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!

How do you envision EQN to balance PvE and PvP - A Poll

13

Comments

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,656Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Akerbeltz

    I agree with you that a compromise must be made: My bet was a PVE oriented server where players would freely choose where/when to flag/unflag for PvP and another server with full FFA (with strong conequences ala UO, or an EVE similar system).

    That's what it comes down to. There is no single ruleset that is going to please everyone. Simply offer multiple choices, but not too many to thin out the population. One is bound to cater to almost everyone.

    I'm against a laundry list of "rules" and safeguards on a FFA server. I would much rather have a FFA... we make the rules, we suffer the consequences. No safety net. DAoC FFA servers were great, but died a sad death, because even in a PVP centric game, FFA doesn't work well or last long (majority of the time). Make a pop up when you log in "You will die in this world, a lot" "Do you wish to continue?" DAoC's site even said something like, if you have a problem, solve it with the PVP tools you have.

    Sadly the risk-reward goes away very quickly when you either are on the winning or losing side. Better guilds usually band together to dominate and then fight amongst themselves, then quit once that has lost its fun. Bringing the majority of the not so good players along, because we all want to be like them...

    Now a days, I prefer consensual PVP and like the random PVP encounters against others that are like minded. I'm done with the mindless gankging and steamrolling that comes along with FFA. Even given a strict FFA ruleset, if there is any chance for those that don't want to play nice to take advantage, they will.

    No need for us to lure in PVErs, "It's okay, you'll be fine, look at all these rules" when in reality they are just fodder for those that can't win against the good PVPers and need an outlet for their anger.

    Consensual could work very well in a Sandbox. PVE can do the back end work (crafting, city building, politics, resource management, etc) while PVPers can be the attack force and do the destroying and what not. Pretty much like real life. You have the people at home doing what they do and those that get sent off to kill some random other group of people. Seems to work well, at least if your on the winning side...

     

  • TamanousTamanous Edmonton, ABPosts: 2,125Member Uncommon

    In a sandbox pve and pvp are one and the same. Balancing won't be much of an issue. It seems to me most forget or perhaps never even knew why recent mmos even have seperate stats and mechanics for both. It is because pvp was seperated into it's own progression path and you couldn't have maxed out pve players switching over into pvp with better gear they earned through another progression system.

     

    In a sandbox this doesn't happen and therefore you do not need to worry about many of these issues. There may very well be dual purpose powers that work differently in pvp and pve and there may very well be additional perks earned through either play style but in a craft driven system all gear is typically useful in all areas of the game.

     

    If you have played a sandbox style mmo you likely would have noticed the seemlessness between pve and pvp. It is amazingly immersive not having to jump between mini-games such that exists in themepark mmos. I played Asheron's Call for years and never once was there an issue brought up between pvp and pve. Balancing powers and classes are their own thing and will always exist. The heated discussions between pve and pvp is a thempark blight only.

     

    If SOE is smart they will go out of their way to keep the game within one play area (albeit huge) and lessen isntanced game play (eveidently this is confirmed). They can avoid all the pitfalls of a themepark game and even classes are not required to be balanced against each other as so many class types will be playing together at once it won't even matter (i.e. rock/paper/scissor vs mirrored or copied classes).

     

    Pvp within the main game world is just an extension of pve and nothing else. Pve is redefined when it comes to sandbox games. The environment IS the world otherwise you are just playing a large FPS-style map. It wouldn't be a roleplaying game if the world wasn't alive. Living and dying within that world is the RP part of the game and it doesn't matter how you died or to who. Hard to wrap your head around it if playing nothing but themepark games.

    You stay sassy!

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Tamanous

    In a sandbox pve and pvp are one and the same.

    Err no.  Not a t all.  PvP and PvE are both optional features of a sandbox.  PvE is closer to being "required" in a sandbox game but PvP is just plain optional.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,273Member Uncommon
    FFA world with an instance/questing area.
  • hayes303hayes303 Edmonton, ABPosts: 369Member

    I would like to see pvp servers and pve servers. Dueling only on the pve servers. 

    Would be nice if the endless pvp balancing act didn't screw up all the classes until they are all a flavorless gruel, but thats probably asking too much.

