so it sounds like it comes down to the game, if you dont like FFA type pvp then dont play the game and stop crying about it. If this is the direction that EQN is going then there is nothing you can do about it so move on, if you want to give it a try and stop crying about then do so, either way sounds like the game is set in stone with FFA style pvp so deal with it, crying about it isnt dealing at all it is just making you look like a cry baby.
Originally posted by Dahkoht Equating stealing property vs killing someone in an online game where it is NOT against the rules and or law is it most ridiculous thing I've seen yet in a thread whining about FFA PVP.
One is against the law the other isn't.
so despite your... retort being rather lacking, i will respond anyway.
first off: it's a metaphor. ... yeah. nothing else to be said about that.
two: i clearly stated that by engaging in both actions you are opening yourself to a certain reaction. the fact remains though that in ffa game x, you did not ask, or want, that random guy to gank you for all your stuff. you did not consent. period. some people want to be able to choose when so-and-so can attack them. that is all. they want to give consent before they are engaged in pvp.
I fail to see what the OP is complaining about, or even aiming at... It is an Everquest game. Like most AAA title MMO's it will have servers. Some RP, some Normal, Some PVP... So let SOE make the damn game and pick the server with the playset that you feel inclined to play on. Quit trying to convince the users or developers that making the game a specific way will make it successful when they have the option of designing different rule sets to each server. Even the original EQ had this with the Zek servers...
Originally posted by Eolex I fail to see what the OP is complaining about, or even aiming at... It is an Everquest game. Like most AAA title MMO's it will have servers. Some RP, some Normal, Some PVP... So let SOE make the damn game and pick the server with the playset that you feel inclined to play on. Quit trying to convince the users or developers that making the game a specific way will make it successful when they have the option of designing different rule sets to each server. Even the original EQ had this with the Zek servers...
but you are wrong, they are talking about just having FFA on all servers so....yeah
so it sounds like it comes down to the game, if you dont like FFA type pvp then dont play the game and stop crying about it. If this is the direction that EQN is going then there is nothing you can do about it so move on, if you want to give it a try and stop crying about then do so, either way sounds like the game is set in stone with FFA style pvp so deal with it, crying about it isnt dealing at all it is just making you look like a cry baby.
i considered posting something along these lines, but no power in the verse is going to stop gamers from complaining about stuff they don't like that they have no evidence for in games that barely even exist.
in the grim darkness of the internet there is only forum pvp.
If developers would stop thinking about how to get the most money, then we wouldn't need to talk about stuff like this.
EvE Online is a very profitable game, because there's enough people who like it. However CCP never thought about subscriptions to begin with, but only about making a good game. In other words... they took a risk.
Most devs don't want to take risks anymore, and that's why we see one crappy game after another, were people play for a few month and then leave in droves to start playing the next MMO.
PvE-MMOs are by far the most popular, as they offer the possibility to play the game like a solo RPG (storyline, questing, leveling up) with multiplayer-mode (dungeons, raids, arenas and BGs).
In a game like EvE you can't do much on your own, besides the boring missions in high-sec, and that's the reason why these kind of games don't have as much players, yet they have the highest retention-rate as players heavily commit to these kind of games.
So yeah. Subsciption-numbers are really of no interest, as long as you have enough players to keep the game profitable. And if devs would start with this mindset, then we would actually see some better games being developed, as devs would start taking risks again.
EXACTLY. SWTOR gets almost 2 million players and then droped down to 500K. Same with RIFT, etc. You do this over and over again and see that 500K is the high water mark after content is eaten and you start to look at sustainable models like EVE.
Also, you cannot forget that EVE has the learning curve of a cliff...it is NOT easily accessible, much how WoW took over EQ, purportedly because it was accessible, if EQN is accessible and has many of the elements EVE has, but has great tutorials or other means to show players how to do things, then it will be a breakthrough.
If developers would stop thinking about how to get the most money, then we wouldn't need to talk about stuff like this.
EvE Online is a very profitable game, because there's enough people who like it. However CCP never thought about subscriptions to begin with, but only about making a good game. In other words... they took a risk.
Most devs don't want to take risks anymore, and that's why we see one crappy game after another, were people play for a few month and then leave in droves to start playing the next MMO.
PvE-MMOs are by far the most popular, as they offer the possibility to play the game like a solo RPG (storyline, questing, leveling up) with multiplayer-mode (dungeons, raids, arenas and BGs).
