I have to say I lean to option 1 - based on this; they will have pvp, but weren't ready to say what it is, I think if they knew, it would be part of the reveal.
No it wouldn't be part of the reveal. They just wanted to announce the game and show the features that make EQN unique. They specifically avoided giving any real details about pvp or pve. They know exactly what they want to do. Over the next couple months the info will be released.
If only you hadn't cut it off there and read the next sentence......
EQ has always been a PVE franchise, and c'mon, the big day, the big reveal and they don't mention PVP? You might see BG's, or Esport or maybe even a WoW Wintergrasp thing, but forget PvP in EQNext. That's been written at this point.
I have to say I lean to option 1 - based on this; they will have pvp, but weren't ready to say what it is, I think if they knew, it would be part of the reveal.
No it wouldn't be part of the reveal. They just wanted to announce the game and show the features that make EQN unique. They specifically avoided giving any real details about pvp or pve. They know exactly what they want to do. Over the next couple months the info will be released.
If only you hadn't cut it off there and read the next sentence......
That would be asking a lot around here...
Originally posted by battlesam
if you want pvp, play TESO.
EQ has always been a PVE franchise, and c'mon, the big day, the big reveal and they don't mention PVP? You might see BG's, or Esport or maybe even a WoW Wintergrasp thing, but forget PvP in EQNext. That's been written at this point.
"EQ has always been..." doesn't work on me anymore. The devs already smashed so many of those beliefs on Aug. 2. Anything goes now.
I have to say I lean to option 1 - based on this; they will have pvp, but weren't ready to say what it is, I think if they knew, it would be part of the reveal.
No it wouldn't be part of the reveal. They just wanted to announce the game and show the features that make EQN unique. They specifically avoided giving any real details about pvp or pve. They know exactly what they want to do. Over the next couple months the info will be released.
If only you hadn't cut it off there and read the next sentence......
That would be asking a lot around here...
Originally posted by battlesam
if you want pvp, play TESO.
EQ has always been a PVE franchise, and c'mon, the big day, the big reveal and they don't mention PVP? You might see BG's, or Esport or maybe even a WoW Wintergrasp thing, but forget PvP in EQNext. That's been written at this point.
"EQ has always been..." doesn't work on me anymore. The devs already smashed so many of those beliefs on Aug. 2. Anything goes now.
If PvP was an important and big part of EQNext they would have had it as one of their "holy grails", and would have said so if there was an exception about player structures and housing being readily destroyed in a PvP confrontation, since this would, indeed, right highly in the PvP population, where they get their kicks from the misery of others.
Ok.. what i have thought watching all informations about EQN and PvP.
First of all.. they want mass apeall. This means noone will be hurt. No Open PvP in Norath. Most of the landmass, when destroyed heals back. Your build property has a safety flag, can not be destroyed.
BUT...
In EQN Landmark every server does have a completely different world. Because it is prodecurally generated, and withit not a lot of work to dish out a completely world.
And then i thought about old UO and moongates.
Yes.. i think you will go through a moongate, where players will find a complete new world. It's like the discovery of america 1492 and the conquistadores running wild.
With other words i think we will get a completely world.. with different continents, oceans all the buzz. Though, in the beginning most probably a empty world like any Landmark world. And now we can go out. Build up entire cities, Empires even, Destroy the world, destroy each other. And yes in this world it could be that destruction is maybe a little bit more permanent.
And i think they will utilize this for a lot of other things, too. Well.. i am not a EQ pro.. exists something like a moongate in any EQ game? Or is it completely against the Lore?
Player driven economy, destruction, systems of accountability, horizontal progression, multi-classing, and class switching all make PvP in EQ Next more and more plausible. I maintain that they will probably keep a flagging system for most servers, but I'd put big money on seeing an array of servers with different pvp rulesets.
I have to say I lean to option 1 - based on this; they will have pvp, but weren't ready to say what it is, I think if they knew, it would be part of the reveal.
