do anything build anything. Rules, laws, and taxes would be determined by those who held soverignty over that area. Alliances could be forged to make kingdoms, you get the idea. It would satiate alot of what I've read that people want in certain reguards without alienating others, atleast from a hypothetical standpoint.
Tell me what you think
Comments
I don't think that's what it will be....
but a fantasy themed eve would be awesome
they've tried a sci-fi non-spaceship eve (called perpetuum) but it was from a tiny foreign company that didnt have the manpower or resources to do it justice.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
yep this is what i hope for too, but I'm prepared for another crushed dream of awesome.
at least CCP the king of sandbox is making World of Darkness, so if EQ Next is too carebeary, WoD will certainly be up my alley
Everquest Next is def going to be carebear all the way. It is catering to the masses not a puny minority of hardcores.
The PvP advocates keep on tooting this same toon and gets tiresome. SOE has already stated that they will not make any "bad decisions" which making EQN a EVE clone will most definately be one as this only appleases a minority. What were the peak subs of Mortal Online? Or DFUW?
I'd be placing my bets on Pathfinder Online anyways for a fantasy EVE based MMO along with EQN being a PvE centric game with appleasing the masses. I'd wager EQN will be a sandbox PvE MMO with solid PvP mechanics that are in no way intrusice and 100% consensual, likely PvP and PvE servers as I doubt it will be a single server.
We all toot our personal agenda horns, not just us PVP advocates. Yours seems to be tooting fine as well.
And we really have no clue what they consider "bad decisions" until the reveal at least. We also have no clue what they feel a minority is. They may or may not agree with you. Are we talking about the minority of the entire MMORPG playerbase or are we just talking about the playerbase that it is feasible to attract with this particular game model, IP, and out of what is available and reasonable within the population. Those could be very different groups.
Also, MO and DF are a great argument on why PVP games are bad in the same way Continent of the 9th is a great argument on why PVE games are bad. A bug filled game by an indie developer with a staff big enough to fit in my closet and a fairly focused PVP only deathmatch game set in a fantasy world do not your argument make.
The truth of the matter is though, you could very well be right that EQN is going to be a full on PVE game with little to no PVP interactions. I could absolutely see that happening given the history of SOE especially. I could also see them doing something different than what they usually do, and I would have just as strong an argument for my case as you for yours for at least about another week.
I guess Smedley was lying when he said 'if they want linear and coddled there are plenty of other games for them to play.'
There was this one as well:
---
A sandbox game needs conflict to drive the economy, which means open-world PvP and risk/reward.
Originally Posted by John Smedley @j_smedley 16h
I agree wholeheartedly
argumelted by ramanadjinn
I think the safest bet for what SOE considers a 'bad decision' is giving players the ability to drive off other players. That is simply a harmful business decision that is only going to attract a niche market, thus restricting profit potential. I'd suggest that EQN is likely to be more like a full-on PvE game than many posters are expecting.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Mainly Player controlled/run territories is somewhere I have thought mmos were heading ever since eq, sadly mmos have changed very little since they first appeared, and most devs seem directly terrified of trying to innovate.
Having player run nations, territories etcetc does not mean it has to be a pvp mmo, common misconception in my opinion, there are so many ways you could make it pve friendly, ill give 2 examples to start it off.
1: learn from games such as "the mighty quest for epic loot" allow territory rulers to setup theyr own "raid" dungeon based on the resources they are given by theyr overall faction. (Faction should be ruled by a player or a entire guild, while being open to politics and internal power struggles, while each "region" of theyr faction should be controlled by lords,dukes etc.)
the "king" would be able to decide which regions were "pvp" and which were "pve", with a maximum % of each to make sure each factions offer both.
2: A factions power would be based of resources, pve would be the best way to aquire these resources, pvers would basicly be the economical backbone of a faction.
Just because you have player run factions, dosnt mean pvp would be enabled in every region, if anything each factions should only be able to assign a few regions as open pvp.
Sadly it seems most devs dont see the potential of a world truely "ruled" by the players, for one you would need to spend alot less on voice actors, as you would need alot less quest npcs, factions reps etc, not to mention no mather how hard a dev works he can never compete with the amount of content a community can spit out, and while this would not allow players to directly create content, it would have the same effect as the world would keep changing, and stay intresting for a much longer period of time.