In a game like EvE you can't do much on your own, besides the boring missions in high-sec, and that's the reason why these kind of games don't have as much players, yet they have the highest retention-rate as players heavily commit to these kind of games.
So yeah. Subsciption-numbers are really of no interest, as long as you have enough players to keep the game profitable. And if devs would start with this mindset, then we would actually see some better games being developed, as devs would start taking risks again.
EXACTLY. SWTOR gets almost 2 million players and then droped down to 500K. Same with RIFT, etc. You do this over and over again and see that 500K is the high water mark after content is eaten and you start to look at sustainable models like EVE.
Also, you cannot forget that EVE has the learning curve of a cliff...it is NOT easily accessible, much how WoW took over EQ, purportedly because it was accessible, if EQN is accessible and has many of the elements EVE has, but has great tutorials or other means to show players how to do things, then it will be a breakthrough.
the mere fact that it was a ffa would turn people away in droves, and i don't think soe is going to take that big of a risk. i'm sure there'll be pvp servers, but there will a pve option as well. alternatively they could do a mixed bag with a beefed up version of EvE's security system which would make it impossible to gank people who don't want to be (something like AA's continents system).
basically they are going to cater to pve'ers in some way. so i can see why you pvp'ers are worried. "will they have an offering for us as well." well if EQN is as big as they'd like us to think, i am sure they will.
AoC was touted as a Sandpark and had FFA PvP in it. It sold 1.2 million copies at launch. More than most pure themeparks did. I think it has a lot to do with hype + world immersion + self identity + game design.
In my opinion it's less about PvP and PvE and more about making great games.
I think allowing people to spawn camp is the most devastating thing to happen in PvP and reflects more on bad game design. One of the many problems of AoC. But people didn't know that before getting into the game. They did know that it was going to be heavily PvP focused at end game though.
When looking at consensual vs non-consensual PvP, you can throw games like LoL, WoT and PS2 out because they don't have PvE content. If there is a sticking point with MMORPGs and PvP, it's the PvE content. Players who are not into OW/FFA PvP don't care if PvP happens in a battlegrounds type situation, which is what LoL, WoT and PS2 are. They don't want it to happen while they are doing something that isn't PvP. This only matters if a game offers something besides PvP content.
If you're going to look at the numbers of people who are "into" OW/FFA PvP, then a much deeper look is needed. For instance, in Eve, most of the population does not engage in PvP, even though it is possible to engage in PvP everywhere. This could mean that OW/FFA PvP is a popular thing, just so long as it's happening someplace else to someone else. It could also mean that OW/FFA PvP is not a draw, but people will put up with a teensy, tiny bit of it, so long as they can get enough of the game's other content. We need a better look at the content and the players before creating a conclusion though.
If you just look at a break down of people participating in OW/FFA PvP, then you have a small percentage of the population engaging in that type of game play, even in games or on servers where it's an option. Most anyone looking at raw numbers without any in depth analysis would be lead to believe that OW/FFA PvP is the least popular form of PvP, far behind games that only have PvP content, and behind games that have PvE content as the primary content of the game.
What's the final conclusion? I don't know, because we haven't done any sort of in depth anything here. The answer may as well be, "Muffins".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Eolex I fail to see what the OP is complaining about, or even aiming at... It is an Everquest game. Like most AAA title MMO's it will have servers. Some RP, some Normal, Some PVP... So let SOE make the damn game and pick the server with the playset that you feel inclined to play on. Quit trying to convince the users or developers that making the game a specific way will make it successful when they have the option of designing different rule sets to each server. Even the original EQ had this with the Zek servers...
but you are wrong, they are talking about just having FFA on all servers so....yeah
Who exactly is this "they" the forums posters here? Smedly?
I mean I seen the comment Smedly made about the open PVP but it was so vague I don't know how any got that now all of a sudden were having FFA pvp on all servers?
He said there would be PVP and that's about it..... Maybe some open world stuff....
Do people really think there gonna spend all this time making the biggest sandbox quoting Smedly anyway.... and then turn around and make it a FFA pvp game *rollseyes*
Everquest has always been a PVE game first it may have PVP elements but I really can't see them being stupid enough to have every single server FFA........ The game will be NICHE and no amount of sandbox is gonna hold people if there getting ganked constantly by griefers.......
