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!

What type of PvP do you want in EQN

12357

Comments

  • AticusWellesAticusWelles Beverly hills, CAPosts: 152Member
    I just want PvP that is fun. I'm not to hung up on the details so long as its more than four instanced battlegrounds that only lead to a gear treadmill.

    I do believe there should be PvP and PvE with flagged PvP servers though.
  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member

    If you are the type of person to believe Smed, you might want to read:

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

     

    "This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."

     

    Again, I will hold off judgement until August.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,464Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Cukshaik
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Pick the option that sounds closest to what you are looking for. We all get that the core model can have things added and taken away from. Adding or removing a flag system as an eg. Please try and read them all before you vote.

    1. Large open world continent for PvE and a large open world continent for PvP. Letting guilds build castles and keeps that can be sieged. Maybe a flag system depending on SoE. Some mixing of PvP and PvE. Lots of open world PvP and tends to feel sandboxish. Kinda like Archeage. 

    2. Ever race plays together in one open world. You pick a faction and PvP for that faction on a PvP map set aside from the PvE area. With castles and keeps that can be sieged (maybe again build by guilds). When your done PvPing you come back to play with everyone from every faction. Something like Rift. 

    3. GW2 Model: You play PvE with your server and no PvP takes place anywhere. Q up and fight 2 other servers in a battleground map thats so large it almost feels like open world but not really. Every few weeks you fight different servers. PvP and PvE never mix.

    4. ESO model: 3 faction model done like DAoC with a twist. Castles and keeps that can be sieged, open world dungeons and a mega dungeon the winning side of the PvP battle gets to use that has phat loot. Has towns with quest hubs and crafting nodes for top level crafting on this battleground. Has so much PvE on the map it feels much more like open world but again not fully. No lowbe hunting. PvP and PvE never mix unless you want to PvE on the PvP map.

    5. DAoC model: 3 factions fight on a battleground with castles and keeps that can be sieged. Instanced dungeon with wicked loot the 3 factions fight to control and own that has phat loot.The race you pick sets what faction you play with. PvP and PvE never mix and you play how you want. And you always fight the same group of guilds from the other factions. You get to know their tactics and this creates a real depth in the PvP but still not really open world.

    6. FFA PvP, everywhere and any where. What else they add like castles and keeps that can be sieged, is up to SoE but its more about PvP can be anywhere. PvP and PvE mix allot and may or may not have a flag system. may or may not have factions and sometimes safe areas. Like SWG, EVE and Linage 2.

    7. WoW model: PvE and PvP servers with contested zones on the PvP servers and more contested PvP zones the higher level you get. Even on PvE servers you must deal with the flag system and forced to PvP, there are some well known methods for doing that.

    8. Other: Explain 

    9. No PvP system at all, lets make it all about PvE so skills and classes never have to be balanced so we have pure PvE. 

    Another thread with old ideas. This game is supposed to be an evolution of the genre, not more of the same. Hence the game getting scrapped multiple times. If people listened to the interviews of Dave Georgeson and such, they would know that this game is supposedly bringing a lot of NEW IDEAS to the table, hence the black box it resides in currently.

    As much as you may want this game to be a little of this, and a little of that, if it is more of the same it will fail and this has been realized by the people making the game. It will be different, or it will fail. Those are really the only two options.

    They are not changing MMOs so far we wont know what they are. The evolution is to the world and the NPC AI. The world will be living like Wildstar where dev will change the landscape by events that happen and maybe even the players can. NPCs will remember you and react accordingly. The core mechanics of PvP and PvE will still be done in EQN with its own window dressings. How they do that? Its anyones guess. 


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


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

    Pick the option that sounds closest to what you are looking for. We all get that the core model can have things added and taken away from. Adding or removing a flag system as an eg. Please try and read them all before you vote.

    1. Large open world continent for PvE and a large open world continent for PvP. Letting guilds build castles and keeps that can be sieged. Maybe a flag system depending on SoE. Some mixing of PvP and PvE. Lots of open world PvP and tends to feel sandboxish. Kinda like Archeage. 

    2. Ever race plays together in one open world. You pick a faction and PvP for that faction on a PvP map set aside from the PvE area. With castles and keeps that can be sieged (maybe again build by guilds). When your done PvPing you come back to play with everyone from every faction. Something like Rift. 

