Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

Will it be full open-world PVP?

2456710

Comments

  • Yyrkoon_PoMYyrkoon_PoM Reseda, CAPosts: 150Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    From PAX East thread:

    [13:20-15:05] - Sandboxing
    Georgeson mentions his work on Tribes 2 and the original Planetside and his overall interest in Sandbox games. It is no surprise that EQNext will be a Sandbox game as Smedley has said as much on several occasions.
    "The thing about a Sandbox game is that the players can do anything they want to, and go in any path that they want to....This type of aspect has never been seriously pushed in an MMO -- letting people be completely freeform and be able to do the things that they want to do." He then talked about Google Glass and other wireless interfaces other than a keyboard and mouse which could be investigated for future games.

    So to me, a big part of being able to do whatever I want to do is being able to attack anyone in game. And before you say "But I want to unattackable." <--- That's more of a restriction than a freedom, so it doesn't fit.

    Here is the thing about sandboxes, everything must be in balance otherwise the game will be an empty place. If a grown man enters a sandbox an starts punting the little kids out (killing any player any time they want), without repercussion then all of a sudden the guy is alone in the sandbox. In the real world the guy would be arrested and the kids would get their sandbox back.

    The objective of a sandbox should be controlled chaos and not unbridled chaos. Uncontrolled Darwinism leads to the highlander situation in where there can be only one, and one is no longer a game. There is no "I have the freedom to do anything I want" kind of sandbox, because that is really just an empty room.

     

  • Storm_CloudStorm_Cloud MalmoPosts: 369Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by BadSpock
    Originally posted by strangiato2112
    Originally posted by BadSpock

    I hope it means that the PvE will be truly dynamic and non-instanced.

    I got tired of full open-world PvP in UO 13+ years ago - nothing new and innovative and different about that.

    The whole "open PvP makes our game dynamic" lie is a cop-out used to spend less time and mental energy developing good PvE content that isn't based off repetitive grinding.

    Unless EQN has fully dynamic systems/AI based PvE than nothing it does it going to be truly revolutionary or evolutionary.

    I dont think it has to be revolutinary.  If they applied pre-CU SWG to a Norrath setting (and didnt release it early) the game would do quite well.  If i were SoE that is *exactly* what i would do.

    I'm sorry but that is a horrible idea.

    SWG PvE was terribly grindy and simplistic.

    Crafting was good, but with a complete lack of dropped loot, the crafters gouged and raped the market w/o any controls or limitations. You either had to craft yourself to make money and buy from other crafters, or grind missions until your eyes bled.

    It was an awful, awful system.

    Housing was awful in SWG, really the only good parts of that game were the skill system (though 50% or more were broken or completely useless) and the TEF PvP flagging system.

    Combat, space, economy, housing, vehicles, mounts, quests, missions... all horrible.

    People DO remember why the CU and NGE happened right?

    WoW came out and everyone who hadn't already left did leave.

    My CE is sitting on a shelf in my parents basement as a reminder of poor game design and trying to do far, far too much without the manpower, money, and/or talent to pull it off.

    And it is OUR fault - the players - for not giving the devs time to sort things out.

    We were the ones who demanded vehicles and mounts and player housing and GCW and space etc. etc. etc. after launch before they had fixed / rebalanced any of the horrible issues.

    Game was half broken and buggy from the start, we rushed the devs into releasing new/more buggy half broken features instead of allowing the game time to mature and get the at-launch features polished.

    So yes, if I were SOE I'd pay attention to the history of SWG too.

    As a warning of exactly what NOT to do. Time and time again.

    From a poor launch to the WORST post-launch management I've ever seen in 13+ years of MMORPG gaming.

    I... I... I'm speechless...

    You are hating on everything that I loved about SWG. Except crafting of course which you stated that you liked.

    SWG was all about making your own content. Yes, so what if it involved grinding, it was part of the fun. Then NGE hit because of some vision someone had which completely ruined the game. And, they have admitted to that it was a misstake to implement it.

