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!

Comments made by Smedley that point towards open world PVP in Everquest Next

24

Comments

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Just look at Smedley's quote. He is basically saying the game will be harsh and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere.
     

    It reminds me of the wheel of time books when they talk about the Aes Sedai and say "they might tell you the truth but it's not the truth you are thinking".

    He doesn't say "how" this harsh environment will manifest itself.  There can be a pve harsh environment. What you have to prove is how what he says solely points to pure pvp. And it doesn't.

    Just because he agrees that a sandbox game has to have open pvp doesn't mean that the game is going to be a ffa pvp game. It could mean that "he agrees" but that "unfortunatley" the game will be a mix. Or, it could mean that he agrees that the open pvp (however that is implemented) will bring out the full potential of a sandbox game, but that doesn't mean  there won't be other solely pve game play for the legions of fans who expect it.

    You know, Tera has open pvp on its pve servers "if" your guild accepts war or declares an accepted war.

    While everyone else stays out of it. It's still open pvp.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by Shadus

    They'll have pvp servers and they'll have pve servers. Same as eq1, eq2, etc. Or they'll do the overt/covert system like swg. It's not going to be wide free open world pvp with no kind of consent system... that's game suicide.

    Tell that to Planetside 2.

    Does Planetside 2 have a legion of solely  pve fans that span over a decade?

    When Smedley says EQNext will be completely different than EQ1/EQ2 and it is not suppose to replace either, what makes you think they want to cater to those fanbases?

    How does making a different game mean they won't cater to their fanbases?

    They can cater to their fanbases and still bring them a new, expanded experience.

    That's the problem with people, a few people say a few things and ONCE AGAIN the players imbue it with their own take on the matter.

    This site is so lousy with this type of thinking. and yet, once again, come August 2nd, the full extent of what the game will bring will be announced and people will start crying foul and liar and a whole slew of things and it wont' be any one's fault but there own.

    I've said it and a few others have said it: SMED is taken with EVE. Is EVE like EQ or EQ2? No. I see a strong possibility that EQ Next will have similarities allowing for the different play styles to live side by side.

    And as I've said, I'll eat my hat if it's a pure pvp game. But it won't be.

    And we'll know soon.

    EQ2 shows what happens when you change a formula and expect to appeal to a previous game's fanbase. They simply do not play it. Most of these players only want very specific very obscure things that have absolutely no chance of ever being in EQNext or they won't play it. Just look at the threads on experience penalties, grind, and long level times.

    EVE is not a pure PVP game. However, PVP is a major pillar on which EVE is built upon.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
     

    EQ2 shows what happens when you change a formula and expect to appeal to a previous game's fanbase. They simply do not play it. Most of these players only want very specific very obscure things that have absolutely no chance of ever being in EQNext or they won't play it. Just look at the threads on experience penalties, grind, and long level times.

    EVE is not a pure PVP game. However, PVP is a major pillar on which EVE is built upon.

    And? It still doesn't point to a purely pvp game. Regardless of "how" the pve manifests itself. Didn't EQ and EQ2 have pvp and pve servers? Are you saying that the "harsh" pve elements wont' be considered but the "harsh" pvp elements will? It just sounds to me like you are picking your side and then adapting the negligible evidence to support it.

    Are there not pvp eq and eq2 players? If EQ Next is changing the formula then don't those pvp players risk losing interest in EQ Next?

    I don't understand the point of your last line. I don't believe EQ next will be a purely pvp game. That's what I'm saying.  I do believe it will have something in common with EVE and allow for multiple playstyles.

  • GrailerGrailer HamiltonPosts: 876Member Uncommon

    I want PvE servers that have ZERO PvP .

     

    and PvP servers that are totally cut throat where you are could get killed in towns even and no where is safe.

    Although the guards should keep the peace and attack people who are murderers .  but not instant kill guards like UO .

     

     

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
     

    EQ2 shows what happens when you change a formula and expect to appeal to a previous game's fanbase. They simply do not play it. Most of these players only want very specific very obscure things that have absolutely no chance of ever being in EQNext or they won't play it. Just look at the threads on experience penalties, grind, and long level times.

    EVE is not a pure PVP game. However, PVP is a major pillar on which EVE is built upon.

    And? It still doesn't point to a purely pvp game. Regardless of "how" the pve manifests itself. Didn't EQ and EQ2 have pvp and pve servers? Are you saying that the "harsh" pve elements wont' be considered but the "harsh" pvp elements will? It just sounds to me like you are picking your side and then adapting the negligible evidence to support it.