    3. GW2 Model: You play PvE with your server and no PvP takes place anywhere. Q up and fight 2 other servers in a battleground map thats so large it almost feels like open world but not really. Every few weeks you fight different servers. PvP and PvE never mix.

    4. ESO model: 3 faction model done like DAoC with a twist. Castles and keeps that can be sieged, open world dungeons and a mega dungeon the winning side of the PvP battle gets to use that has phat loot. Has towns with quest hubs and crafting nodes for top level crafting on this battleground. Has so much PvE on the map it feels much more like open world but again not fully. No lowbe hunting. PvP and PvE never mix unless you want to PvE on the PvP map.

    5. DAoC model: 3 factions fight on a battleground with castles and keeps that can be sieged. Instanced dungeon with wicked loot the 3 factions fight to control and own that has phat loot.The race you pick sets what faction you play with. PvP and PvE never mix and you play how you want. And you always fight the same group of guilds from the other factions. You get to know their tactics and this creates a real depth in the PvP but still not really open world.

    6. FFA PvP, everywhere and any where. What else they add like castles and keeps that can be sieged, is up to SoE but its more about PvP can be anywhere. PvP and PvE mix allot and may or may not have a flag system. may or may not have factions and sometimes safe areas. Like SWG, EVE and Linage 2.

    7. WoW model: PvE and PvP servers with contested zones on the PvP servers and more contested PvP zones the higher level you get. Even on PvE servers you must deal with the flag system and forced to PvP, there are some well known methods for doing that.

    8. Other: Explain 

    9. No PvP system at all, lets make it all about PvE so skills and classes never have to be balanced so we have pure PvE. 

    Another thread with old ideas. This game is supposed to be an evolution of the genre, not more of the same. Hence the game getting scrapped multiple times. If people listened to the interviews of Dave Georgeson and such, they would know that this game is supposedly bringing a lot of NEW IDEAS to the table, hence the black box it resides in currently.

    As much as you may want this game to be a little of this, and a little of that, if it is more of the same it will fail and this has been realized by the people making the game. It will be different, or it will fail. Those are really the only two options.

    They are not changing MMOs so far we wont know what they are. The evolution is to the world and the NPC AI. The world will be living like Wildstar where dev will change the landscape by events that happen and maybe even the players can. NPCs will remember you and react accordingly. The core mechanics of PvP and PvE will still be done in EQN with its own window dressings. How they do that? Its anyones guess. 

    Except as is obvious with my most recent thread, Smedley says they are changing what an MMO is. The core PVE mechanic of loot progression is not going to be there. They are changing a lot more than the world and AI. Also, from what he has said in other interviews, it will be players changing the world.

  • RedempRedemp Hot Springs, ARPosts: 1,042Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
     

    Except as is obvious with my most recent thread, Smedley says they are changing what an MMO is. The core PVE mechanic of loot progression is not going to be there. They are changing a lot more than the world and AI. Also, from what he has said in other interviews, it will be players changing the world.

     It was never stated that  "Core PvE mechanic of loot progression" wasn't going to be in EQN. You are reading way, way to far into his comments.
    You're ignoring what Calm posted as well

    "We have a lot of different buckets of players, some want to kill stuff and get loot, we want to make sure those people can win in the things they like to do."

     

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Den HelderPosts: 9,065Member Uncommon

    Obviously choice number 1...

     

    But with some changes... make the PvP the middle of the world... and force everyone to travel trough your playerfactions PvP continent to reach other PvE destinations...   make resources important, and make sure some of the rarer resources can only be found in the PvE places... but getting those resources to your castle requires you to travel trough those horible PvP zones again

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

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

    Except as is obvious with my most recent thread, Smedley says they are changing what an MMO is. The core PVE mechanic of loot progression is not going to be there. They are changing a lot more than the world and AI. Also, from what he has said in other interviews, it will be players changing the world.

     It was never stated that  "Core PvE mechanic of loot progression" wasn't going to be in EQN. You are reading way, way to far into his comments.
    You're ignoring what Calm posted as well

    "We have a lot of different buckets of players, some want to kill stuff and get loot, we want to make sure those people can win in the things they like to do."