Like I said I am truely suprised mmo's havnt gotten to this point yet, the lack of innovation in the mmo genre is disapointing to say the least.
Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
Currently playing: GW2, EVE
Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?
For some reason, I really doubt that people who like fantasy sandbox games want their combat to play like a slideshow.
I wouldn't play a Fantasy based EVE either. I have enough of real life drama, I don't need virtual ones.
When it's in direct response to a concern that PvP will be forced on everyone I think it's a safe bet to say that at the least there will be segregated PvP and PvE servers.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
Hype hype and more hype.
Quoting smed is like quoting a presidential candidate, there will be a lot of things they want to do, they think is a great idea, and/or they would implement if they were the ONLY person making decisions.
What makes it into the feature list and planned game is a COMPLETELY different story generally. Until it's confirmed, in-game, on my system the it's hype.
Anyone remember following Shadowbane for 5 years? Yeah.....that was painful, they finally released a great product too bad it was already so dated it hurt.
Unless they're completely changing from their roots EQ has never been a strong PvP game, would be nice if all those quotes came to fruition, but I'd doubt it.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Very likely if there are multiple servers. Which is not confirmed at this time. I can agree though that you wouldn't have a terrible chance of winning a bet on that.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Betaguy[/i] [b][quote] [i]Originally posted by DocBrody[/i] [quote] [b][i]Originally posted by Ronin316[/i][/b] [b][b]I see alot of posts of people wanting EQN to be like a fantasy based EVE,[/b][/b] [b][b]Tell me what you think[/b][/b] [/quote] [b]yep this is what i hope for too, but I'm prepared for another crushed dream of awesome.[/b] [b] [/b] [b]at least CCP the king of sandbox is making World of Darkness, so if EQ Next is too carebeary, WoD will certainly be up my alley[/b][/quote]Everquest Next is def going to be carebear all the way. It is catering to the masses not a puny minority of hardcores.[/b][/quote]
Clearly you never played the original, if you did then you must have forgotten, it was in NO WAY carebear. I dont see them changing that much.
Lets see your Battle Stations /r/battlestations
Battle Station
Actually yes it was....in every way it was carebear. PvP was completely segregated to another server and the game was never balanced or even nodded towards PvP. Expect the same from EQN.
And Krimz....you drive the Honda of "American Muscle". RWD is dead move up to AWD and have some fun.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
And clearly you didn't play on a pvp server.
From launch they balanced the most important things, and continued to balance certain abilities and the resist system over time.
Unless of course you mean by balanced that the role system should have been torn down in favor of making every class an equal offensive threat ala WoW. In that case, no, it wasn't balanced. Roles still played their part in PvP, even if it meant that didn't get a lot of kills. Rangers tracked, enchanters buffed and dispelled, clerics buffed and healed, but no they weren't "balanced" in order to make them an offensive class.
Somebody else gets it. Give the tools once for the players to create and they can keep themselves busy for years. Try and come up with more rides for the themepark and you can't turn out content fast enough.
My above comment works for either PvP or PvE, I personally like it when it's more slanted towards PvP.
Giving players tools, does not mean letting them create their own monsters, NPCs or AI for either; it doesn't mean letting the players completely change the landscape (that's a bit harder if it's a hand crafted world); and it doesn't mean just letting the players create their own physics, magic or rules for the game. Developers need to give boundaries for players to work within, and tools to create conflict, to create guilds/alliances and territorial boundaries. Given just a few things, and add in PvP, and a game can go off for years with basic tools. Look at EvE, there have been no major changes to the game since Capitals ships were introduced (the game started with only up to BS I think). What they have done is improved upon the tools the players have.
This may not be the EQ that everyone grew up with. EQ in the name may only be a reference to the lore, types of land masses we will see and overall fantasy feel. The gameplay for EQN could be completely different and very much a fantasy based EvE; we just don't know. If it is PvP centric then I could see myself playing it for years, if it's another PvE game (even a "sandbox PvE") then it will get stale for me.
I don't think it will be. But I wouldn't be butt hurt if it was.
No matter how cynical you become, its never enough to keep up - Lily Tomlin