  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Posts: 998Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ethion
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Margulis
    It's interesting that the VAST majority want a PvE focused experience, but it seems like PvP people are vastly more vocal on forums. 

    It is also interesting how so many of them interpret muddling along cheerfully with your PvP flag off as being selfish while ganking is not.  Also positively interacting with people in a cooperative manner becomes "socially awkward" while sneaking up on someone, killing them and tea-bagging their corpse all the while yelling noob noob noob becomes the epitome of good social behavior.

    *snip* After a few days I just suddenly realized what I was doing when he asked me to stop and said he was sorry. *snip* 
     

     

    Forgive me for chopping up your post but I just wanted to focus on this sentence as this has been my experience and the main reason why I always advocate with the PvE crowd in PvE vs PvP debates.  I am a PvP player at heart, and can very much lean toward hardcore PvP, but your above scenario is precisely the reason why I limit my PvP to PvP-centric FPS games. 

     

    It has been my experience that in MMORPGs with PvE player bases it always seems like the PvP is always so skewed.  For the most part, it is always against another player who is either not prepared or simply not possessing of any real PvP skill.  As a result, I tend to feel guilty when i come up against, and easily destroy the player.  The worst part about it is that most of the time these players are not even interested in PvPing.  Often times they just half willingly fight back or simply not fight back at all.  In so many instances, I've even had players nicely ask me if I would please not engage them again  because they would like to finish quests or simply play in peace.  It's really not fulfilling at all, and I simply fail to see the enjoyment that some of these "so called" hardcore PvPers see in forcing their PvP unto players who are not interested in PvPing.  It just seems so callous to me.

     

    Now on PvP centric games, where there is no question that a game is forced non consensual OWPvP, this should not be a problem.  But you would be surprised how much of this behavior is prevalent in those games as well.  Not all PvPers are equally skilled, and trust me I have had some very good challenges and on many occasion experienced defeat.  But it just pains me to no end when I come to the realization that even in those forced non consensual PvP centric games, ,more often than not, there will always be a portion of the population that are either very young children, or simply not skilled enough, on whom I am instilling great misery.  Increasingly, the downer that I feel in those instances far outweigh the thrill I feel when I win.

     

    No game should ever force non consensual PvP on those who do not enjoy it.  It is absolutely bad game design.

  • JayFiveAliveJayFiveAlive Arvada, COPosts: 534Member Uncommon

    Why wouldn't EQN be like the others in terms of PVP? Consentual PvP except on PvP server. Rallos Zek was the best server back in Original EQ days. No need to try to alter that. ;)

  • HrimnirHrimnir Qeynos, COPosts: 1,597Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by Margulis
    It's interesting that the VAST majority want a PvE focused experience, but it seems like PvP people are vastly more vocal on forums. 

    PVE people spend more time enjoying the game and socializing, while PVP people are constantly in rage mode on the forums cause X Y Z aren't fair in game (I've been there myself sadly).

    What he said.  So many people make the mistake of assuming that the loud squawking birds number more greatly than the ones who don't make themselves seen.  This is usually not the case.

    People who enjoy pure FFA PVP are roughly 5-10% of the MMO population.  People who enjoy PVP in mmo but preferred structured PVP whether thats RVR or Battlegrounds/arenas, etc, are closer to 30-40%.  The majority of MMO players are PVE people, and there is a lot of overlap between people who enjoy PVP and PVE in an mmo.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • XthosXthos Columbus, OHPosts: 2,628Member
    Originally posted by bcbully
    FFA world with an instance/questing area.

    God, I hope not.  If it is the same over instance stuff we have been getting, I probably won't even try it, even though it is free. 

  • JayFiveAliveJayFiveAlive Arvada, COPosts: 534Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Xthos
    Originally posted by bcbully
    FFA world with an instance/questing area.

    God, I hope not.  If it is the same over instance stuff we have been getting, I probably won't even try it, even though it is free. 

    I'm so sick of instances as well. I realllly hope they don't do that crap. I would rather have 1000 low-medium-ish pop server than like 10 high pop fully instanced servers. I miss running into other groups/people in dungeons, talking, etc. Instances ruin the world feel IMO.