    Are there not pvp eq and eq2 players? If EQ Next is changing the formula then don't those pvp players risk losing interest in EQ Next?

    I don't understand the point of your last line. I don't believe EQ next will be a purely pvp game. That's what I'm saying.  I do believe it will have something in common with EVE and allow for multiple playstyles.

    I am saying that they have zero plans to cater to the EQ1/EQ2 crowd. The quotes I posted in my original post shows the very possibility of PVP being a pillar of EQNext. The argument that it won't be simply because it is an EQ game is ridiculous when Smedley has repeatedly talked about how EQNext is going to be nothing like EQ1 and EQ2.

    When Smedley say:

    "I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have. EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system. You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it. In EverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making."

    I believe he means it. Everquest 1 and Everquest 2 both exemplified the get loot and level type of gameplay and Everquest Next won't.

  • quseioquseio stevens, PAPosts: 222Member

    The pvp trolls are not gunna stop sayin its gunna be  ONLY ganksfest open world pvp, till it goes beta and proves them wrong

     i could live with frontiers or battle grounds as long as im not forced into it for quests like epics and such as long as iconic places are not part of pvp if places like  cazic or everfrost where pvp zones id be seriously pissed but you could have your plane of war xx new zone and whatnot pvp zones( or pvp instance versions of it) say your flagged for pvp you enter a pvp version of it both are  "real as in permenent" just one is for pvp

     dont get me wrong i like pvp exteel was great fun but it was not a mmo it was fps,nwn does pvp ok for a mmo except for the severely limited pvp maps theres only 2 and imo one sucks well i havent done the gvg pvp map yet

    the kind of pvp i like doesnt exactly lend its self to communitys its far to fast paced to chat at all their voip sucks

  • quseioquseio stevens, PAPosts: 222Member

    "I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have. EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system. You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it. In EverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making."

    I believe he means it. Everquest 1 and Everquest 2 both exemplified the get loot and level type of gameplay and Everquest Next won't.

    smedly is just stirring up hype alot of what he says is meaningless without information, the only  concrete thjing hes said is we  wil be able to start forest fires so we can assume well be able to destroy buidings cause earthquakes and stuff how that stuff happens ?  id ont know i dont see players being able to just cast fireball and starting  a entire forest on fire or casting quake and destroying a town

     

    Do you really think smed would misss out on people who want nothing to do with pvp? as   people have said b4 their will be  pvp servers or battlegrounds we wont have to enter and can avoid anything else is   silly

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member

    One of the most telling Smedley quotes is this one:

    "We want them to… Not make their own fun. We’re going to make our games amazingly fun. We want them to be able to make things we didn’t think of fun. That’s really what it is. I mentioned Hulkageddon, I love that in EVE. That’s just players putting bounties on something. It’s nothing. That’s all it is. But that’s as fun as anything in EVE. More fun if you ask me. It’s amazingly fun."

    Hulkageddon is a player PVP event in EVE where players are given prizes to go into highsec and gank defenseless mining ships. Those in highsec are the ones trying to avoid pvp because it is the safest region. People that want PVE would for all accounts describe this event as just pure griefing. Yet Smedley calls it 'amazingly fun'.

  • dandurindandurin Santa Clara, CAPosts: 493Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    One of the most telling Smedley quotes is this one:

    "We want them to… Not make their own fun. We’re going to make our games amazingly fun. We want them to be able to make things we didn’t think of fun. That’s really what it is. I mentioned Hulkageddon, I love that in EVE. That’s just players putting bounties on something. It’s nothing. That’s all it is. But that’s as fun as anything in EVE. More fun if you ask me. It’s amazingly fun."

    Hulkageddon is a player PVP event in EVE where players are given prizes to go into highsec and gank mining ships. By all accounts those in highsec are the ones trying to avoid pvp because it is the safest region. People that want PVE would for all accounts describe this event is just pure griefing. Yet Smedley calls it 'amazingly fun'.

    I thought the point of Hulkageddon was that highsec miners were extensively botting and this was a fun way to clean up that little wart.

     

    My understanding was that if you weren't AFK it would be fairly easy to avoid being victimized.

     

    So perhaps this was "griefing", but primarily against people who weren't playing in the spirit of the game.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by dandurin
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    One of the most telling Smedley quotes is this one:

    "We want them to… Not make their own fun. We’re going to make our games amazingly fun. We want them to be able to make things we didn’t think of fun. That’s really what it is. I mentioned Hulkageddon, I love that in EVE. That’s just players putting bounties on something. It’s nothing. That’s all it is. But that’s as fun as anything in EVE. More fun if you ask me. It’s amazingly fun."