No it wouldn't be part of the reveal. They just wanted to announce the game and show the features that make EQN unique. They specifically avoided giving any real details about pvp or pve. They know exactly what they want to do. Over the next couple months the info will be released.
If only you hadn't cut it off there and read the next sentence......
Your next sentence doesn't invalidate the horrible assumption you made in the first.
I have to say I lean to option 1 - based on this; they will have pvp, but weren't ready to say what it is, I think if they knew, it would be part of the reveal.
No it wouldn't be part of the reveal. They just wanted to announce the game and show the features that make EQN unique. They specifically avoided giving any real details about pvp or pve. They know exactly what they want to do. Over the next couple months the info will be released.
If only you hadn't cut it off there and read the next sentence......
Your next sentence doesn't invalidate the horrible assumption you made in the first.
Woah harsh -
like Seph said; seems like if pvp were an integral part of the game, it'd be a 'holy grail' - so I don't think that's such a horrible assumption -
especially....when I completely acknowledge the possibility that there is more to reveal....which could prove me wrong..
I still think it's a stretch. We know there won't be one mega server so having seperate servers for OWPvP is likely. Especially since "all kinds" of PvP was mentioned because if there is already OWPvP why would you need more kinds?
I think PvP was a hot enough topic to keep it for suspense, that and I'm sure they want it finalized before reveal. The thing is having OWPvP with the "remembering" system that EQN has will be huge for risk vs. reward. If you're the same faction as someone else and kill them you would really hurt yourself with that faction.
The game SoE presented looks to clean house. It has elements of very popular games put together into something unreal. OWPvP on every server makes even less sense than it did before we knew what EQN was.
My prediction? OWPvP servers with PvE having deep and optional PvP. Having destructibility has far more implications than PvP. Discovery, awe of battle, the building and destroying story driven content and having gathering mean something are a few.
The big question is, if the OWPvP servers have all the destruction, unknown risk/reward from kills and good combat system will PvPers like it?
Originally posted by Aelious I still think it's a stretch. We know there won't be one mega server so having seperate servers for OWPvP is likely. Especially since "all kinds" of PvP was mentioned because if there is already OWPvP why would you need more kinds?
I think PvP was a hot enough topic to keep it for suspense, that and I'm sure they want it finalized before reveal. The thing is having OWPvP with the "remembering" system that EQN has will be huge for risk vs. reward. If you're the same faction as someone else and kill them you would really hurt yourself with that faction.
The game SoE presented looks to clean house. It has elements of very popular games put together into something unreal. OWPvP on every server makes even less sense than it did before we knew what EQN was.
My prediction? OWPvP servers with PvE having deep and optional PvP. Having destructibility has far more implications than PvP. Discovery, awe of battle, the building and destroying story driven content and having gathering mean something are a few.
The big question is, if the OWPvP servers have all the destruction, unknown risk/reward from kills and good combat system will PvPers like it?
Kills/deaths between players shouldn't affect faction at all. If I'm out in the woods and kill some guy and no one witnesses, then it's not perceived therefor according the devs own statement won't affect my faction. PvP in games should be based on guilds anyways and have nothing to do with NPC factions.
Killing NPCs should definitely affect faction. But those are just my humble opinions.
If you just put a pvp toggle on.. it will not work. It never worked.
If they do implement a lot of pvp stuff only for a pvp server. Maybe then it could work.
He even gave a example of sieging a city and destroying the walls with a catapult. This implies that you have catapults and siege mechanism.
Point is, as a lot of pvp player will repeatly say.. Open PvP requires:
- meaningful pvp. With other words we want to fight about assets, and not just for pride or honor.
- territorial pvp. We want to build up cities, we want conquer city, we want to rule the world. Including self administration, like player taxes, resource control, player shops, player crafting stations. Economic control.
- different scales of pvp. We do want large scale pvp 100vs100 (or more, but 100 vs 100 is really the minimum number). We want medium scale pvp 10-30 vs 10-30. And we want small scale pvp 1-5 vs 1-5. And to have all that you have to build up different situations in the open world, where it can happen, or where it is of advantage.
