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!

Concept: How EQN could have open-world PVP and strongly limit griefing

123457

Comments

  • OfficialFlowOfficialFlow HelsinkiPosts: 111Member

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers because we all know that they are just insecure and immature cowards who are just venting their stupidity if they have to take an equal risk when they decide to gank or grief somebody they wont even consider it... well if they are just assholes then its entirely different matter, if there is a ghost walk and a type of shrine area that you can get ressurected bah i dont know

    but then again if they can perfectly do this "dark side" and "good side" thing and balance it, the griefers cant grief in "good side" towns or regions and vice versa, what do you consider griefing anyway? same player kills you 7 times in one minute? or 7 times in 1 hour? its all about the intervals the kills occur is it not? so if a player kills you and you have to ghost walk for 30secs to the nearby shrine to ressurect (safe zone?) and you leave it and you are killed again is this considered griefing? or just stupidity on your part for leaving the safe zone?

    well my final opinion is that they will divide PvP to zones, pvp zones and pve zones

  • LorskaLorska Portland, ORPosts: 74Member
    I completely agree with the OP in wanting a system like this implemented into MMO games.  What has bothered me for years is that no developer seems willing to do it despite it being very technologically and conceptually feasible. 
  • DatawarlockDatawarlock Eden Prairie, MNPosts: 338Member
    The OP just basically posted a description of The Repopulation lol!
  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    @OfficialFlow - I agree that it's important to get rid of the huge strength differences. Would love to see a combat system that requires more skill  to master. Players who need something to achieve could focus on taking and holding territory, lording over amazing palaces and treasures, etc.

    @Lorska - Thanks for the kind words. =)

    As for why more devs haven't tried to do this, as @loopback1199 suggests, we're seeing more of them move in that direction. I didn't know until reading the replies to this thread that both The Repopulation and Camelot Unchained will have very similar design. However, I'm holding out hope for EQN as a triple-A game on Playstation 4. It could be the perfect storm of everything I've wanted for so long. ;)
  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aelious
    One shard that everyone actually shares only works for EvE because very little is actually rendered. Even if there was only a "Norrath" server it would need to be broken into "Channels" to be playable.

    It doesn't work that way. Its called LOD. You'd be crazy to think the entire world is loaded up at once!

  • LaiquendiLaiquendi slingerlands, NYPosts: 73Member
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Or...seperate servers.

    Im going to have to go with this. 

     

     

    image
  • DatawarlockDatawarlock Eden Prairie, MNPosts: 338Member
    Originally posted by OfficialFlow

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill...

    Let's turn this around... if YOU had any skill, the equipment strength differences wouldn't matter.

     

    I know it's a different train of thought for most of us, but I say we give the carebears their own servers and let them have absolutely nothing to do but sit bored in guild chat picking their asses because they farmed the hell out of the skill-less mobs and are too bored to do anything more than hold another house decorating contest amongst themselves.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by loopback1199
    Originally posted by OfficialFlow

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill...

    Let's turn this around... if YOU had any skill, the equipment strength differences wouldn't matter.

     

    I know it's a different train of thought for most of us, but I say we give the carebears their own servers and let them have absolutely nothing to do but sit bored in guild chat picking their asses because they farmed the hell out of the skill-less mobs and are too bored to do anything more than hold another house decorating contest amongst themselves.

    The first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. loopback1199 was basically saying that the in-game power gap between players can't be big if you expect skill to be the deciding factor.

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,066Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Trudge34
    Or...seperate servers.

     This

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by OfficialFlow

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers ....

    So you "balance" out the one on one griefers, which by the way does not just making all players pretty much equal, you also have to remove almost all advantage from "ambushing" another player while they are doing something.

    So what do the griefers do then? Well then its 2 on 1 attacks or 3 on 1 attacks.  So you have to "balance" for that at which point you have to somehow re-balance the one on one encounters.

    As for consequences, well they will only kick after someone regularly griefs and that means lots of people have been griefed (or a few players lots of times. 

    Bounty systems are really only getting a non-griefer to pay a griefer to grief someone that griefed them.  I wonder why I do not like that (as a non-PvP player)

    So separate servers?  Well the griefers do not like that because it allows the victims to remove themselves from the fray.  Which means the most egregious of the griefers become the victims, which means they either move to the non-PvP servers and act like the trolls they are, or they move on to another game.  Which leaves the PvP players to play on a server without whiney care bears like me and without the slimy griefers.  This should make them happy, not sure why it doesnt.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by OfficialFlow

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers ....