    Hulkageddon is a player PVP event in EVE where players are given prizes to go into highsec and gank mining ships. By all accounts those in highsec are the ones trying to avoid pvp because it is the safest region. People that want PVE would for all accounts describe this event is just pure griefing. Yet Smedley calls it 'amazingly fun'.

    I thought the point of Hulkageddon was that highsec miners were extensively botting and this was a fun way to clean up that little wart.

     

    My understanding was that if you weren't AFK it would be fairly easy to avoid being victimized.

     

    So perhaps this was "griefing", but primarily against people who weren't playing in the spirit of the game.

    Nope, it isn't just mining ships they go after either. It's freighters and industrial ships. It's just that mining ships are the easiest to take down so they are the targets for the prizes. There are even tips to try and outfit your ship to defend against it. It just doesn't work out too well for them. Guilds have tried to setup unified defenses against it as well, but the games play on.

  • dandurindandurin Santa Clara, CAPosts: 493Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by dandurin
     

    So perhaps this was "griefing", but primarily against people who weren't playing in the spirit of the game.

    Nope, it isn't just mining ships they go after either. It's freighters and industrial ships. It's just that mining ships are the easiest to take down so they are the targets that are awarded for prizes. There are even tips to try and outfit your ship to defend against it. It just doesn't work out too well for them. Guilds have tried to setup unified defenses against it as well, but the games play on.

    Well, so you say, but the name is "Hulkageddon" for a reason, and the organizer had specific goals for creating it.

     

    Helicity Boson's posts are public record.  Here's one:

     

    Very good! You studied, adapted, and overcame. You are the kind of player that belongs in EVE. We’ve killed almost 800 ships now, and very few have even sent a hatemail or talked in local, in many cases the pods were present in the belt up to 5 hours later. This lead me to conclude they were one of three things:
    1) nowhere near their computer
    2) bots
    3) not educated enough to find out who killed them.

    People like you were never the target :)

     

    I'm sure the pure griefers join in and seek to gank everything in sight, but you don't know that that's what Smedley likes about the event.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by dandurin
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by dandurin
     

    So perhaps this was "griefing", but primarily against people who weren't playing in the spirit of the game.

    Nope, it isn't just mining ships they go after either. It's freighters and industrial ships. It's just that mining ships are the easiest to take down so they are the targets that are awarded for prizes. There are even tips to try and outfit your ship to defend against it. It just doesn't work out too well for them. Guilds have tried to setup unified defenses against it as well, but the games play on.

    Well, so you say, but the name is "Hulkageddon" for a reason, and the organizer had specific goals for creating it.

     

    Helicity Boson's posts are public record.  Here's one:

     

    Very good! You studied, adapted, and overcame. You are the kind of player that belongs in EVE. We’ve killed almost 800 ships now, and very few have even sent a hatemail or talked in local, in many cases the pods were present in the belt up to 5 hours later. This lead me to conclude they were one of three things:
    1) nowhere near their computer
    2) bots
    3) not educated enough to find out who killed them.

    People like you were never the target :)

     

    I'm sure the pure griefers join in and seek to gank everything in sight, but you don't know that that's what Smedley likes about the event.

    We know it's an absolutely hated event among people who stay in highsec. Just read the rage in the threads over it.

  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member

    Maybe we finally get Darkfall/Mortal Online type gameplay with a triple A budget?

    that would be too good to be true. Non consensual PvP as social interaction driver

    I´m sick of the people ruining MMOs who demand their "only pve" playstyle.

    Not a single high budget realistic MMO out there except EvE.

     

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member

    The only argument against having a PVP pillar in EQNext is that the PVE-only crowd doesn't want it. That's not a very good argument, and probably wouldn't be from the point of view of SOE. They already have four or five popular PVE MMORPGs and a PVP MMOFPS that is now higher in player base than all of them. Why wouldn't they want a PVP MMORPG in their portfolio?

    I don't want Darkfall Online/Mortal Online gameplay, those games are horrible.

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 848Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The only argument against having a PVP pillar in EQNext is that the PVE-only crowd doesn't want it. That's not a very good argument, and probably wouldn't be from the point of view of SOE. They already have four or five popular PVE MMORPGs and a PVP MMOFPS that is now higher in player base than all of them. Why wouldn't they want a PVP MMORPG in their portfolio?

    I don't want Darkfall Online/Mortal Online gameplay, those games are horrible.