     

    You still kill mobs and get loot from a non-item progression system. A lack of item treadmill does not equate to a lack of items.

  • RedempRedemp Hot Springs, ARPosts: 1,042Member
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Redemp
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
     

    Except as is obvious with my most recent thread, Smedley says they are changing what an MMO is. The core PVE mechanic of loot progression is not going to be there. They are changing a lot more than the world and AI. Also, from what he has said in other interviews, it will be players changing the world.

     It was never stated that  "Core PvE mechanic of loot progression" wasn't going to be in EQN. You are reading way, way to far into his comments.
    You're ignoring what Calm posted as well

    "We have a lot of different buckets of players, some want to kill stuff and get loot, we want to make sure those people can win in the things they like to do."

     

    You still kill mobs and get loot from a non-item progression system. A lack of item treadmill does not equate to a lack of items.

     He never said there wouldn't be an item treadmill, you are setting yourself up for a massive disappointment by reading into comments to far. I HOPE they find a better a system than an item treadmill, but I wouldn't bet one penny that they will and they certainly don't state they are removing it. The ONLY thing we can infer from the comment is that the " World will be more important and not simply a background"  that's it.

     

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,464Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Cukshaik
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle

    Pick the option that sounds closest to what you are looking for. We all get that the core model can have things added and taken away from. Adding or removing a flag system as an eg. Please try and read them all before you vote.

    1. Large open world continent for PvE and a large open world continent for PvP. Letting guilds build castles and keeps that can be sieged. Maybe a flag system depending on SoE. Some mixing of PvP and PvE. Lots of open world PvP and tends to feel sandboxish. Kinda like Archeage. 

    2. Ever race plays together in one open world. You pick a faction and PvP for that faction on a PvP map set aside from the PvE area. With castles and keeps that can be sieged (maybe again build by guilds). When your done PvPing you come back to play with everyone from every faction. Something like Rift. 

    3. GW2 Model: You play PvE with your server and no PvP takes place anywhere. Q up and fight 2 other servers in a battleground map thats so large it almost feels like open world but not really. Every few weeks you fight different servers. PvP and PvE never mix.

    4. ESO model: 3 faction model done like DAoC with a twist. Castles and keeps that can be sieged, open world dungeons and a mega dungeon the winning side of the PvP battle gets to use that has phat loot. Has towns with quest hubs and crafting nodes for top level crafting on this battleground. Has so much PvE on the map it feels much more like open world but again not fully. No lowbe hunting. PvP and PvE never mix unless you want to PvE on the PvP map.

    5. DAoC model: 3 factions fight on a battleground with castles and keeps that can be sieged. Instanced dungeon with wicked loot the 3 factions fight to control and own that has phat loot.The race you pick sets what faction you play with. PvP and PvE never mix and you play how you want. And you always fight the same group of guilds from the other factions. You get to know their tactics and this creates a real depth in the PvP but still not really open world.

    6. FFA PvP, everywhere and any where. What else they add like castles and keeps that can be sieged, is up to SoE but its more about PvP can be anywhere. PvP and PvE mix allot and may or may not have a flag system. may or may not have factions and sometimes safe areas. Like SWG, EVE and Linage 2.

    7. WoW model: PvE and PvP servers with contested zones on the PvP servers and more contested PvP zones the higher level you get. Even on PvE servers you must deal with the flag system and forced to PvP, there are some well known methods for doing that.

    8. Other: Explain 

    9. No PvP system at all, lets make it all about PvE so skills and classes never have to be balanced so we have pure PvE. 

    Another thread with old ideas. This game is supposed to be an evolution of the genre, not more of the same. Hence the game getting scrapped multiple times. If people listened to the interviews of Dave Georgeson and such, they would know that this game is supposedly bringing a lot of NEW IDEAS to the table, hence the black box it resides in currently.

    As much as you may want this game to be a little of this, and a little of that, if it is more of the same it will fail and this has been realized by the people making the game. It will be different, or it will fail. Those are really the only two options.

    They are not changing MMOs so far we wont know what they are. The evolution is to the world and the NPC AI. The world will be living like Wildstar where dev will change the landscape by events that happen and maybe even the players can. NPCs will remember you and react accordingly. The core mechanics of PvP and PvE will still be done in EQN with its own window dressings. How they do that? Its anyones guess. 

