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

13

Comments

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,908Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zergy
    Wonder if it'll be like in SWG, stay neutral if you don't want to pvp, or join a faction and then either be covert or overt, was a great system imo.

    ^^^ My speculation rests here, could be wishful thinking, could be wrong, won't be disappointed if it's not the case, I just hope it is. Haven't seen a more rational way to handle PVP in an MMO. Also the big plus is no need for different server rules etc..

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,455Member 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.

    But saying that this game will have open pvp is not a good argument for those who "think" that means "FFA PvP". Which is what I've gottem from several players on this forum.

    As I've said, Tera has open pvp on the pve servers. If players align themselves with guilds that do it.

    The argument that pve players won't want to do it is very valid because they make up a large amount of the EQ fanbase and given the amount of money that seems to be spent on this game (assuing a AAA game costs a lot of money AND they have restarted it several times AND  they are going for something different, including buying a company that specializes in these "story bricks", I can't imagine from a business standpoint that they are going to turn away over 50% of their customer base.

    This will be a different game but those players who think that "ahhhh finally a AAA sandbox ffa pvp game with "forced pvp are going to be highly dissapointed.

    and they have no one to blame but themselves. But we'll see in a month and change.

  • superscott99superscott99 Benton, ARPosts: 13Member
    You're not going to be able to gank newbs in this game.  The suits are not dumb enough to let that happen. Those days in a mass-market AAA are gone.
  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Common
    I'm expecting PVE and PVP servers -- but i dont know
  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    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.

    But saying that this game will have open pvp is not a good argument for those who "think" that means "FFA PvP". Which is what I've gottem from several players on this forum.

    As I've said, Tera has open pvp on the pve servers. If players align themselves with guilds that do it.

    The argument that pve players won't want to do it is very valid because they make up a large amount of the EQ fanbase and given the amount of money that seems to be spent on this game (assuing a AAA game costs a lot of money AND they have restarted it several times AND  they are going for something different, including buying a company that specializes in these "story bricks", I can't imagine from a business standpoint that they are going to turn away over 50% of their customer base.

    This will be a different game but those players who think that "ahhhh finally a AAA sandbox ffa pvp game with "forced pvp are going to be highly dissapointed.

    and they have no one to blame but themselves. But we'll see in a month and change.

    Well I never said open PVP means FFA PVP. I think it could be any kind of open PVP which includes faction based, FFA, or a mix of the two. It could also mean anything from full loot to no loot. However, everything that Smedley has said has pointed towards an actual open PVP. The PVP side of the argument is actually going by what Smedley has said while people who think it will be PVE are only going on hopes and dreams.

    They never bought Storybricks btw, they are only licensing it and the developer to help with the development of EQNext.

    If you think a PVP MMORPG sandbox will have a small customer base, try a PVE MMORPG sandbox game.

    The sheer fact that players can destroy almost all of Norrath and build within Norrath sends the message quite clear that it has to be fundamentally built around PVP. You can't let players destroy stuff other players have built and not have PVP.

  • AntariousAntarious Greenville, SCPosts: 2,802Member
    Originally posted by DocBrody
    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" 

     

    It really doesn't come down to splitting PvE/PvP or how many PVE games a company has.   The most basic formula here is 10's of Millions in Sony share holders dollars... those investors expecting a return and what you can sell to them.   That is what dictates what EQN will be...

     

    My first MMO and my favorite MMO of all time is Ultima Online (before trammel).   So you can see the type of game I like... Crafting, ability to actually sell the things I make, full loot (even mobs looted you if you died) and open world pvp.. well outside of guard zones.. 

     

    So my personal preference has never mixed well with the standard raid gear progression game because crafting in those games pretty much sucks...   Since the raid treadmill is where its at.

     

    I may be a strange mix because I like to explore, craft and pvp.

     

    That said my view of market reality is that EQN is not going to be an EQ version of UO with open world pvp.   The conflict needed to drive an economy can come in many forms... and people seem to skim over the email quote where the sender specificly mentions:  World PvP with meaning is the only way (on PvP Servers).

     

    Then again Smedley also once tweeted that SOE liked the idea of Perma Death for EQN... (that was an amusing few days).

     

    Until the reveal we just have to wait and see.. I just don't feel overly hopeful that PvE/PvP won't be split in some way.  (separate servers, the swg systems others have mentioned or conflict zones).