    I hope, that EQnext will be EQ1, EQ2, Vanguard and SWG (pre-cu) mixed into 1. All the goodies combined to make THE mmorpg that I hope most will love!

     

    Storm

  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,088Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by xeniar
    i have not been reading anything about EQnext yet but, i have seen 3 EQ's and apart from dueling their origins atleast have not had any PvP im not sure about now but wel.. why would EQnext have pvp at all?

    Everquest one had 3 different types of PvP server, PvP free for all, PvP teams (3 races a team) and PvP diety (depend on what god u worship). i would expect somthing similar to that in EQN

  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,088Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by cronius77
    Originally posted by satora54
    Originally posted by cronius77

    this is where I felt asherons call 2 really got it right. They had different types of servers of course but the most fun I had in that game was on the realm pvp server I forget the name now. You could basically attack anyone , anywhere that wasnt in your faction and the world around you was just mostly ruined small towns. A enhanced version of this would be a lot of fun where you have to rebuild the world but other players can also destroy it as well. The only main issue with this is many MANY everquest fans have no intention of doing any pvp at all and if you do not offer pve servers you can kiss any chance of making any money off this game goodbye. All you have to do is look at current sandbox pvp styled games like darkfall , mortal , Xsyon, shadowbane etc and see where all those are now.

    A server for factional pvp im sure will release with this game but I highly doubt they will not release pve servers also. Smed likes to troll for publicity . Thats why you seen the perma death trolling comments on his twitter , I would take anything that man says with a grain of salt , hes not going to kill his business making a only open world pvp game and risk losing half his staff to layoffs.

    And where are you getting this information about the Everquest PVP playerbase? 

    I played on Vallon Zek until the merge and we ALWAYS had a healthy population and enjoyed the PvP. 

    So don't speak for the Everquest Community.

    okay know it all who decided they couldnt be respectful with the topic at hand. Why does both EQ and EQ2 have WAY more pve servers than pvp?????? Oh yeah because Im stupid and do not know what im talking about yet played both games on and off for years. You can be rude all you wish and if you think that EQ next is going to be a full loot pvp game you are sadly mistaken. Just go look at ALL the other famous full loot pvp games out there and see where they are . Hell just take the pvp servers in just about every game out there but maybe eve and see how well that works out.

    We were throwing out ideas but instead you chose to be rude instead of offering even one sentence of substance.

    You may see the return of the old EQ PvP loot system though, you could lot all the coin on the player body+1 item or somthing along those lines.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by Yyrkoon_PoM
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    From PAX East thread:

    [13:20-15:05] - Sandboxing
    Georgeson mentions his work on Tribes 2 and the original Planetside and his overall interest in Sandbox games. It is no surprise that EQNext will be a Sandbox game as Smedley has said as much on several occasions.
    "The thing about a Sandbox game is that the players can do anything they want to, and go in any path that they want to....This type of aspect has never been seriously pushed in an MMO -- letting people be completely freeform and be able to do the things that they want to do." He then talked about Google Glass and other wireless interfaces other than a keyboard and mouse which could be investigated for future games.

    So to me, a big part of being able to do whatever I want to do is being able to attack anyone in game. And before you say "But I want to unattackable." <--- That's more of a restriction than a freedom, so it doesn't fit.

    Here is the thing about sandboxes, everything must be in balance otherwise the game will be an empty place. If a grown man enters a sandbox an starts punting the little kids out (killing any player any time they want), without repercussion then all of a sudden the guy is alone in the sandbox. In the real world the guy would be arrested and the kids would get their sandbox back.

    The objective of a sandbox should be controlled chaos and not unbridled chaos. Uncontrolled Darwinism leads to the highlander situation in where there can be only one, and one is no longer a game. There is no "I have the freedom to do anything I want" kind of sandbox, because that is really just an empty room.

     

    I think Ultima Online did a good job of this back in the day. When you murder someone and go "red" you can't go into towns without being attacked by guards.