Originally posted by Eolex I fail to see what the OP is complaining about, or even aiming at... It is an Everquest game. Like most AAA title MMO's it will have servers. Some RP, some Normal, Some PVP... So let SOE make the damn game and pick the server with the playset that you feel inclined to play on. Quit trying to convince the users or developers that making the game a specific way will make it successful when they have the option of designing different rule sets to each server. Even the original EQ had this with the Zek servers...
but you are wrong, they are talking about just having FFA on all servers so....yeah
I think you will find that's more wishful thinking and taking other peoples posts as a given SOE fact.
Only fact here is, no one knows until august, everything else is spin, speculation and bullshit and that just describes Smeds Tweets.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
For instance, in Eve, most of the population does not engage in PvP,
is that really true?
I would guess maybe over 1/2 do not engage in PVP but play an industry, market and PVE mission grinding meta game the hi/sec and null/sec is for all intents is 2 games that logistically support each other.
I mean I seen the comment Smedly made but it was so vague I don't know how any got that now all of a sudden were having FFA pvp on all servers?
The only thing I saw was that Smedley said he agreed true sandbox needs to have open world pvp and real risk/rewards.
That's a big difference from FFA. I personally think there's no shot that EQ Next will have FFA, but that's just me.
Yeah, that was actually quoted at other poster's who seem to think it's gonna be a FFA gank fest according to Smedly because of his cryptic comments......
Originally posted by kruler Originally posted by jdnycOriginally posted by lizardbonesFor instance, in Eve, most of the population does not engage in PvP,
is that really true?I would guess maybe over 1/2 do not engage in PVP but play an industry, market and PVE mission grinding meta game the hi/sec and null/sec is for all intents is 2 games that logistically support each other.
You'll have to decide for yourself whether you believe it or not, because I can't find a reference to the original statement or numbers. It is in the category of, "common knowledge, but unconfirmed at this time".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Throw around all the numbers that you want, if you force most PvE players to PvP, then they will go play something else. If they do this, EQ Next will be dead before it goes live.
Yeah, that was actually quoted at other poster's who seem to think it's gonna be a FFA gank fest according to Smedly
FFA doesn't really make sense in my opinion for EQ Next. That's why I think it won't be there. But I could be wrong.
I just think they REALLY are going to pay attention to the lore and build tools with the world of EQ in mind. The whole favorite EQ youtube moments makes me think that's the route they're going. They seem to really give a damn about the IP.
FFA has the propensity to create a very meta game, that is often very chaotic. EQ isn't a blank slate. That makes FFA kind of difficult to execute properly.
I think the PvP will have a more RP factor than anything else. That means - no arenas, no battleground capture the flag stuff, no RvR stuff with timers and point system, and no fucking nerfing abilities so PvP can be balanced one v one. I could be wrong about all this, but that's the feeling I'm getting anyways.
Originally posted by exwin Throw around all the numbers that you want, if you force most PvE players to PvP, then they will go play something else. If they do this, EQ Next will be dead before it goes live.
Age of Conan proves that's not always the case. Game was heavily PvP focused. Your choices were FFA PvP and PvP depending on what zones you went to. Regardless there was a chance to have non consenual PvP and that game sold 1.2 million copies.
Granted the game is heavily PvE focused now because of their major screw up and horrible game design, but the initial interest was high enough for 1.2 million people to buy the game knowing it was a primarily PvP game.
Yeah, that was actually quoted at other poster's who seem to think it's gonna be a FFA gank fest according to Smedly
FFA doesn't really make sense in my opinion for EQ Next. That's why I think it won't be there. But I could be wrong.
I just think they REALLY are going to pay attention to the lore and build tools with the world of EQ in mind. The whole favorite EQ youtube moments makes me think that's the route they're going. They seem to really give a damn about the IP.
FFA has the propensity to create a very meta game, that is often very chaotic. EQ isn't a blank slate. That makes FFA kind of difficult to execute properly.
I think the PvP will have a more RP factor than anything else. That means - no arenas, no battleground capture the flag stuff, no RvR stuff with timers and point system, and no fucking nerfing abilities so PvP can be balanced one v one. I could be wrong about all this, but that's the feeling I'm getting anyways.
What about that rival guild in your faction that you HATE. I hope you don't have to just act like they are not standing in front of you talking shit. That's a real immersion breaker.
Plus doing things like throwing you friend in a lake is too fun
Originally posted by lizardbonesFor instance, in Eve, most of the population does not engage in PvP,
is that really true?
I would guess maybe over 1/2 do not engage in PVP but play an industry, market and PVE mission grinding meta game the hi/sec and null/sec is for all intents is 2 games that logistically support each other.