    So you "balance" out the one on one griefers, which by the way does not just making all players pretty much equal, you also have to remove almost all advantage from "ambushing" another player while they are doing something.

    So what do the griefers do then? Well then its 2 on 1 attacks or 3 on 1 attacks.  So you have to "balance" for that at which point you have to somehow re-balance the one on one encounters.

    As for consequences, well they will only kick after someone regularly griefs and that means lots of people have been griefed (or a few players lots of times. 

    Bounty systems are really only getting a non-griefer to pay a griefer to grief someone that griefed them.  I wonder why I do not like that (as a non-PvP player)

    So separate servers?  Well the griefers do not like that because it allows the victims to remove themselves from the fray.  Which means the most egregious of the griefers become the victims, which means they either move to the non-PvP servers and act like the trolls they are, or they move on to another game.  Which leaves the PvP players to play on a server without whiney care bears like me and without the slimy griefers.  This should make them happy, not sure why it doesnt.

    No you don't need to balance the game so 3 people can't gank 1. 3 > 1. You don't need to bubble wrap the game to the point where griefing is impossible. Because then so many other things are impossible. That defeats the purpose of a sandbox.

     

    Although preferably you could take on the 3 enemies if you were skilled enough.

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by OfficialFlow

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers ....

    So you "balance" out the one on one griefers, which by the way does not just making all players pretty much equal, you also have to remove almost all advantage from "ambushing" another player while they are doing something.

    So what do the griefers do then? Well then its 2 on 1 attacks or 3 on 1 attacks.  So you have to "balance" for that at which point you have to somehow re-balance the one on one encounters.

    As for consequences, well they will only kick after someone regularly griefs and that means lots of people have been griefed (or a few players lots of times. 

    Bounty systems are really only getting a non-griefer to pay a griefer to grief someone that griefed them.  I wonder why I do not like that (as a non-PvP player)

    So separate servers?  Well the griefers do not like that because it allows the victims to remove themselves from the fray.  Which means the most egregious of the griefers become the victims, which means they either move to the non-PvP servers and act like the trolls they are, or they move on to another game.  Which leaves the PvP players to play on a server without whiney care bears like me and without the slimy griefers.  This should make them happy, not sure why it doesnt.

    No you don't need to balance the game so 3 people can't gank 1. 3 > 1. You don't need to bubble wrap the game to the point where griefing is impossible. Because then so many other things are impossible. That defeats the purpose of a sandbox.

    Although preferably you could take on the 3 enemies if you were skilled enough.

    LOL I knew I would get a response like this.  I even had a short list of the people who would make it, and you were on it!

    So PvE players deserve to die to PvP players because they are not "skilled enough" in a mode of play that they do not want?

    What exactly do you think the "purpose of a sandbox" is?  I am pretty certain that once you strip out the self serving deception you think the purpose of a sandbox is to provide you with opportunities to gank other players.

  • strangiato2112strangiato2112 Richmond, VAPosts: 1,538Member Common

    The thing is, this idea isn't going to solve the simple issue of most people hate forced PvP, and this is forced PvP.  Locking content/resources in open PvP areas is an awful idea.  I could accept the PvP areas being somewhat more resource rich, but not better resources.  Thats the exact type of bad game design I would hope SoE avoids.

     

    SWG system worked best, if not just separate the servers.

  • KnyttaKnytta Corning, NYPosts: 348Member Uncommon

    I like forced PVE, as it solves everything: Whenever a player that is PVP flagged (or later flags for PVP) enters an area where the majority of players are PVE flagged the PVP flagged toon becomes PVE flagged.

    Perfect!

    Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.

    He who can describe the flame does not burn.

    Petrarch


  • ice-vortexice-vortex Xenia, OHPosts: 951Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by OfficialFlow

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers ....

    So you "balance" out the one on one griefers, which by the way does not just making all players pretty much equal, you also have to remove almost all advantage from "ambushing" another player while they are doing something.

    So what do the griefers do then? Well then its 2 on 1 attacks or 3 on 1 attacks.  So you have to "balance" for that at which point you have to somehow re-balance the one on one encounters.

