It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
In a game called Shadowbane, you could build and destroy other peoples cities. People built these cities near areas they enjoyed to farm etc. In order for the city to be destroyed, an opposing player / city would have to put a "bane" on your city. It was a huge rock that had a glow and was just outside of your city. You could discuss with the opposing players why they want to siege, and maybe resolve a conflict diplomatically, or you could set a time for the siege to go live ( by interfacing with the Bane / rock outside of your city). There was a time window as well, I don't remember but it might have been 3 hours or so.
The eventual downfall and overall boredom came to the game when massive alliances were formed, however, up until that point it was very fun and there were lots of politics involved.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Let's see western mmos by concurrent players 1 Wow - mostly pve Benefited from coming out at the right time, with a boatload of legacy fandom to kickstart it (to steal a phrase) 2 gw2 - about 2/3rds pve B2P is attractive for a lot of people, as is WvW. The game's strength is still its PVE content 3 ps2 - all pvp Appeals to the Battlefield/COD demographic with its subject matter, thereby attracting people who likely have no interest in a fantasy-based PVP deathmatch (see the relatively low numbers in Darkfall for proof) 4 eve - mostly pvp A game unlike any other game out there. Extremely niche and would be hard to pull off in any other setting than the one in which it already exists.
Below them a bunch of mostly pve games that clone wow. Wow has the pve market sewn up. The 3 most successful mmos after wow are considerably more pvp orientated.
Different game settings also contribute to their successes.
If EQ3 turned out to be full loot FFA PVP, my prediction is that the PVEers will say "Eh, no thanks. I'll stick with EQ2 (or go to a new PVE game)". It might attract the Darkfall crowd in the meantime, turning the game into a barren shithole with maybe 50,000 players and server merges within a month or two of release.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Originally posted by ShakyMo Let's see western mmos by concurrent players 1 Wow - mostly pve 2 gw2 - about 2/3rds pve 3 ps2 - all pvp 4 eve - mostly pvp Below them a bunch of mostly pve games that clone wow. Wow has the pve market sewn up. The 3 most successful mmos after wow are considerably more pvp orientated.
Notice you arent mentioning SWTOR which certainly has more concurrent than EvE given their subs are almost even. Im also quite skeptical as to ps2 being that high of a population. And of course Neverwinter is up there too, at least at the moment while its new.
Also, the PvE sandbox is much more wide open and PvErs are getting very, very annoyed at all sandboxes being PvP.
Originally posted by strangiato2112 Im in the camp that hopes there are no PvP servers or even PvP options. That way they dont have to devote any time whatsoever to it. this is how EQ1 ended up once they saw that the market was overwhelmingly PvE
Smedley already said people wanting open world PVP are going to be very happy with EQNext, so there goes your hope.
PvP was a niche market 10 years ago, today it is an overwhelming majority compared to PvE.
People need to get with the times.
Originally posted by Kost PvP was a niche market 10 years ago, today it is an overwhelming majority compared to PvE. People need to get with the times.
Care to share your statistical data?
God I miss Zek. Wars between Black Prophecy, Hate, and Tides of Wrath outside the overthere and misty thicket
They will surely have different server types. PvE, PvP, RP, HC (I hope, with full loot etc.).
I don't wanna get too hyped up for this one though, knowing SOE and seeing how they're already shooting themselves in the foot with their arrogant pre reveal claims... I wouldn't be surprised if this just turned out to be one big disappointment.
But here's trying to stay positive and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Open world PvP is not something the majority of MMO players want. Just because you are the loudest does not make you the greater percentage. You have doubts? Look at any games pvp servers.... They are the minorities.
Originally posted by swedago Open world PvP is not something the majority of MMO players want. Just because you are the loudest does not make you the greater percentage. You have doubts? Look at any games pvp servers.... They are the minorities.
WoW has a ton of pvp servers. Even on the pve servers people are running bgs and arenas. WoW is constantly tweaking pvp and they add new pvp features each xpac because it's important to many players. PvP is a huge part of the most successful mmo ever.
EVE online, which is a hardcore pvp sandbox, is a huge success and continues growing almost 10 years after release.
MMO players love pvp. It's not niche. You're just ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about. The question of whether people like pvp or not is not a matter of opinion. The facts are the facts. And yes, EQN is gonna have pvp. It's gonna be open world. And you're just gonna have to deal with it , Newbert.
Originally posted by Dudehog Originally posted by swedago Open world PvP is not something the majority of MMO players want. Just because you are the loudest does not make you the greater percentage. You have doubts? Look at any games pvp servers.... They are the minorities.