You'll have to decide for yourself whether you believe it or not, because I can't find a reference to the original statement or numbers. It is in the category of, "common knowledge, but unconfirmed at this time".
Some figures were thrown about before the last expac and just before Evefest, CCP was discussing HOW to get more players out of High sec, one of the things they did was open up mining more in nullsec, ie ore types and yields, thus in theory cutting the revenue of high sec miners, however I think CCP missed the point a little bit....But all that aside CCP themselves are very aware that large amount of people don't play their PVP game.
But that is merely on step in a long line of steps CCP has tried to get more people actually to engage in PVP, including militias and factional flag pvp, but the perception of leaving highsec results in instant gank is still strong, weirdly enough I found I was safe deep null sec because all the gankers sit at the same pathways(gates) that lead to and from high sec, so kinda formed into a self feeding perception, because the gankers felt the need to camp high sec, thus re-enforcing the lack of desire to PVP by the people staying in high sec.
The Ganking mentality which to be fair EVE does fully support is yet again clearly displaying why it handicaps a game, even one designed just for that.
There has been a few threads about this and what are EVE's real sub numbers if your were to strip the box/alt accounts and non-pvper's and the suggestion was it could be quite a low number indeed.
Originally posted by jdnyc Originally posted by exwinThrow around all the numbers that you want, if you force most PvE players to PvP, then they will go play something else. If they do this, EQ Next will be dead before it goes live.
Age of Conan proves that's not always the case. Game was heavily PvP focused. Your choices were FFA PvP and PvP depending on what zones you went to. Regardless there was a chance to have non consenual PvP and that game sold 1.2 million copies.
Granted the game is heavily PvE focused now because of their major screw up and horrible game design, but the initial interest was high enough for 1.2 million people to buy the game knowing it was a primarily PvP game.
Are you sure they really advertised it like that? I didn't get a very clear impression of the game at all from the advertising. I assumed there would be PvP, because it was Conan after fall, but what kind of PvP and how it would play out wasn't very clear. Would it have allowed for flagging or not? Who knows. Warhammer gave a clearer impression of what to expect than Conan.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
What about that rival guild in your faction that you HATE. I hope you don't have to just act like they are not standing in front of you talking shit. That's a real immersion breaker.
You could explain that RP wise that the penalty for betraying one of your own faction members is permadeath. Characters understand that and you aren't allowed to attack members of your own faction. You could always get around this by joining another faction maybe?
See the problem with FFA is that it's not real life. It requires more systems to be put in place that kind of detracts from the essence of what EQ1 is. Murder + Jail and all that stuff is really not the high fantasy setting of EQ. It's a re-imagining of the first game and they're trying to stay true to it.
But maybe they will have all that stuff in there, but I doubt it. Not for a EQ IP.
Originally posted by jdnyc Originally posted by bcbully
What about that rival guild in your faction that you HATE. I hope you don't have to just act like they are not standing in front of you talking shit. That's a real immersion breaker.You could explain that RP wise that the penalty for betraying one of your own faction members is permadeath. Characters understand that and you aren't allowed to attack members of your own faction. You could always get around this by joining another faction maybe?
See the problem with FFA is that it's not real life. It requires more systems to be put in place that kind of detracts from the essence of what EQ1 is. Murder + Jail and all that stuff is really not the high fantasy setting of EQ. It's a re-imagining of the first game and they're trying to stay true to it.
But maybe they will have all that stuff in there, but I doubt it. Not for a EQ IP.
I think having structured inner faction warfare would be cool, especially if it was combined with some sort of territory or housing control. That could allow for guilds to build up power before heading out into the real war zone.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
so it sounds like it comes down to the game, if you dont like FFA type pvp then dont play the game and stop crying about it. If this is the direction that EQN is going then there is nothing you can do about it so move on, if you want to give it a try and stop crying about then do so, either way sounds like the game is set in stone with FFA style pvp so deal with it, crying about it isnt dealing at all it is just making you look like a cry baby.
so despite your... retort being rather lacking, i will respond anyway.
first off: it's a metaphor. ... yeah. nothing else to be said about that.
two: i clearly stated that by engaging in both actions you are opening yourself to a certain reaction. the fact remains though that in ffa game x, you did not ask, or want, that random guy to gank you for all your stuff. you did not consent. period. some people want to be able to choose when so-and-so can attack them. that is all. they want to give consent before they are engaged in pvp.
but you are wrong, they are talking about just having FFA on all servers so....yeah
i considered posting something along these lines, but no power in the verse is going to stop gamers from complaining about stuff they don't like that they have no evidence for in games that barely even exist.
in the grim darkness of the internet there is only forum pvp.