    As for consequences, well they will only kick after someone regularly griefs and that means lots of people have been griefed (or a few players lots of times. 

    Bounty systems are really only getting a non-griefer to pay a griefer to grief someone that griefed them.  I wonder why I do not like that (as a non-PvP player)

    So separate servers?  Well the griefers do not like that because it allows the victims to remove themselves from the fray.  Which means the most egregious of the griefers become the victims, which means they either move to the non-PvP servers and act like the trolls they are, or they move on to another game.  Which leaves the PvP players to play on a server without whiney care bears like me and without the slimy griefers.  This should make them happy, not sure why it doesnt.

    No you don't need to balance the game so 3 people can't gank 1. 3 > 1. You don't need to bubble wrap the game to the point where griefing is impossible. Because then so many other things are impossible. That defeats the purpose of a sandbox.

    Although preferably you could take on the 3 enemies if you were skilled enough.

    LOL I knew I would get a response like this.  I even had a short list of the people who would make it, and you were on it!

    So PvE players deserve to die to PvP players because they are not "skilled enough" in a mode of play that they do not want?

    What exactly do you think the "purpose of a sandbox" is?  I am pretty certain that once you strip out the self serving deception you think the purpose of a sandbox is to provide you with opportunities to gank other players.

    Why would PVE-only players want to play a game that is built around PVP?

  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonPosts: 845Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    LOL I knew I would get a response like this.  I even had a short list of the people who would make it, and you were on it!

    So PvE players deserve to die to PvP players because they are not "skilled enough" in a mode of play that they do not want?

    What exactly do you think the "purpose of a sandbox" is?  I am pretty certain that once you strip out the self serving deception you think the purpose of a sandbox is to provide you with opportunities to gank other players.

    Why would PVE-only players want to play a game that is built around PVP?

    ROFLMAO 

         As the title of the thread is "How EQN could have   ......."

    Neither the OP, or myself is making the assumption that you seem to be making that EQ Next is "built around PvP".  If this is your assumption, then all I can say is that it has been argued over and over again and we have no such conclusion yet.

    At SOE Live we will find out if your assumption is correct.

  • newbinatornewbinator LA, CAPosts: 780Member
    I'm sure there will be separate PvP and PvE servers. I'll be playing on PvP. I'm hoping there are world PvP objectives, castles, towers, etc that can be taken over and grant bonuses to your faction.
  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    LOL I knew I would get a response like this.  I even had a short list of the people who would make it, and you were on it!

    So PvE players deserve to die to PvP players because they are not "skilled enough" in a mode of play that they do not want?

    What exactly do you think the "purpose of a sandbox" is?  I am pretty certain that once you strip out the self serving deception you think the purpose of a sandbox is to provide you with opportunities to gank other players.

    Why would PVE-only players want to play a game that is built around PVP?

    ROFLMAO 

         As the title of the thread is "How EQN could have   ......."

    Neither the OP, or myself is making the assumption that you seem to be making that EQ Next is "built around PvP".  If this is your assumption, then all I can say is that it has been argued over and over again and we have no such conclusion yet.

    At SOE Live we will find out if your assumption is correct.

    Actually I can speak for myself and agree with ice-vortex. The game is clearly being built with PVP as an integral pillar. Yank it out and the whole thing comes tumbling down. The devs want to get out of the content churn business - not create twice as much to cater to two very different games.

  • Riposte.ThisRiposte.This Toronto, ONPosts: 192Member
    they already have a good system, where you get put on a recent list, the only other thing they need to change is they need to if you kill the same person multiple times without them engaging you first, if solo, you get carnage flagged, so that anyone from any level can come kill you, and you will drop gold or  items the entire time you are carnage flagged.

    Killing dragons is my shit

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Winter Park, FLPosts: 1,092Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    LOL I knew I would get a response like this.  I even had a short list of the people who would make it, and you were on it!

    So PvE players deserve to die to PvP players because they are not "skilled enough" in a mode of play that they do not want?

    What exactly do you think the "purpose of a sandbox" is?  I am pretty certain that once you strip out the self serving deception you think the purpose of a sandbox is to provide you with opportunities to gank other players.

    Why would PVE-only players want to play a game that is built around PVP?