Not all PvP is created equal. I loathe the idea of open world FFA PvP, but I also loved battlegrounds when I used to play WoW. Hell, I even enjoyed the old school Tarren Mill vs. Southshore melees. But I played on a PvE server, where PvP meant you chose to flag up and roll with it, and battlegrounds are obviously all about PvP.
It was consentual PvP, where I had the power to choose not to participate when all I wanted to do at any given moment was run quests or farm mats. That's what sticks in the craw of the hardcore PVPer. Unless you get your free for all always-on PVP, your ability to piss people off is drastically reduced.
Personally, I'm all for that.
EVE is a success and in comparison with the size of the original company and its current state it could be said to be a huge success. but only in comparison with its origins, not in comparison with other games.
PvP servers in most of the games i have played over the years have contained a minority population. they tend to be some of the first to be shut down as a game's community begins to shrink.
there is no way SOE is going to bank the success of its longest lasting and most popular IP solely on FFA PvP, let alone full loot. having said that, there is most definitely a market for this. even a niche market is still one worth paying attention to especially in this case where FFA PvP'rs have been dying for a worthwhile game that allowed them the fun they want to have.
just as it would make no sense for EQNext to have nothing but FFA PvP it would also make absolutely no sense for them not to at least try to cater to this market by offering servers dedicated to FFA PvP.
i don't think this is an either/or situation. it seems obvious to me, and hopefully to SOE, that both communities can be served with the same game. but we shall see.
"There are at least two kinds of games.One could be called finite, the other infinite.A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Originally posted by aspekx EVE is a success and in comparison with the size of the original company and its current state it could be said to be a huge success. but only in comparison with its origins, not in comparison with other games.
Wrong. EVE has 500k paying subscribers. SWTOR, for example, has less than 500k paying subscribers. EVE is a hit compared to any other mmo out there (excluding WoW obviously). This is a fact, not opinion. I can't understand why people make these statements when we all have access to Google and can look up the actual numbers.
Originally posted by Panther2103 Originally posted by Bidwood Originally posted by General_Dru-Zod I certainly dont mind having my buildings / housing destroyed .. however if im offline and a wake up the next morning and its all gone in a matter of just a few hours then its a problem ... I believe some type of offline defence is in order and also it shouldnt take 3 seconds to totally destruct my creations ..
I think the most effective "offline defence" in the world I described above is... you build partnerships with other players and they fend off attackers.
Thats not very assuring.. I hope they have some kind of system set up other than "Hey bro, watch my stuff".
I'm just pulling this out of my ass - it seems to fit in with the theme of letting players decide what happens.. what would you propose? Being able to set up NPC defenses?
I think that is a good idea. Either that or just make things that are invulnerable for a certain period of time while offline (to prevent people just creating something then never logging in again).
Well they will probably use some kind of phasing I imagine, who knows there are plenty of options today. However when I played UO you could get your property stolen when you were off.
On another note I find it humorous that your "idea" would basically take the last 15 years of mmo development, ignore it and just use game rules from Usurper BBS.
If it does not have Open world free pvp, it is not, and will not, can never be called sandbox.
Open free form, player harrasment is part of a sandbox experience.,
Pve players can go play themepark games, it fits the "pve" crowd.
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
Originally posted by fardreamer If it does not have Open world free pvp, it is not, and will not, can never be called sandbox. Open free form, player harrasment is part of a sandbox experience., Pve players can go play themepark games, it fits the "pve" crowd.
Just because previous sandboxes have had un-consensual PvP, does not mean that the two are mutually inclusive. You can most certainly have a sandbox without PvP.
In fact, the inclusion of un-consensual PvP is probably the main reason for the commercial failings of most sandbox games. I doubt SoE will bank its biggest IP on a proven failure. If they have it, it will be on a segregated server.
When I was a kid playing in the sandbox at the neighborhood park, I don't recall ever seeing anyone killing someone and taking their stuff. Societal mores prevented that from happening, because it just isn't something that's done, and if it ever DID happen, serious life-altering consequences would fall on the perpetrator.
The problem with FFA, full loot PVP is that there is no real danger for the PKer in the game space. Societal mores take a back seat to internet sociopathy. There's no consequence, other than the off chance the victim has friends bigger and badder than the PKer. In the real world, we call that "law enforcement", and there's no analogue in an MMO. Archeage is tackling the problem in a curious way, and it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.
When FFA PVP games provide a way for the lone player to level the playing field a bit against a gank squad, then I'll join the chorus. For now, as long as SOE includes a PVE server, preferably with enforced RP rules and the ability to engage in consensual PVP, I'll be happy.