- player driven economy and the effect of pvp. PvP without any economical influence gets bland (point one -> meaningful pvp)
- risk vs. reward. We do want to risk something, but we also do want to win something. We want to have the option to play high stake poker, not literally speaking
- we want a lot of kind of pvp. Not just combat. Espionage. Trade Wars. Embargos. Diplomacy. Politics. Economic dominance.
- different kind of battles. Naval combat. Mounted Combat. Ground combat. Sieging. Mining(military) digging below the city wall to blow it up.
- a lot of other stuff
With other words.. for a serious pvp game you can't just switch the pvp toggle on. It doesn't work. If they do add all stuff for a additional pvp server i am ok. But you have to know that it also requires different patching, different content upgrades and so forth.
I have to say I lean to option 1 - based on this; they will have pvp, but weren't ready to say what it is, I think if they knew, it would be part of the reveal.
No it wouldn't be part of the reveal. They just wanted to announce the game and show the features that make EQN unique. They specifically avoided giving any real details about pvp or pve. They know exactly what they want to do. Over the next couple months the info will be released.
If only you hadn't cut it off there and read the next sentence......
Your next sentence doesn't invalidate the horrible assumption you made in the first.
Woah harsh -
like Seph said; seems like if pvp were an integral part of the game, it'd be a 'holy grail' - so I don't think that's such a horrible assumption -
"I think pvp will be almost like a supplementary game or mini-game. "
That's an even worse one. You really think pvp will be a mini-game? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just trolling.
I hope I'm wrong - I hope pvp is integral to the game. Just don't know why it wouldn't be a 'holy grail' if it were. And you cannot show me one shred of evidence that proves otherwise. Neither of us know - we are both just guessing - and they haven't released one iota of information for you to automatically assume PVP is central to the game.
EQ - pvp was an unbalanced side show.
EQ2 - pvp was an unbalanced side show.
PVP NOT a holy grail of the reveal.
Good lord - I hope I'm wrong - but my guess; just as good as yours - is not horrible, invalid or provably wrong through EQs history.
Now - you missed the point of the last one - we're just having a discussion - and you need to take a chill pill.
Originally posted by bcbully Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by bcbullyOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by Tibbzlikeliest of scenarios: Server TypePVEPVE RPPVP PVP RPPVP - Faction/allignment
They talked about spinning up something like 200 Landmark servers. I don't think spinning up another server with a different PvP rule set is going to be a big deal. I don't think there's any reason they wouldn't have all those rule sets, and possibly more. I mean, why not? It's not going to substantially increase their costs, so as long as there are enough players for each of the server types, spin up another one.the problem with that is, in general, you just can't turn the pvp off in a sandbox, or just turn it on for that matter. Usually sand box pvp systems are deeply embedded to the core of the game. Why not? A Tale In The Desert operates without any combat PvP, so does Istaria apparently. Ditto for Ryzom. PvP combat is not a necessary component for a sandbox to exist. Not even an MMORPG sandbox. It can be turned on or off as the developer wishes. It just depends on how they design the game from the beginning. You wouldn't turn PvP off in Darkfall or Eve because they were designed they way they were from the beginning. In SWG having PvP flags worked just fine because they designed it in from the beginning. SOE hasn't said what they are starting with, but right now, it's a blank slate. There are lots of options for SOE. They could have meaningful PvP only in certain zones while in the rest of the world it depends on the server's rule set. They could stick to the standard PvP rule sets and people would pick the rule set they like with no PvP zones. There's no requirement that PvP be the core game mechanic, so there's no reason that SOE needs to attach themselves to that idea. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't just flip a switch and turn a sandbox pvp rule set off. You can't just flip a switch and say go for it either. Having pve, and pvp servers would take a lot of resources.
It's not that complicated. On a PvP server, players can kill each other, maybe per faction, maybe FFA. If they do kill each other, maybe they can loot corpses, maybe not. It's already been said that players will not be able to destroy each others' property, so breaking into someone's house is out. I would expect breaking into a guild hall is out too. Unless they build a separate area specifically for PvP, destructibility isn't going to play a big role in the world PvP from the information we have available now.