    You can go ahead and choose to be a murderer but then you have to operate on the outskirts of society.

     

  • WaterlilyWaterlily parisPosts: 2,973Member Uncommon

    maybe it will have PVP but since 99% of the EQ players are strict PVE players there will be PVE only servers or alternatively PVP will just be possible while being able to "turn it off" if you don't want to PVP

    if you think this will be a PVP focused game, lol, good luck with that, this is EQ, not guild wars

    your open world pvp game is called ArcheAge

  • ComafComaf Chicago, ILPosts: 1,154Member Common

    Well -it's Sony and it's EQ - and from what I've recalled, it's all cornfield pvp.  Meaning, someone's leveling in a cornfield and a guy  comes by and ganks him.  That's not epic, it's not story worthy, you won't read random crap like that in fantasy novels - you'll read about nations vs nations, epic struggles...and drama.

     

    Coming from Dark Age of Camelot - eq's concept of pvp is the equivalent of watching Yo Gabba Gabba in order to find emmy winning drama.

     

    I will wait for youtube videos before I give my opinon, but I'm not holding my breath for this project's "fun" pvp.

    image
  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by Comaf

    Well -it's Sony and it's EQ - and from what I've recalled, it's all cornfield pvp.  Meaning, someone's leveling in a cornfield and a guy  comes by and ganks him.  That's not epic, it's not story worthy, you won't read random crap like that in fantasy novels - you'll read about nations vs nations, epic struggles...and drama.

     

    Coming from Dark Age of Camelot - eq's concept of pvp is the equivalent of watching Yo Gabba Gabba in order to find emmy winning drama.

     

    I will wait for youtube videos before I give my opinon, but I'm not holding my breath for this project's "fun" pvp.

    Cornfield PVP is part of a true sandbox though, isn't it? It's about having the freedom to choose to do that.

  • SebaliSebali Staten Island, NYPosts: 392Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Smedley said this is going to be the biggest sandbox MMO ever and most of the world - much of which will be player-created - can be destroyed... like the world you see today could be much different five days later...

    How can I destroy most of the world, including player creations, if other players aren't able to defend it?

    I see this being a game with lots of conflict between players, which is incredibly exciting - provided the combat is engaging enough. (e.g. action-based.)

    Remember - this is a parallel world to EQ1 and 2, which gives SOE license to turn the gameplay upside down.

     

    where r u getting all this info?

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by Sebali
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Smedley said this is going to be the biggest sandbox MMO ever and most of the world - much of which will be player-created - can be destroyed... like the world you see today could be much different five days later...

    How can I destroy most of the world, including player creations, if other players aren't able to defend it?

    I see this being a game with lots of conflict between players, which is incredibly exciting - provided the combat is engaging enough. (e.g. action-based.)

    Remember - this is a parallel world to EQ1 and 2, which gives SOE license to turn the gameplay upside down.

     

    where r u getting all this info?

    "You’ll be able to destroy, massive, massive parts of this world, almost all of it. You can light the forest on fire; we have ambition with this thing. We want it to be something where the world you log into, might not be the world you log into in five days. What you saw in WoW’s Cataclysm could take place because someone cast a spell that is powerful enough to do something major. We want it to be meaningful. And that’s what we’re building. It’s actually what we’ve built, because we’ve got this now. It just isn’t quite at the level where we’re OK [to reveal it to the public]. We have a story that we want to tell for the announcement of it, we want it that you’re seeing every aspect of the gameplay, we’re one aspect short of that until we’re ready to show, so we’re close now.”

    http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=30916&storypage=2

    This gets me super excited!!!!!!!!

  • EhliyaEhliya Washington, DCPosts: 199Member

    I have no problem with PVP and I hope it is widely allowed in EQ Next.

     

    HOWEVER...