     

    This is all just my opinion.. and I guess we'll find out soon(tm)

    Moderator's on this site allow certain posters to create endless troll threads. Yet "warn" people for giving recommendations... account *pending* deletion because.. why bother.

  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by Antarious
    Originally posted by DocBrody
    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" 

     

    It really doesn't come down to splitting PvE/PvP or how many PVE games a company has.   The most basic formula here is 10's of Millions in Sony share holders dollars... those investors expecting a return and what you can sell to them.   That is what dictates what EQN will be...

    Shareholders never actively dictate to the company they own. Let alone to a subsidiary of a company they own. That is why they hire CEOs, so they don't have to. Anytime shareholders want to change the direction of a company they have to vote on it as stock is split up among numerous individuals, but it usually comes in the form of changing the board who would then in turn place a CEO. A company like SOE would be autonomous in most matters.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,455Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
     

    Well I never said open PVP means FFA PVP. I think it could be any kind of open PVP which includes faction based, FFA, or a mix of the two. It could also mean anything from full loot to no loot. However, everything that Smedley has said has pointed towards an actual open PVP. The PVP side of the argument is actually going by what Smedley has said while people who think it will be PVE are only going on hopes and dreams.

    They never bought Storybricks btw, they are only licensing it and the developer to help with the development of EQNext.

    If you think a PVP MMORPG sandbox will have a small customer base, try a PVE MMORPG sandbox game.

    The sheer fact that players can destroy almost all of Norrath and build within Norrath sends the message quite clear that it has to bve fundamentally built around PVP. You can't let players destroy stuff other players have built and not have PVP.

    I'm not saying "you" are.

    I'm simply stating that they know their fanbase, they have pvp and pve players and will try to cater to them. That for those who think that this is a FFA pvp sandbox (as some seem to think) , they have "another think" coming.

    I never said that pve mmo sandbox will be any larger than a pvp sandbox. I am saying that they will cater to both players "in some way".

     

    The sheer fact that players can destroy almost all of Norrath and build within Norrath sends the message quite clear that it has to bve fundamentally built around PVP. You can't let players destroy stuff other players have built and not have PVP.

    no it doesn't. And you prove my point when I say that players will take a bit of information and spin it around their preference. I can easily imagine a pve only game where one could destroy the world and battle "pve" monsters. I can also imagine that the "optional" pvp could manifest itself, again, similiar to EVE, where certain parts of the world can have player made structures destroyed and certain parts "not". I can also imagine a system where all castles are attackable by players so that if players don't want to be part of pvp they don't attack or build castles.

  • AntariousAntarious Greenville, SCPosts: 2,802Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Antarious
    Originally posted by DocBrody
    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" 

     

    It really doesn't come down to splitting PvE/PvP or how many PVE games a company has.   The most basic formula here is 10's of Millions in Sony share holders dollars... those investors expecting a return and what you can sell to them.   That is what dictates what EQN will be...

    Shareholders never actively dictate to the company they own. Let alone to a subsidiary of a company they own. That is why they hire CEOs, so they don't have to. Anytime shareholders want to change the direction of a company they have to vote on it as stock is split up among numerous individuals, but it usually comes in the form of changing the board who would then in turn place a CEO. A company like SOE would be autonomous in most matters.

    You really.. simply missed the point all together.   No publicly traded company goes out of their way to lose their investors money.   Which directly dictates everything the company does...   It had nothing to do with saying that any particular share holder is telling someone what to do.  

     

    In other words they are going to try to create things (MMO or not) that actually make a good return... because that makes their share holders happy.  

     

    Tho if you really wanna press the point... Yesterday the largest private share holder in Sony did in fact dictate to them ...

    Moderator's on this site allow certain posters to create endless troll threads. Yet "warn" people for giving recommendations... account *pending* deletion because.. why bother.

  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member
    Originally posted by superscott99
    You're not going to be able to gank newbs in this game.  The suits are not dumb enough to let that happen. Those days in a mass-market AAA are gone.

    what can happen in real life can happen in EQN, I suppose

     

    also we all will be newbs

  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    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.

    Did his smiley face also tell you that they wouldn't have PvE progression or raids? Or is this another sandbox assumption?