You can do all this with Minecraft servers now, and Minecraft is a far less complicated than a game like EQN is shaping up to be. The options I've laid out are the minimum number of possibilities. There is a lot more they could do. For instance, continents will be added procedurally to Landmark's world. Continents could be added procedurally to EQN's world and factions or guilds could start claiming land there. However, over there in the new continent players can build siege engines that can break down walls and player built structures. From there players could take over the other guild's keep and claim the resources there. Or something.
It all just depends on what they have planned. Whatever the limits they place on the system, it won't be the added cost of spinning up a server, it'll be that they didn't want to try a particular thing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you just put a pvp toggle on.. it will not work. It never worked.
If they do implement a lot of pvp stuff only for a pvp server. Maybe then it could work.
He even gave a example of sieging a city and destroying the walls with a catapult. This implies that you have catapults and siege mechanism.
Point is, as a lot of pvp player will repeatly say.. Open PvP requires:
- meaningful pvp. With other words we want to fight about assets, and not just for pride or honor.
- territorial pvp. We want to build up cities, we want conquer city, we want to rule the world. Including self administration, like player taxes, resource control, player shops, player crafting stations. Economic control.
- different scales of pvp. We do want large scale pvp 100vs100 (or more, but 100 vs 100 is really the minimum number). We want medium scale pvp 10-30 vs 10-30. And we want small scale pvp 1-5 vs 1-5. And to have all that you have to build up different situations in the open world, where it can happen, or where it is of advantage.
- player driven economy and the effect of pvp. PvP without any economical influence gets bland (point one -> meaningful pvp)
- risk vs. reward. We do want to risk something, but we also do want to win something. We want to have the option to play high stake poker, not literally speaking
- we want a lot of kind of pvp. Not just combat. Espionage. Trade Wars. Embargos. Diplomacy. Politics. Economic dominance.
- different kind of battles. Naval combat. Mounted Combat. Ground combat. Sieging. Mining(military) digging below the city wall to blow it up.
- a lot of other stuff
With other words.. for a serious pvp game you can't just switch the pvp toggle on. It doesn't work. If they do add all stuff for a additional pvp server i am ok. But you have to know that it also requires different patching, different content upgrades and so forth.
You get it.
BTW people, PVP doesn't need to be a holy grail on its own. Destructibility is the holy grail - and it can extend to PVP. It's not necessarily the case, but I think it will be.
If you just put a pvp toggle on.. it will not work. It never worked.
If they do implement a lot of pvp stuff only for a pvp server. Maybe then it could work.
He even gave a example of sieging a city and destroying the walls with a catapult. This implies that you have catapults and siege mechanism.
Point is, as a lot of pvp player will repeatly say.. Open PvP requires:
- meaningful pvp. With other words we want to fight about assets, and not just for pride or honor.
- territorial pvp. We want to build up cities, we want conquer city, we want to rule the world. Including self administration, like player taxes, resource control, player shops, player crafting stations. Economic control.
- different scales of pvp. We do want large scale pvp 100vs100 (or more, but 100 vs 100 is really the minimum number). We want medium scale pvp 10-30 vs 10-30. And we want small scale pvp 1-5 vs 1-5. And to have all that you have to build up different situations in the open world, where it can happen, or where it is of advantage.
- player driven economy and the effect of pvp. PvP without any economical influence gets bland (point one -> meaningful pvp)
- risk vs. reward. We do want to risk something, but we also do want to win something. We want to have the option to play high stake poker, not literally speaking
- we want a lot of kind of pvp. Not just combat. Espionage. Trade Wars. Embargos. Diplomacy. Politics. Economic dominance.
- different kind of battles. Naval combat. Mounted Combat. Ground combat. Sieging. Mining(military) digging below the city wall to blow it up.
- a lot of other stuff
With other words.. for a serious pvp game you can't just switch the pvp toggle on. It doesn't work. If they do add all stuff for a additional pvp server i am ok. But you have to know that it also requires different patching, different content upgrades and so forth.