     

    They need to find some way that it doesn't consume the entire game.  From the hints dropped so far, they plan on making a game that is not just about combat.  The problems come in managing people with names like DEthLoKK666 who believe the game is 100 percent about finding ways to use their PVP freedoms to prevent other players from enjoying the game.  If we learned anything from original UO, it is that a healthy game ecosystem flourishes with players of all types.  You need wolves, certainly.  But you need all the other animals too.  A game world made up of a just a bunch of cannibals is a game headed for low pop fringe status.

  • baphametbaphamet omaha, NEPosts: 2,836Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Comaf
    Well -it's Sony and it's EQ - and from what I've recalled, it's all cornfield pvp.  Meaning, someone's leveling in a cornfield and a guy  comes by and ganks him.  That's not epic, it's not story worthy, you won't read random crap like that in fantasy novels - you'll read about nations vs nations, epic struggles...and drama.

     

    Coming from Dark Age of Camelot - eq's concept of pvp is the equivalent of watching Yo Gabba Gabba in order to find emmy winning drama.

     

    I will wait for youtube videos before I give my opinon, but I'm not holding my breath for this project's "fun" pvp.


    EQ may have not have had a great pvp system in place like daoc did but the pvp was meaningful coming from someone who played on vallon zek (team pvp server in EQ)

    most of the pvp were battles for zone/camp control and the community had rules in place that if you lost you couldn't return to the zone for an hour.

    i never got ganked while on a mob or corpse camped and if i did i would just have to send a tell to that players guild leader/officer and that would put an end to it real quick.

    it was honorable pvp and you made a name for yourself if you were good.

    ive also seen some epic mass pvp battles in EQ where multiple guilds would fight over raid bosses or zones multiple guilds were farming.

    i think the alternate ruleset server model will be just fine in this game.

    there is little chance that they will force people to play in a ffa pvp world in an EQ game.

    that would piss off a large portion of their fan base. i do hope and think there will be a teams pvp and ffa pvp server as well as a RP server at least.

    but this isn't DU and if they made it like that it would be a mistake IMO


  • CasualMakerCasualMaker Somerset, NJPosts: 870Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by BadSpock
    Originally posted by strangiato2112
    Originally posted by BadSpock

    I hope it means that the PvE will be truly dynamic and non-instanced.

    I got tired of full open-world PvP in UO 13+ years ago - nothing new and innovative and different about that.

    The whole "open PvP makes our game dynamic" lie is a cop-out used to spend less time and mental energy developing good PvE content that isn't based off repetitive grinding.

    Unless EQN has fully dynamic systems/AI based PvE than nothing it does it going to be truly revolutionary or evolutionary.

    I dont think it has to be revolutinary.  If they applied pre-CU SWG to a Norrath setting (and didnt release it early) the game would do quite well.  If i were SoE that is *exactly* what i would do.

    I'm sorry but that is a horrible idea.

    snipped: assorted irrelevancy and some bald-faced lies

    From the context, I'm pretty sure he was talking about the PvP system in pre-CU SWG. And I fully agree that on a server not dedicated to PvP, that is the only style I would tolerate.

    It was fully consensual: if you wanted to PvP, you joined a faction. You could run covert if you wished, but you knew that you could be "outed" at any time by some NPCs and faction scanners. And if you wanted to help out a faction without actually taking the risk of joining it, then you acquired a TEF (Temporary Enemy Flag) while running their missions.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,260Member Uncommon
    it has to be.
  • EcocesEcoces Chicago, ILPosts: 879Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by Sebali
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Smedley said this is going to be the biggest sandbox MMO ever and most of the world - much of which will be player-created - can be destroyed... like the world you see today could be much different five days later...

    How can I destroy most of the world, including player creations, if other players aren't able to defend it?

    I see this being a game with lots of conflict between players, which is incredibly exciting - provided the combat is engaging enough. (e.g. action-based.)

    Remember - this is a parallel world to EQ1 and 2, which gives SOE license to turn the gameplay upside down.

     

    where r u getting all this info?