    Except as is obvious with my most recent thread, Smedley says they are changing what an MMO is. The core PVE mechanic of loot progression is not going to be there. They are changing a lot more than the world and AI. Also, from what he has said in other interviews, it will be players changing the world.

    Was also very clear this is still something MMO fans would have a comfort level with. You really are jumping to conclusions that at this point have nothing to base them from. If Aug 2nd they announce somethings thats a left turn from standard MMO core models, I will be glad to eat my words. I am 90% sure the revolution has to do with the world and the NPCs and how they interact with the player and new content. 


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,461Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by evilastro

    If you are the type of person to believe Smed, you might want to read:

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

     

    "This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."

     

    Again, I will hold off judgement until August.

    Thanks for finding this.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,464Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by evilastro

    If you are the type of person to believe Smed, you might want to read:

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

     

    "This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."

     

    Again, I will hold off judgement until August.

    Thanks for finding this.

    If that post is true, that means there is PvP of some sort.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member

    i chose 8.

     

    to be clear i am a non FFA PvP type of player.

     

    having said that, i think it would make no sense whatsoever to not have at least one FFA PvP server. there are always balance questions in mmo's. you can never stay away from that. and if there is to be some pvp you can bet there will be pvp balancing, even if the emphasis is on pve.

    this server would probably fill quickly and would likely lose a good quarter of its population after launch. however, having just that one server as a refuge for those who enjoy that gameplay might very well endear SOE enough to PvPrs that they might both be surprised at the relationship.

     

    the only other option is a model similar to AA's, but w/o the added benefits of being in pvp land. why? because you play in a pvp world b/c you enjoy it, not b/c you are being strongarmed into it by the game mechanics. this should not be a punishment for pve players, but an opportunity for pvp players.

     

    "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

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,461Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by evilastro

    If you are the type of person to believe Smed, you might want to read:

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

     

    "This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."

     

    Again, I will hold off judgement until August.

    Thanks for finding this.

    If that post is true, that means there is PvP of some sort.

    Of course there is pvp of some sort. It's just not going to be pvp that is forced on another "or" the negatives for doing so will outweigh what the attacker deems a positive.

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,464Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by evilastro

    If you are the type of person to believe Smed, you might want to read:

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/10/20/soe-live-2012-john-smedley-on-eq-next-and-soes-future/

     

    "This is not going to be Grieferquest, and every system will be designed around not allowing that. It's one of those things where you have to make it so that griefers can't ruin the experience for everyone else."

     

    Again, I will hold off judgement until August.

    Thanks for finding this.

    If that post is true, that means there is PvP of some sort.

    Of course there is pvp of some sort. It's just not going to be pvp that is forced on another "or" the negatives for doing so will outweigh what the attacker deems a positive.

    At this point then I hope its something like Rift, AA, DAoC or ESO. Never been a fan of just turning a server into a PvP server and adding contested zones/areas or making it FFA and calling it good PvP. I really want some depth. Player made keeps and castles and open world dungeons with the risk of getting attacked by players on the PvP area. This has me waiting with bated breath!


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • VidirVidir GothenburgPosts: 944Member Uncommon
    To much pvp in resent games.Woulkd be nice to skip that anoying thing.
  • ZairuZairu Portland, ORPosts: 469Member

     

     

    just please no speed-potion-addicted gangs of shrunken midgets too small to see in a confusing mesh of hopping colors running at me with plans of gang rape.

  • CalmOceansCalmOceans BergenPosts: 2,273Member

    Even if you had PVP servers in EQNext, it would make little sense.

    The Everquest world  is just a void the Nameless filled, the lore revolves around the Gods really, and their bickering (except for Luclin who had enough of it and just decided to go live on the moon next door). 

    Although races follow different dieties and factions, it mostly revolves around Gods, not inner-racial animosity, which is something you would need to justify PVP.

  • Ronin316Ronin316 Michigan City, INPosts: 12Member
    Originally posted by DMKano

    Intelligent PvP with real consequences. If you kill another innocent player, you should be treated as a murderer by all.

    It has to be meaningful, otherwise you have Dark fall, which has already be done to death.