  • AkerbeltzAkerbeltz Vitoria-GasteizPosts: 161Member
    Originally posted by Antarious
    Originally posted by Akerbeltz

    No, you cannot have sandbox in a PvE only game.

     

    In fact sandbox by its nature implies FFA OWPvP, as it provides with the only model for players to engage in complex interaction narratives: rogue factions, treason, espionage, counter-intelligence, piracy, mercs, bounty-hunting, worthy trading, serious politics... That is, the only viable way of ""endgame". And this is what sandbox is about, isn't it?

     

    Ideally, this system (OWPvP FFA) would go along a complex consequence/penalty system to prevent/punish ganking and abuse. Removing it would dramatically damage the game's long-term sustainibility, it'd be much less game and an immersion breaker from an RPG point of view. In other words:  you'd castrate the sandbox to turn it into another thing, something quite dull and lame i can tell you.

     

    Why so many people don't understand this?

     

    I'm going to chime in on this because it boggles me to no end...   

     

    I'm just not sure why anyone thinks that sandbox and PvP of any kind are related or implied to need one for the other to exist.   The only pure online sandbox I've seen is Second Life.   Oh and yes I heard the snickers about furries etc..   what I'm getting at is that someone buys a sim and can entirely build it.   If they have the tools and ability there is literally very little limit to the world they can create.   Which is of course exactly what a sandbox is...

     

    As close as we get in standard MMO's is a little dungeon quest tool or perhaps a housing area.   Where you can have some user created content. 

     

    For a "sandbox" there is no requirement other than the ability for the user to create content.   In other words combat... which includes PvP is not required in a sandbox... ever.   Obviously it can exist but it is not a requirement of a sandbox.

     

    I would say that sandbox is not a black or white concept, but a ensemble of design mechanics that allow players to develop their avatars with the maximum possible freedom, the only barrier being the context /restrictions marked by the lore. In other words, I'd say that sandbox is the virtual recreation of Real Life mechanics in the context of a game's lore. This is the reason because I think sandbox foundations are the only way to ensure a proper and immersive RPG experience. Please, note that I always talking in a RPG context (minecraft or garrys mod are pure sandboxes but wouldn't be included in the RPG genre).

     

    In response to your examples: I haven't played Sims nor Second Life. My question is: Can you roleplay a mentally disfunctional character that slaps the bartender everytime he serves his latte cold? If the answer is not, I would say that at best those are castrated RPG sandboxes as they fail in the recreation field, limiting dramatically the way the avatar can interact with other, thus making the experience somewhat unbelievable.

     

    I remind you that perhaps the most defining factors of RPG is the capacity to recreate of a certain fantasy world in a plausible way. This is the reason because sandbox FFA OWPvP is the only way to properly make RPG. How if not are you going to recreate political relationships, factions inside factions, count of montecristo style narratives, treason, revenge, characters that fall from glory and rise again (or not), bounty hunting, rogue narratives, etc, etc, etc? 

     

    Also, do you realize that when you remove FFA OWPvP you remove any possibility of real longevity, unless you consider PVE's endgame (that is, "power creep" and "gear treadmill") as a viable options? Sorry, but I'm not buying that: PVE endgame is just based on pure compulsive addiction and I'm not willing to spend an 8 hour session in front of the computer to chase the next carrot as Pavlov's dog. See that I'm not against raiding but not when it turns into a Skinner's Box nihilistic exercise.

     

    Again, want RPG? Want viability on the long run? --> Sandbox FFA OWPvP

     

    The rest is just arcades, short-termish,on-rails handholding themepark or bamby's sandbox a/o pure treadmill for the so called "hardcore"  --> The same crap we've been getting for the last 8 years.

     

     

    Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

  • AkerbeltzAkerbeltz Vitoria-GasteizPosts: 161Member

     

    Sorry, duplicated post.

    Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit londonPosts: 31Member

    The way I hope it will be...

    There are starter towns. No PvP allowed in start towns.