    "You’ll be able to destroy, massive, massive parts of this world, almost all of it. You can light the forest on fire; we have ambition with this thing. We want it to be something where the world you log into, might not be the world you log into in five days. What you saw in WoW’s Cataclysm could take place because someone cast a spell that is powerful enough to do something major. We want it to be meaningful. And that’s what we’re building. It’s actually what we’ve built, because we’ve got this now. It just isn’t quite at the level where we’re OK [to reveal it to the public]. We have a story that we want to tell for the announcement of it, we want it that you’re seeing every aspect of the gameplay, we’re one aspect short of that until we’re ready to show, so we’re close now.”

    http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=30916&storypage=2

    This gets me super excited!!!!!!!!

    ill beleive it when i see it, heard Anets claims that the world will be ever changing with their Dynamic events system too.

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by bcbully
    it has to be.

    Only because it is going to be sandbox doesn't mean it has to be open world PVP.  Both are not mutually exclusive.

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,423Member Uncommon

    There is no way Smedley is that dumb,he's not going to create a game that aloows you to annoy another player and destroy everything faster than they can build it.Nothing would ever get built,the game would be an empty mess of sloppy pvp,

    IMO if this is going to be a large game,it is all about land mass,he is going to allow plots to every player.This will no doubt be shrouded by a lot of cash shop ideas.Since SOE and Blizzard have done nothing but copy cat of late,i expect to see perhaps the Castle Seige ,seems that is the ongoing trend.I hate trends,i wish developers would think for themselves and be creative.

    How much creativity have we seen in either EQ game,almost none.When come out with new xpacs the only new idea was the mercs and the pack pony albeit thepony is not very useful unless you solo with no guild crafting box.Matter of fact SOE's trend has been to try and dumb down every single mechanic so it takes no effrot in the design.The yhave relagted stats in EQ2 all to Stamina and ONE stat.They removed some tiers in crafting as well as the mats.

    I simply do not see EQ:Next as being much of a creative effort.I see it going same old but createthat carrot to enforce cash shop.If SOE shows me some creativity "for once" i will probably fall out of my chair.


    Samoan Diamond

  • asdarasdar Tequesta, FLPosts: 662Member Common

    In EQ there were at least two world changing PvE events that I know of. One was the Coldain ring quest where the giants attacked and killed the dwarves if you lost, the other was in Luclin where the ownership of a whole area swapped factions depending on how a quest went. The giant one was temporary, but it lasted for quite a while, not just minutes.

    I can easily see a quest or failed attack on a boss leading to a whole forrest getting burned and staying burned until another quest gets completed or it lasts long enough time for the forrest to regrow. Whole NPC cities could change hands from dwarves to giants to dragons based on player actions that have nothing to do with PvP.

    While he did say that the world would change, I don't think he ever mentioned pvp so I don't think it's safe to assume that PvP is in or out.

    If it's in, I've always liked the idea of hiring guards for player built towns/houses/forts. I think that building something should take 1X effort and destroying that same thing should take 100X.

    Asdar

  • baphametbaphamet omaha, NEPosts: 2,836Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by asdar
    In EQ there were at least two world changing PvE events that I know of. One was the Coldain ring quest where the giants attacked and killed the dwarves if you lost, the other was in Luclin where the ownership of a whole area swapped factions depending on how a quest went. The giant one was temporary, but it lasted for quite a while, not just minutes.I can easily see a quest or failed attack on a boss leading to a whole forrest getting burned and staying burned until another quest gets completed or it lasts long enough time for the forrest to regrow. Whole NPC cities could change hands from dwarves to giants to dragons based on player actions that have nothing to do with PvP. While he did say that the world would change, I don't think he ever mentioned pvp so I don't think it's safe to assume that PvP is in or out.If it's in, I've always liked the idea of hiring guards for player built towns/houses/forts. I think that building something should take 1X effort and destroying that same thing should take 100X.

    don't forget about the sleeper

  • Riposte.ThisRiposte.This Toronto, ONPosts: 192Member

    I'm sure there will be both PVP and PVE servers like there is now, and I am sure there will have their level ranges like they have now. They got that stuff right forsure. Everquest 2 PVP combat is fantastic, especially the open world and the way they have it set up.