    Killing for the sake of killing is boring, it trivializes death and murder, and there are metric crapton of games like that already. Darkfalls PvP is not hardcore, its safe and familiar, death and killing have little meaning, as they happen a lot and players have extra armor sets, extra mounts..., its a safe predictable system in the end.

    I hope EQN breaks the mold, and not have the same old tired PvP, that means nothing in the end.

    +1

  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    Even if you had PVP servers in EQNext, it would make little sense.

    The Everquest world  is just a void the Nameless filled, the lore revolves around the Gods really, and their bickering (except for Luclin who had enough of it and just decided to go live on the moon next door). 

    Although races follow different dieties and factions, it mostly revolves around Gods, not inner-racial animosity, which is something you would need to justify PVP.

     

    im going to assume you did not mean inter-racial animosity, but instead factional or national identity. because you dont need a lack of racial harmony to have a war. you simply need two groups that either perceive the other as a direct threat or a lack of some type of resource(s) that both parties need.

    secondly, there have been plenty of wars 'inspired' by whatever local deities existed in human history. i can't imagine that Norrath has somehow escaped the fairly common frailty of killing in the name of god(s).

    aside from that, if i remember correctly there are already 2 basic factions in the original EQ lore with their own capitol cities and at one time a rather grinding means of changing faction (at least in EQ2, until recently). those faction quests alone should tell you that there are vast gulfs of difference between the two groups.

     

    "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

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,464Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    Even if you had PVP servers in EQNext, it would make little sense.

    The Everquest world  is just a void the Nameless filled, the lore revolves around the Gods really, and their bickering (except for Luclin who had enough of it and just decided to go live on the moon next door). 

    Although races follow different dieties and factions, it mostly revolves around Gods, not inner-racial animosity, which is something you would need to justify PVP.

    Greek mythology has many points in it "lore" where gods had wars and make alliances. All the while men fought and had wars who even worshiped the same gods. Its not outside of any skilled writer to come up with something awesome as this is not the same universe EQ1 is in. Now a team of creative writers!!! Man you could come up with some killer stuff.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • CalmOceansCalmOceans BergenPosts: 2,273Member
    Originally posted by aspekx

    secondly, there have been plenty of wars 'inspired' by whatever local deities existed in human history. i can't imagine that Norrath has somehow escaped the fairly common frailty of killing in the name of god(s).

    The only way Norrath doesn't collapse onto itself is because the Gods of power keep it in balance. Everything exists through the Gods, each time you cast a spell, you draw power from the planes. There is no inner-racial (or deity) infighting between mortals because it would destroy deities and sub deities and it would destroy Norrath.

    That's why there's no lore behind the PVP server in EQ, because it doesn't make sense and doesn't exist.

  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko RotterdamPosts: 3,845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by CalmOceans

    Even if you had PVP servers in EQNext, it would make little sense.

    The Everquest world  is just a void the Nameless filled, the lore revolves around the Gods really, and their bickering (except for Luclin who had enough of it and just decided to go live on the moon next door). 

    Although races follow different dieties and factions, it mostly revolves around Gods, not inner-racial animosity, which is something you would need to justify PVP.

    Existing Lore is no obstacle.

    It can be bent, re-invented, twisted or manipulated into any shape imaginable.

     

    Existing Lore (or lack of) did not stop Zenimax from shoe-horning the Elder Scrolls world into a 3-faction RvR game... image

  • DullahanDullahan Posts: 2,059Member Uncommon

    Open world pvp, no instances.  Everything is contested.  FFA, no level limitations with some form of item loot on players within a certain range.  My perfect idea of a pvp ruleset.  I played Rallos Zek on live, and have never enjoyed an MMO or PvP more than I did there.  All sandboxes failed when it comes to contested content and pve in general.

    Wouldn't want all servers to be this ruleset, but its what I'd personally like.  I think were going to see open world pvp regardless, even if its with level ranges and safe zones in cities.


  • GrailerGrailer HamiltonPosts: 876Member Uncommon
    PvP Similar to EVE 
  • GaeluianGaeluian Dousman, WIPosts: 83Member Uncommon
    Don't want pvp in any form. It never works. Rule set = unbalanced, FFA = People with low self-esteem go on a gank fest. Which is no fun for anyone. PVP just doesn't work well. EQ1 had it right though, /d if you really have to have it.
Sign In or Register to comment.