EXACTLY. SWTOR gets almost 2 million players and then droped down to 500K. Same with RIFT, etc. You do this over and over again and see that 500K is the high water mark after content is eaten and you start to look at sustainable models like EVE.
Also, you cannot forget that EVE has the learning curve of a cliff...it is NOT easily accessible, much how WoW took over EQ, purportedly because it was accessible, if EQN is accessible and has many of the elements EVE has, but has great tutorials or other means to show players how to do things, then it will be a breakthrough.
the mere fact that it was a ffa would turn people away in droves, and i don't think soe is going to take that big of a risk. i'm sure there'll be pvp servers, but there will a pve option as well. alternatively they could do a mixed bag with a beefed up version of EvE's security system which would make it impossible to gank people who don't want to be (something like AA's continents system).
basically they are going to cater to pve'ers in some way. so i can see why you pvp'ers are worried. "will they have an offering for us as well." well if EQN is as big as they'd like us to think, i am sure they will.
also EvE has 500k players as well. just sayin'.
AoC was touted as a Sandpark and had FFA PvP in it. It sold 1.2 million copies at launch. More than most pure themeparks did. I think it has a lot to do with hype + world immersion + self identity + game design.
In my opinion it's less about PvP and PvE and more about making great games.
I think allowing people to spawn camp is the most devastating thing to happen in PvP and reflects more on bad game design. One of the many problems of AoC. But people didn't know that before getting into the game. They did know that it was going to be heavily PvP focused at end game though.
When looking at consensual vs non-consensual PvP, you can throw games like LoL, WoT and PS2 out because they don't have PvE content. If there is a sticking point with MMORPGs and PvP, it's the PvE content. Players who are not into OW/FFA PvP don't care if PvP happens in a battlegrounds type situation, which is what LoL, WoT and PS2 are. They don't want it to happen while they are doing something that isn't PvP. This only matters if a game offers something besides PvP content.
If you're going to look at the numbers of people who are "into" OW/FFA PvP, then a much deeper look is needed. For instance, in Eve, most of the population does not engage in PvP, even though it is possible to engage in PvP everywhere. This could mean that OW/FFA PvP is a popular thing, just so long as it's happening someplace else to someone else. It could also mean that OW/FFA PvP is not a draw, but people will put up with a teensy, tiny bit of it, so long as they can get enough of the game's other content. We need a better look at the content and the players before creating a conclusion though.
If you just look at a break down of people participating in OW/FFA PvP, then you have a small percentage of the population engaging in that type of game play, even in games or on servers where it's an option. Most anyone looking at raw numbers without any in depth analysis would be lead to believe that OW/FFA PvP is the least popular form of PvP, far behind games that only have PvP content, and behind games that have PvE content as the primary content of the game.
What's the final conclusion? I don't know, because we haven't done any sort of in depth anything here. The answer may as well be, "Muffins".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
is that really true?
Who exactly is this "they" the forums posters here? Smedly?
I mean I seen the comment Smedly made about the open PVP but it was so vague I don't know how any got that now all of a sudden were having FFA pvp on all servers?
He said there would be PVP and that's about it..... Maybe some open world stuff....
Do people really think there gonna spend all this time making the biggest sandbox quoting Smedly anyway.... and then turn around and make it a FFA pvp game *rollseyes*
Everquest has always been a PVE game first it may have PVP elements but I really can't see them being stupid enough to have every single server FFA........ The game will be NICHE and no amount of sandbox is gonna hold people if there getting ganked constantly by griefers.......
I think you will find that's more wishful thinking and taking other peoples posts as a given SOE fact.
Only fact here is, no one knows until august, everything else is spin, speculation and bullshit and that just describes Smeds Tweets.
The only thing I saw was that Smedley said he agreed true sandbox needs to have open world pvp and real risk/rewards.
That's a big difference from FFA. I personally think there's no shot that EQ Next will have FFA, but that's just me.
instanced pvp, therefore eqn shouldn't be open world pvp. Look, he just proved why openworld isn't best for pvp.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I would guess maybe over 1/2 do not engage in PVP but play an industry, market and PVE mission grinding meta game the hi/sec and null/sec is for all intents is 2 games that logistically support each other.