     

    You should probably wait and see what they deliver in August before getting ahead of yourself.

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

    Well I never said open PVP means FFA PVP. I think it could be any kind of open PVP which includes faction based, FFA, or a mix of the two. It could also mean anything from full loot to no loot. However, everything that Smedley has said has pointed towards an actual open PVP. The PVP side of the argument is actually going by what Smedley has said while people who think it will be PVE are only going on hopes and dreams.

    They never bought Storybricks btw, they are only licensing it and the developer to help with the development of EQNext.

    If you think a PVP MMORPG sandbox will have a small customer base, try a PVE MMORPG sandbox game.

    The sheer fact that players can destroy almost all of Norrath and build within Norrath sends the message quite clear that it has to bve fundamentally built around PVP. You can't let players destroy stuff other players have built and not have PVP.

    I'm not saying "you" are.

    I'm simply stating that they know their fanbase, they have pvp and pve players and will try to cater to them. That for those who think that this is a FFA pvp sandbox (as some seem to think) , they have "another think" coming.

    I never said that pve mmo sandbox will be any larger than a pvp sandbox. I am saying that they will cater to both players "in some way".

     

    The sheer fact that players can destroy almost all of Norrath and build within Norrath sends the message quite clear that it has to bve fundamentally built around PVP. You can't let players destroy stuff other players have built and not have PVP.

    no it doesn't. And you prove my point when I say that players will take a bit of information and spin it around their preference. I can easily imagine a pve only game where one could destroy the world and battle "pve" monsters. I can also imagine that the "optional" pvp could manifest itself, again, similiar to EVE, where certain parts of the world can have player made structures destroyed and certain parts "not". I can also imagine a system where all castles are attackable by players so that if players don't want to be part of pvp they don't attack or build castles.

    EVE is built around PVP. Even though it has highsec, it is a very miniscule portion of the game. Almost all patches and expansions to the game are to improve the PVP aspect of the game. I agree though, I could very well see parts of the EQN world that is largely safer than the rest of it and where people can do some form of PVE without constant threat. However, it's not going to be the same item progression PVE that most PVE players expect as Smedley has pointed out.

    Smedley loves EVE and he has a habit of talking about games he likes that inspired the creation of the game they are creating. I think he talked about Call of Duty a lot when he was leading up to the Planetside 2 release.

  • kjempffkjempff AarhusPosts: 883Member Uncommon
    SOE should be careful not to make the usual mmorpg mistake and place EqNext between two chairs and make a game that is only mediocre in both pve and pvp. Not that it is impossible to do both, but there are very few successfull attempts at this, and it require twice the work and then some. Knowing it will not be, I still think they should go either full EVE (like Archeage) = sandbox PvP, or full EQ = sandbox PvE.
  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member
    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.

    backclash by who? a vocal minority who has 48474 other MMOs with consensual PvP already?

     

    smedley can still sleep well, this will be a major success and doesn't need to please everybody.. again

     

    want consensual everything, you still have wow-rift-tera-wildstar-ff-gw2-swtor-...etc.

  • nothuman24nothuman24 Phoenix, AZPosts: 36Member
    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.

     

    Originally posted by superscott99

    You're not going to be able to gank newbs in this game.  The suits are not dumb enough to let that happen. Those days in a mass-market AAA are gone.

     

     

     

    I have to disagree. There is a huge hardcore pvp playerbase out there waiting to be tapped into.. The reason why alot of these pvp mmos dont do so well is because the game itself is not designed around open-world pvp  - economy; main game features; class balance; etc.  

     

  • noncleynoncley LondonPosts: 648Member Uncommon

    You PVE carebears need to calm down.

    One of the distinguishing features of ALL SOE's MMORPGs that have PVP - from EQ2 to SWG - is that all of them offer some protection or device that allows PVE-ers to avoid PVP if they want but without losing any of the richness of the game. In SWG it was a rather nifty feature called 'Overt/Covert'. Google it.

  • CyclopsSlayerCyclopsSlayer Minneapolis, MNPosts: 532Member
    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?

    The capitalization on the "EverQuest" name says it loud and clear. If they weren't trying to play on the EQ name they would call it something else.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,455Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
     

    EVE is built around PVP. Even though it has highsec, it is a very miniscule portion of the game. Almost all patches and expansions to the game are to improve the PVP aspect of the game. I agree though, I could very well see parts of the EQN world that is largely safer than the rest of it and where people can do some form of PVE without constant threat. However, it's not going to be the same item progression PVE that most PVE players expect as Smedley has pointed out.