    ROFLMAO 

         As the title of the thread is "How EQN could have   ......."

    Neither the OP, or myself is making the assumption that you seem to be making that EQ Next is "built around PvP".  If this is your assumption, then all I can say is that it has been argued over and over again and we have no such conclusion yet.

    At SOE Live we will find out if your assumption is correct.

    Actually I can speak for myself and agree with ice-vortex. The game is clearly being built with PVP as an integral pillar. Yank it out and the whole thing comes tumbling down. The devs want to get out of the content churn business - not create twice as much to cater to two very different games.

    You don't know anything about the game, therefor you have no idea what pillars the game will be built on.

    You can have PVE based sandbox game without content churning.  Until August 2nd you're just stabbing in the dark.

    Also considering that catering almost exclusively to FFA PVP crowd would be a sure fire way to lose a lot of fans/players... it's not even a logical guess.

    The most logical guess you can make right now is a mixed PVP / PVE experience, with PVP servers and PVE servers.

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by OfficialFlow

    if they get rid of the whole leveling system and huge equipment strenght differences that brings all the unequality and focus more on player skill it might reduce griefers ....

    So you "balance" out the one on one griefers, which by the way does not just making all players pretty much equal, you also have to remove almost all advantage from "ambushing" another player while they are doing something.

    So what do the griefers do then? Well then its 2 on 1 attacks or 3 on 1 attacks.  So you have to "balance" for that at which point you have to somehow re-balance the one on one encounters.

    As for consequences, well they will only kick after someone regularly griefs and that means lots of people have been griefed (or a few players lots of times. 

    Bounty systems are really only getting a non-griefer to pay a griefer to grief someone that griefed them.  I wonder why I do not like that (as a non-PvP player)

    So separate servers?  Well the griefers do not like that because it allows the victims to remove themselves from the fray.  Which means the most egregious of the griefers become the victims, which means they either move to the non-PvP servers and act like the trolls they are, or they move on to another game.  Which leaves the PvP players to play on a server without whiney care bears like me and without the slimy griefers.  This should make them happy, not sure why it doesnt.

    No you don't need to balance the game so 3 people can't gank 1. 3 > 1. You don't need to bubble wrap the game to the point where griefing is impossible. Because then so many other things are impossible. That defeats the purpose of a sandbox.

    Although preferably you could take on the 3 enemies if you were skilled enough.

    LOL I knew I would get a response like this.  I even had a short list of the people who would make it, and you were on it!

    So PvE players deserve to die to PvP players because they are not "skilled enough" in a mode of play that they do not want?

    What exactly do you think the "purpose of a sandbox" is?  I am pretty certain that once you strip out the self serving deception you think the purpose of a sandbox is to provide you with opportunities to gank other players.

    Freedom of choice.  Sandbox to me is about being able to fly over a mountain instead of having to go around it.  I hate that in EQ2 with flying mounts they have artificial barriers so players are forced to make a 2 min trip into a 10 min trip.  That is just 1 example.

    Sandbox is also about allowing the players to create cities instead of having the devs create cities.  Allow the players to create their own kingdoms and them go to war with other guilds/kingdoms.  The most enjoyable way I have found to go to war is through PvP.  Greifing/ganking is just a by product of a necessary tool.  In Shadowbane I would go out and hunt enemy guild members to keep them from leveling.  In this way it kept the other guild on their toes, and it impeded new characters from reaching max level before a Bane.  Shadowbane however was very different as the whole game was about PvP/Asset destruction; by logging in to the servers you knew you were prey for anyone not in your own guild.

    Some of the best PvP players I've known have been PvE players.  PvE players understand the mechanics very well, and understand their characters well, and normally do well in PvP.  The difference that I see is that PvE players don't like losing their gear/items when they die, and therefor do not want to risk dying.  If you take gear out of the equation and create something much bigger (cities) for people to fight over then losing gear is not an issue.  Personally I don't like a full loot PvP game; I prefer an inventory loot game, where all your equipped items are safe, but anything in your back pack is lootable.

  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by Gallus85
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by craftseeker
    Originally posted by ice-vortex
    Originally posted by craftseeker

    LOL I knew I would get a response like this.  I even had a short list of the people who would make it, and you were on it!

    So PvE players deserve to die to PvP players because they are not "skilled enough" in a mode of play that they do not want?