    Once you leave the starter towns there are NPC run towns. NPC run towns have various levels of law/disorder depending on many factors. NPC towns can change how they protect you based on what you do or don't do (so through your actions you can make the town dislike your race or really like it or jus tfor them to personally tollerate you). Eventually these NPC towns can be taken over by players (think getting elected to positions of power and then having a say on what laws appy to the town).

    Player towns and buildings can be constructed anywhere but have requirements for their construction such as access to water, level terrain, certain resources etc. Part of putting down a structure is how it links to the local area. So put down a building in the wilderness and you are pretty much open to anything. Someone builds a hut near you and suddenly you have options such as mutual protection, agreeing what can/can't be done on your land. Enough buildings near each other and you can call yourself a village, increasing building options such as being able to build a town hall, make roads, eastablish trade routes, elect a mayor or pledge loyalty to a lord, build a castle, hire troops...

    Now the safety of each location in the world is up to the players to determine outside the main capitol lands. Want to live in peace? Either stay in the capitol or venture out to a player run city that offers complete safety and contribute to keeping the town safe not just from players trying to influence what can/cannot be done but also from the local environment such as local animals, hostile tribes or even natural events.

    OR

    Flagged system like SWG for simplicity.

  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit londonPosts: 31Member
    Originally posted by Akerbeltz
     

    I would say that sandbox is not a black or white concept, but a ensemble of design mechanics that allow players to develop their avatars with the maximum possible freedom, the only barrier being the context /restrictions marked by the lore. In other words, I'd say that sandbox is the virtual recreation of Real Life mechanics in the context of a game's lore. This is the reason because I think sandbox foundations are the only way to ensure a proper and immersive RPG experience. Please, note that I always talking in a RPG context (minecraft or garrys mod are pure sandboxes but wouldn't be included in the RPG genre).

     

    In response to your examples: I haven't played Sims nor Second Life. My question is: Can you roleplay a mentally disfunctional character that slaps the bartender everytime he serves his latte cold? If the answer is not, I would say that at best those are castrated RPG sandboxes as they fail in the recreation field, limiting dramatically the way the avatar can interact with other, thus making the experience somewhat unbelievable.

     

    I remind you that perhaps the most defining factors of RPG is the capacity to recreate of a certain fantasy world in a plausible way. This is the reason because sandbox FFA OWPvP is the only way to properly make RPG. How if not are you going to recreate political relationships, factions inside factions, count of montecristo style narratives, treason, revenge, characters that fall from glory and rise again (or not), bounty hunting, rogue narratives, etc, etc, etc? 

     

    Also, do you realize that when you remove FFA OWPvP you remove any possibility of real longevity, unless you consider PVE's endgame (that is, "power creep" and "gear treadmill") as a viable options? Sorry, but I'm not buying that: PVE endgame is just based on pure compulsive addiction and I'm not willing to spend an 8 hour session in front of the computer to chase the next carrot as Pavlov's dog. See that I'm not against raiding but not when it turns into a Skinner's Box nihilistic exercise.

     

    Again, want RPG? Want viability on the long run? --> Sandbox FFA OWPvP

     

    The rest is just arcades, short-termish,on-rails handholding themepark or bamby's sandbox a/o pure treadmill for the so called "hardcore"  --> The same crap we've been getting for the last 8 years.

     

     

    While I do get what you are saying I feel the problem to date is balance.

    At the moment FFA OWPVP has only had combat as a tool for balance.

    Someone better at you in combat is bullying you? FFA OWPVP solution = Fight back. Problem = Fighting is the cause of the problem in the first place.

     

    So games that use FFA OWPVP needs to address that problem. There needs to be more tools to combat an agressive PvP'er then having to PvP back.

    Can I build an environment where, on my own lands I know that should a superior PvP opponent turn up I am prepared enough to know that the law, guards, prison await them if they attack? Can I research a spell that allows me to telport them into a pit and keep them locked up?

    Balance is missing and till it is there you will always have problems.

  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member

    Yawn. It's probably gonna be another casual loving majority game like all the other stuff on the market.

     

    consensual safemode artificial player base splitting least resistance mode SNOOZEFEST

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GrumpyHobbit
    Originally posted by Akerbeltz
     

    I would say that sandbox is not a black or white concept, but a ensemble of design mechanics that allow players to develop their avatars with the maximum possible freedom, t

    This is the reason because sandbox FFA OWPvP is the only way to properly make RPG.