    Smedley loves EVE and he has a habit of talking about games he likes that inspired the creation of the game they are creating. I think he talked about Call of Duty a lot when he was leading up to the Planetside 2 release.

    EVE is built around pvp but I suspect that EQ Next will be "similiar" to EVE but not "be" EVE.

    There is nothing in Smedley's remarks that say it won't cater to pvp and pve players. The e-mail blurb includes a (pvp servers) remark so Smedley is just simply agreeing with him on his point.

    Just because Smedley agrees with the other individual that a sandbox requires risk/reward (which can be pvp and/or pve) and "open pvp" doesn't mean that those who don't want pvp are going to have to put up with it.

     

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

    EVE is built around PVP. Even though it has highsec, it is a very miniscule portion of the game. Almost all patches and expansions to the game are to improve the PVP aspect of the game. I agree though, I could very well see parts of the EQN world that is largely safer than the rest of it and where people can do some form of PVE without constant threat. However, it's not going to be the same item progression PVE that most PVE players expect as Smedley has pointed out.

    Smedley loves EVE and he has a habit of talking about games he likes that inspired the creation of the game they are creating. I think he talked about Call of Duty a lot when he was leading up to the Planetside 2 release.

    EVE is built around pvp but I suspect that EQ Next will be "similiar" to EVE but not "be" EVE.

    There is nothing in Smedley's remarks that say it won't cater to pvp and pve players. The e-mail blurb includes a (pvp servers) remark so Smedley is just simply agreeing with him on his point.

    Just because Smedley agrees with the other individual that a sandbox requires risk/reward (which can be pvp and/or pve) and "open pvp" doesn't mean that those who don't want pvp are going to have to put up with it.

     

    PVE players expect an 'end game' PVE item progression. EQN will not have it.

  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Posts: 1,008Member Uncommon

    The pro-PvP folks know full well why developers cater more to the PvE crowd, they just don't want to admit it because they have this false sense of belief that PvP is somehow on an even keel with PvE when it comes to MMORPG game formats.  They continually argue that there aren't enough PvP centric MMORPG games while conveniently failing to acknowledge the dozens upon dozens of FPS games currently out on the market that provide the exact type game style they prefer. 

    I mean, have you ever seen an MMORPG player go to an FPS forum and complain to the developers that there are no PvE elements in their game?  Point me to an FPS forum where a PvE player can go and whine about the lack of PvE elements in their game.  Do developers in FPS games worry that they are losing potential revenue from PvE players unless they somehow structure some type of PvE elements into their game?  Obiously not.  So why is it that MMORPG game developers feel so much pressure to do so in their games?  The answer is obviously money, but the simple fact is that these two play styles do not mix!

    The result is issues with class balancing that do not comport and easily translate from one play style to another.  Then there is the issue with grind so that anything beyond a two week leveling curve becomes a hideous grind for PvP players.  For most PvP centric players the game begins and end game.  For the most part, they are not interested in lore or the journey while leveling.  They are only interested in the destination.  Then there is gear.  There is no denying that gear means something different for PvP purposes than it does for PvE purposes.  So what we end up with is two sets of gear for each play style, with their own unique vendors and gearing structures etc. 

    And then we have the various different sub play styles that come into play Ie., FFA, open world, safe zones, flag, blah blah blah ... it is just an obnoxious convoluted mess!

    It is high time that developers began concentrating on focusing on developing games that cater to one play style and making the best games they can for that one play style rather than trying to cater to all play styles resulting in a half-arsed game that succeeds in satisfying no play style.

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
     

    .

    EVE is built around PVP. Even though it has highsec, it is a very miniscule portion of the game. Almost all patches and expansions to the game are to improve the PVP aspect of the game. I agree though, I could very well see parts of the EQN world that is largely safer than the rest of it and where people can do some form of PVE without constant threat. However, it's not going to be the same item progression PVE that most PVE players expect as Smedley has pointed out.

    Smedley loves EVE and he has a habit of talking about games he likes that inspired the creation of the game they are creating. I think he talked about Call of Duty a lot when he was leading up to the Planetside 2 release.