    What exactly do you think the "purpose of a sandbox" is?  I am pretty certain that once you strip out the self serving deception you think the purpose of a sandbox is to provide you with opportunities to gank other players.

    Why would PVE-only players want to play a game that is built around PVP?

    ROFLMAO 

         As the title of the thread is "How EQN could have   ......."

    Neither the OP, or myself is making the assumption that you seem to be making that EQ Next is "built around PvP".  If this is your assumption, then all I can say is that it has been argued over and over again and we have no such conclusion yet.

    At SOE Live we will find out if your assumption is correct.

    Actually I can speak for myself and agree with ice-vortex. The game is clearly being built with PVP as an integral pillar. Yank it out and the whole thing comes tumbling down. The devs want to get out of the content churn business - not create twice as much to cater to two very different games.

    You don't know anything about the game, therefor you have no idea what pillars the game will be built on.

    You can have PVE based sandbox game without content churning.  Until August 2nd you're just stabbing in the dark.

    Also considering that catering almost exclusively to FFA PVP crowd would be a sure fire way to lose a lot of fans/players... it's not even a logical guess.

    The most logical guess you can make right now is a mixed PVP / PVE experience, with PVP servers and PVE servers.

    If they follow EvE's model of building the game around PvP and then adding PvE, the game would be successful for both sides.  If they build it with PvE first and then add PvP as an afterthought, then only 1 crowd will be happy.  PvP games don't have to turn away PvE players, as EvE has shown; but limits need to be placed on how easy it is for PvE players to be griefed.  Notice I didn't say remove the griefing altogether, because you can be attacked anywhere anytime in EvE; it's just harder to get away with it in hi-sec space.

  • mos0811mos0811 Sacramento, CAPosts: 173Member
    Originally posted by newbinator
    I'm sure there will be separate PvP and PvE servers. I'll be playing on PvP. I'm hoping there are world PvP objectives, castles, towers, etc that can be taken over and grant bonuses to your faction.

    I would like it to go a step further.  Create 2 main hub cities that are dev created, everything else in the world is player created.  Then it's up to the players to maintain those assets.  Also it shouldn't be faction based, as 1, 2 or even 3 faction based games haven't done too well.  Guild vs Guild where you can have as many as 100 guilds (basically your own mini faction) does extremely well.  The more targets you have the better.  Alliances then grow from these guilds, and having 1-10 mega alliances is a good thing too.

    This allows the guilds to police their own.  In this scenario you still have to protect PvE players through dev scripted ways, but nothing is really griefing because any PvP action towards another player can be seen as helping your guild.

  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon ParisPosts: 2,062Member Uncommon
    Lol, I can't wait for the 2/8/2013. I not saying that the game won't have a robust pvp system but the EQ ip turned into Pvp game where PVE takes second place, okay lol.



    Coolermaster Cosmos II Case
    Corsair AX1200W Modular PSU
    Intel Core i7 3970X OC 4.50GHz
    Asus P9X79 PRO Intel X7
    16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 PC3-1866MHz
    840 Series 250GB SSDs
    Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDDs
    EVGA SuperClocked GTX TITAN 6GB GDDR5 SLi

  • Greymantle4Greymantle4 Posts: 802Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mos0811
    Originally posted by newbinator
    I'm sure there will be separate PvP and PvE servers. I'll be playing on PvP. I'm hoping there are world PvP objectives, castles, towers, etc that can be taken over and grant bonuses to your faction.

    I would like it to go a step further.  Create 2 main hub cities that are dev created, everything else in the world is player created.  Then it's up to the players to maintain those assets.  Also it shouldn't be faction based, as 1, 2 or even 3 faction based games haven't done too well.  Guild vs Guild where you can have as many as 100 guilds (basically your own mini faction) does extremely well.  The more targets you have the better.  Alliances then grow from these guilds, and having 1-10 mega alliances is a good thing too.

    This allows the guilds to police their own.  In this scenario you still have to protect PvE players through dev scripted ways, but nothing is really griefing because any PvP action towards another player can be seen as helping your guild.

    Your idea may be great and all but it doesn't sound like any EQ I have ever played. It's beyond me why anyone would think EQ would focus on PVP first. All you have to do is look at their history EQ is a PVE game first its as simple as that. 

     

Sign In or Register to comment.