You get it.
BTW people, PVP doesn't need to be a holy grail on its own. Destructibility is the holy grail - and it can extend to PVP. It's not necessarily the case, but I think it will be.
But if pvp was as deep a system as he asked for there in example, it would need the attention and dev resources to make it that good. If it doesn't even rate being a main focus of one of their pillars or grails, then it is unlikely to be all that deep. The whole world has destructibility, doesn't mean they are putting a supreme effort into pvp. Others who suggest having some contested areas for open worldish pvp, with destructable structures, sieges, etc but not whole world or with a lot of systems like diplomacy or political. Probably just territory with it effecting factions pve or crafting in some light way. All that said, just going on what was said and the lack of info or attention devs seems to have for pvp so far.
If you just put a pvp toggle on.. it will not work. It never worked.
If they do implement a lot of pvp stuff only for a pvp server. Maybe then it could work.
He even gave a example of sieging a city and destroying the walls with a catapult. This implies that you have catapults and siege mechanism.
Point is, as a lot of pvp player will repeatly say.. Open PvP requires:
- meaningful pvp. With other words we want to fight about assets, and not just for pride or honor.
- territorial pvp. We want to build up cities, we want conquer city, we want to rule the world. Including self administration, like player taxes, resource control, player shops, player crafting stations. Economic control.
- different scales of pvp. We do want large scale pvp 100vs100 (or more, but 100 vs 100 is really the minimum number). We want medium scale pvp 10-30 vs 10-30. And we want small scale pvp 1-5 vs 1-5. And to have all that you have to build up different situations in the open world, where it can happen, or where it is of advantage.
- player driven economy and the effect of pvp. PvP without any economical influence gets bland (point one -> meaningful pvp)
- risk vs. reward. We do want to risk something, but we also do want to win something. We want to have the option to play high stake poker, not literally speaking
- we want a lot of kind of pvp. Not just combat. Espionage. Trade Wars. Embargos. Diplomacy. Politics. Economic dominance.
- different kind of battles. Naval combat. Mounted Combat. Ground combat. Sieging. Mining(military) digging below the city wall to blow it up.
- a lot of other stuff
With other words.. for a serious pvp game you can't just switch the pvp toggle on. It doesn't work. If they do add all stuff for a additional pvp server i am ok. But you have to know that it also requires different patching, different content upgrades and so forth.
You get it.
BTW people, PVP doesn't need to be a holy grail on its own. Destructibility is the holy grail - and it can extend to PVP. It's not necessarily the case, but I think it will be.
But if pvp was as deep a system as he asked for there in example, it would need the attention and dev resources to make it that good. If it doesn't even rate being a main focus of one of their pillars or grails, then it is unlikely to be all that deep. The whole world has destructibility, doesn't mean they are putting a supreme effort into pvp. Others who suggest having some contested areas for open worldish pvp, with destructable structures, sieges, etc but not whole world or with a lot of systems like diplomacy or political. Probably just territory with it effecting factions pve or crafting in some light way. All that said, just going on what was said and the lack of info or attention devs seems to have for pvp so far.
Why not? Even crafter was not one of their grails, and we do know more or less as much about crafter as about pvp. Albeit crafting will be like SWG, just better. And that alone is a bold statement. And they hinted similar to pvp. Like the catapult destroying a wall example.
With all that said, as i said in a previous post, i somehow don't believe all that will happen in Norath.. maybe it is a extra server, or it is a extra world(traveling through a portal), or it is a extra contintent. Because the overall tone cries mass appeal, and that means nobody will be hurt.
Will they have all that buzz? Would be really nice.. but i guess it is just my dream. We do not have a lot, or any, good pvp games with all those mechanism above. But it would be time for a game like that.
And honestly.. if they want the pvp crowd, they have to deliver something. PvP toggle is not enough, and the WvW version of GW2 is also not enough. And any instanced pvp battlefield isn't enough either.
If you just put a pvp toggle on.. it will not work. It never worked.