    Someone better at you in combat is bullying you? FFA OWPVP solution = Fight back. Problem = Fighting is the cause of the problem in the first place.

    Balance is missing and till it is there you will always have problems.

    I do not want to kill other players, nor do I want to lock them up or teleport them into pits.  All of these are in the end violent steps taken to revenge yourself on players killing you.  I want no part of any of it. 

    A sandbox is not a black or white concept, but one thing is for sure: that adolescent ganking that player farming, burning his house whatever and then teabagging the corpse yelling NOOB, NOOB, NOOB and doing it over and over again is not role playing.That ganking player will always find there way into  a FFA OWPvP game which makes it certain that such games are the death of Role Playing.

    Please do not tell me this is an exaggeration when on this very forum we have a poster starting a thread on the exquisite pleasure of ganking people and how that is the only real emotion they experience when playing MMORPG's

    Also do not talk about providing consequences for ganking, for them to come into effect players have to be ganked. Before any company would take serious action against a player a lot of people would have to be ganked.  Once that one account had been effected it would be replaced by another and ganking would continue unabated, it does not need to be the same player it seems there is an unending supply of adolescent ganking PvP players.  In game consequences always consist of ganking the ganker again more negative behaviour.  No if there must be PvP make it consensual and/or put it on a separate server.

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by SavageHorizon
    So what happened to PVP severs and PVE servers?

    That's....a compromise....

    Until Smed provides details, we're still standing in a circle screaming "Mine!" at him. (145 different versions of "mine")

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit londonPosts: 31Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    I do not want to kill other players, nor do I want to lock them up or teleport them into pits.  All of these are in the end violent steps taken to revenge yourself on players killing you.  I want no part of any of it. 

    A sandbox is not a black or white concept, but one thing is for sure: that adolescent ganking that player farming, burning his house whatever and then teabagging the corpse yelling NOOB, NOOB, NOOB and doing it over and over again is not role playing.That ganking player will always find there way into  a FFA OWPvP game which makes it certain that such games are the death of Role Playing.

    Please do not tell me this is an exaggeration when on this very forum we have a poster starting a thread on the exquisite pleasure of ganking people and how that is the only real emotion they experience when playing MMORPG's

    Also do not talk about providing consequences for ganking, for them to come into effect players have to be ganked. Before any company would take serious action against a player a lot of people would have to be ganked.  Once that one account had been effected it would be replaced by another and ganking would continue unabated, it does not need to be the same player it seems there is an unending supply of adolescent ganking PvP players.  In game consequences always consist of ganking the ganker again more negative behaviour.  No if there must be PvP make it consensual and/or put it on a separate server.

    Whoa! I am on your side so please calm down.

    There are games that already have what you want. There are also games that already have what they want. But you are both (i.e. the generics "I wan't NO PvP" and the "I want FFAOWPVP") want to play in the same game.

    And that needs compromise. And as I have stated above in my post, the problem I have with OWPVP is that there is no balance, no compromise. At the same time in a game without PvP there is no compromise.

    If neither side will compromise then one side (or potentially both) will be dissapointed.

    So, can you offer any way for such a compromise to be met?  Or are you simply complaining about people being able to PvP in a game with PvP....

  • AkerbeltzAkerbeltz Vitoria-GasteizPosts: 161Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyHobbit
    Originally posted by Akerbeltz
     
     

    While I do get what you are saying I feel the problem to date is balance.

    At the moment FFA OWPVP has only had combat as a tool for balance.

    Someone better at you in combat is bullying you? FFA OWPVP solution = Fight back. Problem = Fighting is the cause of the problem in the first place.

     

    So games that use FFA OWPVP needs to address that problem. There needs to be more tools to combat an agressive PvP'er then having to PvP back.

    Can I build an environment where, on my own lands I know that should a superior PvP opponent turn up I am prepared enough to know that the law, guards, prison await them if they attack? Can I research a spell that allows me to telport them into a pit and keep them locked up?

    Balance is missing and till it is there you will always have problems.