    Your opinion of the strength of the "PvE only crowd does not want it" argument is just that an opinion based on your preference for PvP.  The question you should be asking yourself  is what audience is SOE starting their marketing campaign with?

    The answer is their loyalest fans at FanFaire  andaudience that will be almost entirely PvP players and Everquest die hards. I really think if they where launching a PvP MMORPG that they would have picked a different audience for their initial launch.

  • hMJemhMJem Marysville, WAPosts: 465Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The only argument against having a PVP pillar in EQNext is that the PVE-only crowd doesn't want it. That's not a very good argument, and probably wouldn't be from the point of view of SOE. They already have four or five popular PVE MMORPGs and a PVP MMOFPS that is now higher in player base than all of them. Why wouldn't they want a PVP MMORPG in their portfolio?

    I don't want Darkfall Online/Mortal Online gameplay, those games are horrible.

    I don't think there is anything stopping players from farming monsters all they want in EQN. I think the general way you have fun is what they want to change. 

     

    Now, I've never played games like EVE/SWG, so I have no idea on this -- Call me a Sandbox newb, but is there even going to be PvE end-game? Like, a raid? This might sound newb, but it sounds like the combat is going to be pretty similar to what we're used to in MMOs -- And besides game knowledge, a lot of the time gear is the deciding factor.. So how are you going to get the best gear in the game? Same way as most MMOs? How do Sandbox games do the gear obtaining?

     

    Also, SOE or Dave Georgeson or someone commented before that the current way MMORPG's are played is not sustainable. The "grind the raid, beg for expansion" has a game booming then dying. But part of me still wants the ability to raid.. I am fully confident in what EQN is going to do though. I've never completed the hardest raid of an MMORPG so im no raiding elitist, but some form of end-game PvE would be nice. And in all technicality, besides WoW, its true. You have to be willing to have content patches every month or two to keep up with end-game. Because ultimately, when you get to max level/max "skillcap" people want things to do when they "max" their character. i personally am doubtful of how ESO can release without any raids and keep its userbase.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by hMJem
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The only argument against having a PVP pillar in EQNext is that the PVE-only crowd doesn't want it. That's not a very good argument, and probably wouldn't be from the point of view of SOE. They already have four or five popular PVE MMORPGs and a PVP MMOFPS that is now higher in player base than all of them. Why wouldn't they want a PVP MMORPG in their portfolio?

    I don't want Darkfall Online/Mortal Online gameplay, those games are horrible.

    I don't think there is anything stopping players from farming monsters all they want in EQN. I think the general way you have fun is what they want to change. 

     

    Now, I've never played games like EVE/SWG, so I have no idea on this -- Call me a Sandbox newb, but is there even going to be PvE end-game? Like, a raid? This might sound newb, but it sounds like the combat is going to be pretty similar to what we're used to in MMOs -- And besides game knowledge, a lot of the time gear is the deciding factor.. So how are you going to get the best gear in the game? Same way as most MMOs? How do Sandbox games do the gear obtaining?

     

    Also, SOE or Dave Georgeson or someone commented before that the current way MMORPG's are played is not sustainable. The "grind the raid, beg for expansion" has a game booming then dying. But part of me still wants the ability to raid.. I am fully confident in what EQN is going to do though. I've never completed the hardest raid of an MMORPG so im no raiding elitist, but some form of end-game PvE would be nice. And in all technicality, besides WoW, its true. You have to be willing to have content patches every month or two to keep up with end-game. Because ultimately, when you get to max level/max "skillcap" people want things to do when they "max" their character. i personally am doubtful of how ESO can release without any raids and keep its userbase.

    Smedley said that high level content such as raids won't disappear entirely, but he also said that EQNext won't have the loot progression system which is the fundamental building blocks of what most people consider raiding. So I assume we will see something like it, but not in the same form that we are used to. No idea what that would be.

  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The only argument against having a PVP pillar in EQNext is that the PVE-only crowd doesn't want it. That's not a very good argument, and probably wouldn't be from the point of view of SOE. They already have four or five popular PVE MMORPGs

     exactly, the Pve-only type players have always been pandered, time for this to end, they have countless MMOs to choose from, so let´s not ruin EQnext too with the same PvE - PVP splitting paradigms.

    I sincerely hope EQ Next won´t be a MMO for "EVERYONE" 

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The only argument against having a PVP pillar in EQNext is that the PVE-only crowd doesn't want it. That's not a very good argument, and probably wouldn't be from the point of view of SOE. They already have four or five popular PVE MMORPGs and a PVP MMOFPS that is now higher in player base than all of them. Why wouldn't they want a PVP MMORPG in their portfolio?