If they do implement a lot of pvp stuff only for a pvp server. Maybe then it could work.
He even gave a example of sieging a city and destroying the walls with a catapult. This implies that you have catapults and siege mechanism.
Point is, as a lot of pvp player will repeatly say.. Open PvP requires:
- meaningful pvp. With other words we want to fight about assets, and not just for pride or honor.
- territorial pvp. We want to build up cities, we want conquer city, we want to rule the world. Including self administration, like player taxes, resource control, player shops, player crafting stations. Economic control.
- different scales of pvp. We do want large scale pvp 100vs100 (or more, but 100 vs 100 is really the minimum number). We want medium scale pvp 10-30 vs 10-30. And we want small scale pvp 1-5 vs 1-5. And to have all that you have to build up different situations in the open world, where it can happen, or where it is of advantage.
- player driven economy and the effect of pvp. PvP without any economical influence gets bland (point one -> meaningful pvp)
- risk vs. reward. We do want to risk something, but we also do want to win something. We want to have the option to play high stake poker, not literally speaking
- we want a lot of kind of pvp. Not just combat. Espionage. Trade Wars. Embargos. Diplomacy. Politics. Economic dominance.
- different kind of battles. Naval combat. Mounted Combat. Ground combat. Sieging. Mining(military) digging below the city wall to blow it up.
- a lot of other stuff
With other words.. for a serious pvp game you can't just switch the pvp toggle on. It doesn't work. If they do add all stuff for a additional pvp server i am ok. But you have to know that it also requires different patching, different content upgrades and so forth.
You get it.
BTW people, PVP doesn't need to be a holy grail on its own. Destructibility is the holy grail - and it can extend to PVP. It's not necessarily the case, but I think it will be.
But if pvp was as deep a system as he asked for there in example, it would need the attention and dev resources to make it that good. If it doesn't even rate being a main focus of one of their pillars or grails, then it is unlikely to be all that deep. The whole world has destructibility, doesn't mean they are putting a supreme effort into pvp. Others who suggest having some contested areas for open worldish pvp, with destructable structures, sieges, etc but not whole world or with a lot of systems like diplomacy or political. Probably just territory with it effecting factions pve or crafting in some light way. All that said, just going on what was said and the lack of info or attention devs seems to have for pvp so far.
Why not? Even crafter was not one of their grails, and we do know more or less as much about crafter as about pvp. Albeit crafting will be like SWG, just better. And that alone is a bold statement. And they hinted similar to pvp. Like the catapult destroying a wall example.
With all that said, as i said in a previous post, i somehow don't believe all that will happen in Norath.. maybe it is a extra server, or it is a extra world(traveling through a portal), or it is a extra contintent. Because the overall tone cries mass appeal, and that means nobody will be hurt.
Will they have all that buzz? Would be really nice.. but i guess it is just my dream. We do not have a lot, or any, good pvp games with all those mechanism above. But it would be time for a game like that.
And honestly.. if they want the pvp crowd, they have to deliver something. PvP toggle is not enough, and the WvW version of GW2 is also not enough. And any instanced pvp battlefield isn't enough either.
So we will wait and hope for some serious pvp.
Good points. It doesn't have to be a grail to be a big change. And PVP could easily fit under the "destructibility" grail.
And yes, you're right about those things not being "enough". It's time for some serious PVP. =D
Comments
If only you hadn't cut it off there and read the next sentence......
if you want pvp, play TESO.
EQ has always been a PVE franchise, and c'mon, the big day, the big reveal and they don't mention PVP? You might see BG's, or Esport or maybe even a WoW Wintergrasp thing, but forget PvP in EQNext. That's been written at this point.
That would be asking a lot around here...
"EQ has always been..." doesn't work on me anymore. The devs already smashed so many of those beliefs on Aug. 2. Anything goes now.
If PvP was an important and big part of EQNext they would have had it as one of their "holy grails", and would have said so if there was an exception about player structures and housing being readily destroyed in a PvP confrontation, since this would, indeed, right highly in the PvP population, where they get their kicks from the misery of others.