     

    You bring up a fair (and old) point: ganking and how to prevent abusive behaviour.

    My bet would be a strong and deep consequence system and another system to perma-ban players.

     

    About the former: Did you play Ultima Online? It had a great consequences system and I think devs should build up upon that. If a character killed innocent characters he/she would be tagged as criminal and, among other consequences, would only be able to resurrect in one shrine. This was quite annoying and more so if you didn't know where the shrine was. Also, town guards would automatically attack the offender if he/she would dare to walk close to a city/town. it's just an example but you see that there are solutions to tag compulsive abusive behaviour (ganking). By the way, Felucca community in UO was possible the best I've ever seen - It was like it regulated itself by natural social mechanisms. Another thing, people are still paying UO subs after 15 years, so you can see the enduring power of sandbox FFA OWPvP.

     

    About the latter: too many weirdos, trolls, jackasses, cheaters, botters and other undesirable fauna populates MMORPGS, especially since WOW post BC opened the containment gates to the minimum common denominator among potential market share. I think it's become mandatory to start implementing serious permabanning systems.

     

    My bet is to tie account with credit card number or NIN, so permaban can be performed for good. Of course, a good monitoring system would be a must - for example one that took as an indicator number of attacks to innocent players per a certain period of time, number of times being reported and why, bot control, etc...

     

     

    Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

  • GrumpyHobbitGrumpyHobbit londonPosts: 31Member

    It is all about what systems they have come up with and how are they designing the game to let us interact with and control the environment around us. I simply do not trust other players to keep me safe in an OWPVP game because from experience they do not. So if I can go to a village, build a house, build walls, hire 500 guards, establish a system of law, build a jail, prison and hangmans noose....all as a counter threat to someone wanting to PvP me in my home town....great.

    If they are not going to do something really complex and all encompassing then I will simply accept a flagging system ala SWG. OWPVP is just full of too many sexually deprived spotty teens (or adults that are just sadfucks) that to find a good PvP'er and PvP fight is just hassle.A flagging system, while simplistic and unrealistic is a good mechanic while games cannot represent the level of reality required so I can string up and quarter a known thief and scumbag who has commited crimes on my land.

  • ethionethion Clearwater, FlPosts: 2,878Member Uncommon

    Amazing how many people post about PvP and stuff they want.  Really sounds like a completely different game.  Did anyone actually play eq?  I played EQ from day one for a REALLY long time.  

    EQ was the definative PVE MMO.  No other game was in it's league since.  Now it wasn't perfect and I will concede that I'd have  difficulty getting into it today if it was the same.

    But there have been some good changes since eq came out that I think would help.

    1. solo and group mobs.  

    EQ could be frustrating especially if you were a class that wasn't good at soloing.  I played a rogue which is without question the worst class for one on one solo fights.  Creating mobs that you can solo for xp and quests gives you something better to do than just sit around and say lvl 50 rogue LFG for an hour or two.

    2. LFG tools

    LFG or Group finder tools are another very nice new feature.  I can do my solo quests etc and keep busy while I'm queued for what I really want to do which is group.  

    3. Teleports

    Yes running from Freeport to Qeynos was fun the first few times.  A huge sense of accomplishment and a good way to make money leading people between the sites.  But having teleports you can unlock is a nice enhancement esp with a huge world and a limited time to play.

    4. Quests

    EQ had quests but they were few and far between.  They were also done by typing commands to npcs trying to get the right phrase.  In any event having more quests and more depth to the quests is a great improvement.

    Then there are things about EQ that were great, there were many but I'll mention just one.  LOOT.  One of the worst things about todays MMOs is that they got hardly any loot in the early part of the game and some times not even much later.  In eq it seemed like there was a LOT more variety of loot and a lot more variations on stats.  Everything in today's MMOs seems slim.  One armor type for every 5 levels with one set of stats.   You are kinda on a railroad with eveyrthing just appearing at the proper time.

    Anyway I've seriously drifted.  The point is that EQ was the greatest PvE game ever and today I can't think of any newer game with really decent PvE gameplay.  Everything is watered down usually due to PvP.