    I don't want Darkfall Online/Mortal Online gameplay, those games are horrible.

     

    I have yet to see a person in favor of PvE state that PvP shouldn't even be in EQN but rather PvP be on another server.  That is a good argument.  In PvP the other players are the content and as such should get to choose if they want to be there.  A mob does not care if you kill them over and over as they try to attack NPC but the players are actual people, they do care if they are killed over and over trying to enjoy an MMO.  SoE with their years of experence over many titles knows this.

     

    Everquest isn't just another one of their IPs.... It is THE IP of SoE.  I would be stunned by their utter stupidity if they aren't trying to steal the crown with EQN.  The market is saturated with linear themeparks that a lot of people are tired of.  This is the opportunity for them to bring something different, something new that will grip people and make up for '04.  For many people, more so than not, this doesn't include being killed over and over exploring the world.

  • hMJemhMJem Marysville, WAPosts: 465Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Originally posted by ice-vortex

    The only argument against having a PVP pillar in EQNext is that the PVE-only crowd doesn't want it. That's not a very good argument, and probably wouldn't be from the point of view of SOE. They already have four or five popular PVE MMORPGs and a PVP MMOFPS that is now higher in player base than all of them. Why wouldn't they want a PVP MMORPG in their portfolio?

    I don't want Darkfall Online/Mortal Online gameplay, those games are horrible.

     

    I have yet to see a person in favor of PvE state that PvP shouldn't even be in EQN but rather PvP be on another server.  That is a good argument.  In PvP the other players are the content and as such should get to choose if they want to be there.  A mob does not care if you kill them over and over as they try to attack NPC but the players are actual people, they do care if they are killed over and over trying to enjoy an MMO.  SoE with their years of experence over many titles knows this.

     

    Everquest isn't just another one of their IPs.... It is THE IP of SoE.  I would be stunned by their utter stupidity if they aren't trying to steal the crown with EQN.  The market is saturated with linear themeparks that a lot of people are tired of.  This is the opportunity for them to bring something different, something new that will grip people and make up for '04.  For many people, more so than not, this doesn't include being killed over and over exploring the world.

    Assuming Everquest Next is trying to change the mold of MMOs -- I dont even understand how a PvE and PvP server would be close to the same game. It sounds like EQN is blowing the minds of people who saw it. It sounds like EQN isnt going to be a hardcore raiding pve type game -- And I doubt they are willing to make the "Sandbox game" for PvP servers and "Your end-game PvE oriented game" for PvE servers. The easiest way to be unsuccessful is to try to please everybody.. Everquest 1 didnt try to please everybody. They are trying to CHANGE the culture, the way the genre is played much like they did with EQ1.

  • krulerkruler PerthPosts: 340Member Uncommon

    My memory may be getting a bit dim, as this was the first few years of EQ1, but didn't they try to merge pve with pvp via the priests of discord, and red flagging, it failed big time, and they stuck with the pvp server.

    However in theory what they did then was sound, just the market wasn't ready for it.

    I may be wrong I am really drawing on old memories here.

     

    There is no God, there is no Devil, nor Angels and Demons, there is only us, surely thats bad enough, for no creature is able to commit such acts of hate and love, sometimes in the same day.

  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member
    Originally posted by hMJem
    The easiest way to be unsuccessful is to try to please everybody.. .

     so true my favourite Bill Cosby quote

  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member
    If they announce unconsensual PvP in August, the backlash will be the biggest thing you have seen since Xbone.  I have no doubt that they will have PvP enabled areas, but full open-world PvP? Not likely, and if they do, they will soon do a 180.
  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by evilastro
    If they announce unconsensual PvP in August, the backlash will be the biggest thing you have seen since Xbone.  I have no doubt that they will have PvP enabled areas, but full open-world PvP? Not likely, and if they do, they will soon do a 180.

    Without the item progression of a typical themepark, this game isn't going to appeal to your typical PVE player so the rage will be kind of pointless.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Funny how whenever Smedley basically confirms the PVP, the PVE folks result to attack on his character. "He's just lying again !"

    Wake up people... he is the boss and makes the decisions. And by the looks of it he isn't afraid to make decisions that piss off fans of the existing games.

    Btw ice vortex I agree those games aren't perfect ... but I do wanna see a really dynamic action combat system. That pvp wouldn't be fun if I could only defend myself with my level. There has to be some element of twitch skill in landing the kill or escaping from an enemy. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.