Ok.. what i have thought watching all informations about EQN and PvP.
First of all.. they want mass apeall. This means noone will be hurt. No Open PvP in Norath. Most of the landmass, when destroyed heals back. Your build property has a safety flag, can not be destroyed.
BUT...
In EQN Landmark every server does have a completely different world. Because it is prodecurally generated, and withit not a lot of work to dish out a completely world.
And then i thought about old UO and moongates.
Yes.. i think you will go through a moongate, where players will find a complete new world. It's like the discovery of america 1492 and the conquistadores running wild.
With other words i think we will get a completely world.. with different continents, oceans all the buzz. Though, in the beginning most probably a empty world like any Landmark world. And now we can go out. Build up entire cities, Empires even, Destroy the world, destroy each other. And yes in this world it could be that destruction is maybe a little bit more permanent.
And i think they will utilize this for a lot of other things, too. Well.. i am not a EQ pro.. exists something like a moongate in any EQ game? Or is it completely against the Lore?
Your next sentence doesn't invalidate the horrible assumption you made in the first.
Woah harsh -
like Seph said; seems like if pvp were an integral part of the game, it'd be a 'holy grail' - so I don't think that's such a horrible assumption -
especially....when I completely acknowledge the possibility that there is more to reveal....which could prove me wrong..
Take it easy. We're just talkin' here.
I think PvP was a hot enough topic to keep it for suspense, that and I'm sure they want it finalized before reveal. The thing is having OWPvP with the "remembering" system that EQN has will be huge for risk vs. reward. If you're the same faction as someone else and kill them you would really hurt yourself with that faction.
The game SoE presented looks to clean house. It has elements of very popular games put together into something unreal. OWPvP on every server makes even less sense than it did before we knew what EQN was.
My prediction? OWPvP servers with PvE having deep and optional PvP. Having destructibility has far more implications than PvP. Discovery, awe of battle, the building and destroying story driven content and having gathering mean something are a few.
The big question is, if the OWPvP servers have all the destruction, unknown risk/reward from kills and good combat system will PvPers like it?
Kills/deaths between players shouldn't affect faction at all. If I'm out in the woods and kill some guy and no one witnesses, then it's not perceived therefor according the devs own statement won't affect my faction. PvP in games should be based on guilds anyways and have nothing to do with NPC factions.
Killing NPCs should definitely affect faction. But those are just my humble opinions.
If you just put a pvp toggle on.. it will not work. It never worked.
If they do implement a lot of pvp stuff only for a pvp server. Maybe then it could work.
He even gave a example of sieging a city and destroying the walls with a catapult. This implies that you have catapults and siege mechanism.
Point is, as a lot of pvp player will repeatly say.. Open PvP requires:
- meaningful pvp. With other words we want to fight about assets, and not just for pride or honor.
- territorial pvp. We want to build up cities, we want conquer city, we want to rule the world. Including self administration, like player taxes, resource control, player shops, player crafting stations. Economic control.
- different scales of pvp. We do want large scale pvp 100vs100 (or more, but 100 vs 100 is really the minimum number). We want medium scale pvp 10-30 vs 10-30. And we want small scale pvp 1-5 vs 1-5. And to have all that you have to build up different situations in the open world, where it can happen, or where it is of advantage.
- player driven economy and the effect of pvp. PvP without any economical influence gets bland (point one -> meaningful pvp)
- risk vs. reward. We do want to risk something, but we also do want to win something. We want to have the option to play high stake poker, not literally speaking
- we want a lot of kind of pvp. Not just combat. Espionage. Trade Wars. Embargos. Diplomacy. Politics. Economic dominance.
- different kind of battles. Naval combat. Mounted Combat. Ground combat. Sieging. Mining(military) digging below the city wall to blow it up.
- a lot of other stuff
With other words.. for a serious pvp game you can't just switch the pvp toggle on. It doesn't work. If they do add all stuff for a additional pvp server i am ok. But you have to know that it also requires different patching, different content upgrades and so forth.