    So WHY in their right minds would the abandon EQs strength and nerf it with PvP??  And yes EQ did have Dueling and it also had PvP servers.  But the game was never balanced for PvP.  Classes that were weak in PvE were also weak in PvP.  Rogue vs Warrior - Warrior wins.  Cleric vs just about anything, cleric wins.  Necro vs anything necro wins.  And of course the bard rules them all!! 

    ---
    Ethion

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GrumpyHobbit
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    I do not want to kill other players, nor do I want to lock them up or teleport them into pits.  All of these are in the end violent steps taken to revenge yourself on players killing you.  I want no part of any of it. 

      No if there must be PvP make it consensual and/or put it on a separate server.

    So, can you offer any way for such a compromise to be met?  Or are you simply complaining about people being able to PvP in a game with PvP....

    I have highlighted in red the only compromise I think makes sense. No point in locking folks out, but as different folks want incompatable rule sets put them on separate servers.

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,656Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ethion

    So WHY in their right minds would the abandon EQs strength and nerf it with PvP??  And yes EQ did have Dueling and it also had PvP servers.  But the game was never balanced for PvP.  Classes that were weak in PvE were also weak in PvP.  Rogue vs Warrior - Warrior wins.  Cleric vs just about anything, cleric wins.  Necro vs anything necro wins.  And of course the bard rules them all!! 

    To me, the EQ franchise should always be PVE focused. But I feel the E has been too narrow, Environment could be Everything/Everyone.

    Some of us believe that if they really embrace the whole sandbox style, that PVP of some type would enhance the overall world and experience for everyone. I'm all for consensual PVP mind you, not FFA.

    They've alluded to not focusing on things that made EQ the game it is. Less gear, level, raid grinding, and definitely not turning into a quest hub game.

    Sure there is housing, crafting, and other things to do, but there needs to be some sort of ongoing conflict to keep people entertained and coming back for a challenge. If there is no carrot on the stick (grind), there is less reason for people to return. For many, PVP, even consensual/casual is a great time sink and way to feel immersed in the game. Killing the same named mob over and over gets boring for some.

    I'm also for servers with different rulesets so like minded people can be together, but I feel that servers with more PVP will have more depth. My vision would be PVE people handling the back end (crafting, farming, resource gathering, housing, supplies, politics, gear) and PVP people would be off chasing each other around and attacking what each other have made, taking resources/land.

    I see PVE players as civilians in RL battles. Generally civilians are off limits. If a PVE player was to buff, heal, or help someone in active PVP, they would also be free to kill for a short time. This would allow PVE/PVP to band together vs attackers, but let the PVErs go back to safety once the fight was over, but an undefended group of PVEers could not get killed by a sneaky group of PVPers. Maybe they could only attack/loot supply buildings or something.

    We'll have to see how open of a sandbox they make EQN and exactly what the focus is on. If there is less traditional EQ grind elements, there will be a spot open, PVP is ready and willing.

    EQN is hopefully not EQ3, but an entirely new genre as they claim. EQ/EQ2 will be right there for those that want a more traditional PVE world.

    Either way, I hope it turns out fun for everyone.

    Edit: As far as balance goes, I still believe that classes (if there are any) should be balanced/focused on PVE. We should need each other to survive and progress. Fair or balanced doesn't need to happen in a group/community focused game. If someone's main goal is to 1 vs 1 everyone, they should plan their class choice properly, but hopefully we have each other to depend on. People shouldn't have the army of one mindset, if so, be prepared to lose a lot. 

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
         I am hoping that EQNext is pure PvE with no consideration whatsoever to PvP balance..  I want my DRUID back from EQ.. YES, in a PvP format I would own every melee class in the game..  KITE this baby!!..  Booyahh..  I want distinct classes with unique skills and abilities ONLY focusing on PvE..  I loved how EQ classes something for everyone.. You want to play a hybrid class? Go for it.. Bards rocked.. It's time we take off the carebear guided tour, and let players create their own way of grouping.. I hope EQ Next avoid the holy trinity like the plague..
  • DocBrodyDocBrody EldridgePosts: 1,820Member

    omg another carebear MMO coming up? this time in sandbox disguise?

    Just what the market needs.

Sign In or Register to comment.