Yeah, that was actually quoted at other poster's who seem to think it's gonna be a FFA gank fest according to Smedly because of his cryptic comments......
I would guess maybe over 1/2 do not engage in PVP but play an industry, market and PVE mission grinding meta game the hi/sec and null/sec is for all intents is 2 games that logistically support each other.
You'll have to decide for yourself whether you believe it or not, because I can't find a reference to the original statement or numbers. It is in the category of, "common knowledge, but unconfirmed at this time".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
FFA doesn't really make sense in my opinion for EQ Next. That's why I think it won't be there. But I could be wrong.
I just think they REALLY are going to pay attention to the lore and build tools with the world of EQ in mind. The whole favorite EQ youtube moments makes me think that's the route they're going. They seem to really give a damn about the IP.
FFA has the propensity to create a very meta game, that is often very chaotic. EQ isn't a blank slate. That makes FFA kind of difficult to execute properly.
I think the PvP will have a more RP factor than anything else. That means - no arenas, no battleground capture the flag stuff, no RvR stuff with timers and point system, and no fucking nerfing abilities so PvP can be balanced one v one. I could be wrong about all this, but that's the feeling I'm getting anyways.
Age of Conan proves that's not always the case. Game was heavily PvP focused. Your choices were FFA PvP and PvP depending on what zones you went to. Regardless there was a chance to have non consenual PvP and that game sold 1.2 million copies.
Granted the game is heavily PvE focused now because of their major screw up and horrible game design, but the initial interest was high enough for 1.2 million people to buy the game knowing it was a primarily PvP game.
What about that rival guild in your faction that you HATE. I hope you don't have to just act like they are not standing in front of you talking shit. That's a real immersion breaker.
Plus doing things like throwing you friend in a lake is too fun
Some figures were thrown about before the last expac and just before Evefest, CCP was discussing HOW to get more players out of High sec, one of the things they did was open up mining more in nullsec, ie ore types and yields, thus in theory cutting the revenue of high sec miners, however I think CCP missed the point a little bit....But all that aside CCP themselves are very aware that large amount of people don't play their PVP game.
But that is merely on step in a long line of steps CCP has tried to get more people actually to engage in PVP, including militias and factional flag pvp, but the perception of leaving highsec results in instant gank is still strong, weirdly enough I found I was safe deep null sec because all the gankers sit at the same pathways(gates) that lead to and from high sec, so kinda formed into a self feeding perception, because the gankers felt the need to camp high sec, thus re-enforcing the lack of desire to PVP by the people staying in high sec.
The Ganking mentality which to be fair EVE does fully support is yet again clearly displaying why it handicaps a game, even one designed just for that.
There has been a few threads about this and what are EVE's real sub numbers if your were to strip the box/alt accounts and non-pvper's and the suggestion was it could be quite a low number indeed.
Granted the game is heavily PvE focused now because of their major screw up and horrible game design, but the initial interest was high enough for 1.2 million people to buy the game knowing it was a primarily PvP game.
Are you sure they really advertised it like that? I didn't get a very clear impression of the game at all from the advertising. I assumed there would be PvP, because it was Conan after fall, but what kind of PvP and how it would play out wasn't very clear. Would it have allowed for flagging or not? Who knows. Warhammer gave a clearer impression of what to expect than Conan.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You could explain that RP wise that the penalty for betraying one of your own faction members is permadeath. Characters understand that and you aren't allowed to attack members of your own faction. You could always get around this by joining another faction maybe?
See the problem with FFA is that it's not real life. It requires more systems to be put in place that kind of detracts from the essence of what EQ1 is. Murder + Jail and all that stuff is really not the high fantasy setting of EQ. It's a re-imagining of the first game and they're trying to stay true to it.
But maybe they will have all that stuff in there, but I doubt it. Not for a EQ IP.
You could explain that RP wise that the penalty for betraying one of your own faction members is permadeath. Characters understand that and you aren't allowed to attack members of your own faction. You could always get around this by joining another faction maybe?
See the problem with FFA is that it's not real life. It requires more systems to be put in place that kind of detracts from the essence of what EQ1 is. Murder + Jail and all that stuff is really not the high fantasy setting of EQ. It's a re-imagining of the first game and they're trying to stay true to it.
But maybe they will have all that stuff in there, but I doubt it. Not for a EQ IP.
I think having structured inner faction warfare would be cool, especially if it was combined with some sort of territory or housing control. That could allow for guilds to build up power before heading out into the real war zone.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.