    Yes, EVE is built around PVP. But saying that "highsec is a very miniscule portion of the game" is utterly laughable.

     

    At any given moment, well over 50% of the EVE population is found in HIGHSEC ! Just check the galaxy map. It may be only 25% of the EVE game world, but it's an extremely busy 25%...

     

    It seems as if Smed has become the hero of many of the pro-PVP posters in this thread. He has apparently established his FFA-PVP credentials by posting a few Tweets. Let's just ignore the fact that he has been at the head of SOE for over 10 years, and hasn't done a single visible thing to promote PVP in any of SOE's games during that entire time.

  • SirBongsAlotSirBongsAlot Lively, ONPosts: 75Member
    I would love to see Open world PVP, like what Asherons Call did... If you were RED your DEAD!!! Didnt matter what level you are..level 275 could be beaten on a level 150 but after level 150(max stats for major Attributes and major Magics used) its anybodys win.....
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,455Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nothuman24
    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.

     

    Originally posted by superscott99

    You're not going to be able to gank newbs in this game.  The suits are not dumb enough to let that happen. Those days in a mass-market AAA are gone.

     

     

     

    I have to disagree. There is a huge hardcore pvp playerbase out there waiting to be tapped into.. The reason why alot of these pvp mmos dont do so well is because the game itself is not designed around open-world pvp. The pvp has to be the end and everything else but a means - instead of the converse. Nowadays, at best, decent pvp games are designed in a way that caters to all types of players and we consequently get stuck with instanced crap; pvp or pvp servers; toggle pvp off or on; etc... Doomed to be mediocre - by design.

    For example, look at Lineage 2 before it got sold / became free to play and they started instancing pve content including raids. A huge majority of current L2 players have moved to private servers beause they emulate older versions of the game when it catered to hardcore pvp. I can think of at least 20 Lineage 2 pvp private servers, off the top of my head, that have thousands++ of players logged-in on each server at THIS very moment. Its still to this day one of the most played mmos out there world-wide, when accounting private emulated servers. Its like 10 years old. Running strong

     

    I wouldn't disagree with your post.

    However, we are talking "IP" here. There is already an installed fanbase, both pve and pvp.

    This isn't about "coming up with a new pvp game that will capitalize on players who want a more hardcore pvp experience". It's about "Where do we take our beloved IP 'Everquest' so that it continues to thrive.

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

    .

    EVE is built around PVP. Even though it has highsec, it is a very miniscule portion of the game. Almost all patches and expansions to the game are to improve the PVP aspect of the game. I agree though, I could very well see parts of the EQN world that is largely safer than the rest of it and where people can do some form of PVE without constant threat. However, it's not going to be the same item progression PVE that most PVE players expect as Smedley has pointed out.

    Smedley loves EVE and he has a habit of talking about games he likes that inspired the creation of the game they are creating. I think he talked about Call of Duty a lot when he was leading up to the Planetside 2 release.

    Yes, EVE is built around PVP. But saying that "highsec is a very miniscule portion of the game" is utterly laughable.

     

    At any given moment, well over 50% of the EVE population is found in HIGHSEC ! Just check the galaxy map. It may be only 25% of the EVE game world, but it's an extremely busy 25%...

     

    It seems as if Smed has become the hero of many of the pro-PVP posters in this thread. He has apparently established his FFA-PVP credentials by posting a few Tweets. Let's just ignore the fact that he has been at the head of SOE for over 10 years, and hasn't done a single visible thing to promote PVP in any of SOE's games during that entire time.

    Highsec is like the isk production vault for the PVP and diplomatic side of EVE. Lots of miners and alts that mine as well as people that go there simply for a safe area while they trade, recoup their losses and do other stuff. There are also a lot of fodder for Hulkageddon. It's hell of a lot more complicated than "this is the PVE area of EVE". You are also not absolutely guaranteed your safety there.

    Honestly, highsec plays a role that can be just as easily done in a fantasy MMO with guild cities and territories if designed correctly. If a guild can setup a secure location for themselves and others, they can bring the flow of platinum and benefit from it greatly.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    If mmorpg.com and ten ton hammer were right about this game and it includes open world PVP, SOE can afford to piss off their fan base. This is NOT EverQuest 3!!!!!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.