    My main hope is that they do not change the combat system to any of these new MMOs, where's it's very minimal attacks. EQ2 has a great combat system, without global cool downs, so I hope that they keep that forsure.

    Killing dragons is my shit

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member

    I think some of you are stuck on MMO conventions and what's been done in the past. I don't blame you, but consider the following..

    - Really rough quote from Director of Development for the EverQuest Franchise at SOE:

    "The MMO model we all know and love wasn't going to hit it out of the park...would just be another MMO, we couldn't keep going down that road. So we threw it all away, brought in original thinkers and made list of what we loved/hated about MMOs and shorted list of "holy grails" we always wanted to conquor. Picked and picked and picked at it until we found pillars people would lose their mind about, that they would look at it and go 'They're doing what?!!' And they'll want to play it."

    So in other words, everything we know about failed PVP need not apply here. If open-world PVP is one of the holy grails/pillars that's going to make people go "They're doing what?!!" then it's possible they're looking at a new and innovative way of implementing it that makes people want to play. I think for open-world PVP to work though it needs to be a design element which is factored into all the other elements, so like people said above, the rest of the population doesn't get eaten by the big bad wolves.

     

  • HedeonHedeon GraestedPosts: 954Member Uncommon

    hrm I must be the only one in this thread that didnt read/see anywhere, Smed saying that playermade buildings could be destroyed by players....reading the OP make me wonder if they mixed Archeage and EQN abit together?  destructable environment Ive heard about, but not buildings?

  • kjempffkjempff AarhusPosts: 882Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I see this being a game with lots of conflict between players, which is incredibly exciting - provided the combat is engaging enough. (e.g. action-based.)

    I really hope eq next will be nothing like that. We don't need another of those, you just go play one that is already out or will be out soon such as Archeage. Action based combat, I hope not.. or rather what I mean is, if you want paced combat rather than complex tactical combat mechanics, there are plenty games to pick from already - I hope Eqnext wont fall into that ditch.

    Hehe and just to disagree completely lol, I hope pvp will be very different from the usual griefer style that we .. again have in so many other games. So in short, I hope Eqnext will be different, we don't need more of the same. We shall see what it will be.

    One last thing, some think sandbox means free pvp, but that is just one kind of sandbox genre.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by kjempff
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    I see this being a game with lots of conflict between players, which is incredibly exciting - provided the combat is engaging enough. (e.g. action-based.)

    I really hope eq next will be nothing like that. We don't need another of those, you just go play one that is already out or will be out soon such as Archeage. Action based combat, I hope not.. or rather what I mean is, if you want paced combat rather than complex tactical combat mechanics, there are plenty games to pick from already - I hope Eqnext wont fall into that ditch.

    Hehe and just to disagree completely lol, I hope pvp will be very different from the usual griefer style that we .. again have in so many other games. So in short, I hope Eqnext will be different, we don't need more of the same. We shall see what it will be.

    One last thing, some think sandbox means free pvp, but that is just one kind of sandbox genre.

    It sounds like what you want IS more of the same.

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    My guess.

    It won't be as pve orientated as the prior EQ games. Mainly because they want it to be different and smedley is a know big fan of eve.

    What I think they might do is blend a mix of daoc and eve for pvp.

    E.g.
    Most of the world is pve flagged.
    But they have a large area that is pvp flagged with keep battles and such as in daoc.
    But it won't be fictional warfare, guilds claim keeps and fight it out. Also probably have ability to build bases and permenantly destroy them.

    Basicly I think like what they are planning to do in ps2 with the sandbox continent feature that's in the roadmap. They are using ps2 to try stuff out for EQn, including the actual game engine and how the f2p will work.
This discussion has been closed.