I hope I'm wrong - I hope pvp is integral to the game. Just don't know why it wouldn't be a 'holy grail' if it were. And you cannot show me one shred of evidence that proves otherwise. Neither of us know - we are both just guessing - and they haven't released one iota of information for you to automatically assume PVP is central to the game.
EQ - pvp was an unbalanced side show.
EQ2 - pvp was an unbalanced side show.
PVP NOT a holy grail of the reveal.
Good lord - I hope I'm wrong - but my guess; just as good as yours - is not horrible, invalid or provably wrong through EQs history.
Now - you missed the point of the last one - we're just having a discussion - and you need to take a chill pill.
the problem with that is, in general, you just can't turn the pvp off in a sandbox, or just turn it on for that matter. Usually sand box pvp systems are deeply embedded to the core of the game.
Why not? A Tale In The Desert operates without any combat PvP, so does Istaria apparently. Ditto for Ryzom. PvP combat is not a necessary component for a sandbox to exist. Not even an MMORPG sandbox. It can be turned on or off as the developer wishes. It just depends on how they design the game from the beginning. You wouldn't turn PvP off in Darkfall or Eve because they were designed they way they were from the beginning. In SWG having PvP flags worked just fine because they designed it in from the beginning. SOE hasn't said what they are starting with, but right now, it's a blank slate. There are lots of options for SOE. They could have meaningful PvP only in certain zones while in the rest of the world it depends on the server's rule set. They could stick to the standard PvP rule sets and people would pick the rule set they like with no PvP zones. There's no requirement that PvP be the core game mechanic, so there's no reason that SOE needs to attach themselves to that idea.
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can't just flip a switch and turn a sandbox pvp rule set off. You can't just flip a switch and say go for it either. Having pve, and pvp servers would take a lot of resources.
It's not that complicated. On a PvP server, players can kill each other, maybe per faction, maybe FFA. If they do kill each other, maybe they can loot corpses, maybe not. It's already been said that players will not be able to destroy each others' property, so breaking into someone's house is out. I would expect breaking into a guild hall is out too. Unless they build a separate area specifically for PvP, destructibility isn't going to play a big role in the world PvP from the information we have available now.
You can do all this with Minecraft servers now, and Minecraft is a far less complicated than a game like EQN is shaping up to be. The options I've laid out are the minimum number of possibilities. There is a lot more they could do. For instance, continents will be added procedurally to Landmark's world. Continents could be added procedurally to EQN's world and factions or guilds could start claiming land there. However, over there in the new continent players can build siege engines that can break down walls and player built structures. From there players could take over the other guild's keep and claim the resources there. Or something.
It all just depends on what they have planned. Whatever the limits they place on the system, it won't be the added cost of spinning up a server, it'll be that they didn't want to try a particular thing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You get it.
BTW people, PVP doesn't need to be a holy grail on its own. Destructibility is the holy grail - and it can extend to PVP. It's not necessarily the case, but I think it will be.
But if pvp was as deep a system as he asked for there in example, it would need the attention and dev resources to make it that good. If it doesn't even rate being a main focus of one of their pillars or grails, then it is unlikely to be all that deep. The whole world has destructibility, doesn't mean they are putting a supreme effort into pvp. Others who suggest having some contested areas for open worldish pvp, with destructable structures, sieges, etc but not whole world or with a lot of systems like diplomacy or political. Probably just territory with it effecting factions pve or crafting in some light way. All that said, just going on what was said and the lack of info or attention devs seems to have for pvp so far.
Why not? Even crafter was not one of their grails, and we do know more or less as much about crafter as about pvp. Albeit crafting will be like SWG, just better. And that alone is a bold statement. And they hinted similar to pvp. Like the catapult destroying a wall example.
With all that said, as i said in a previous post, i somehow don't believe all that will happen in Norath.. maybe it is a extra server, or it is a extra world(traveling through a portal), or it is a extra contintent. Because the overall tone cries mass appeal, and that means nobody will be hurt.
Will they have all that buzz? Would be really nice.. but i guess it is just my dream. We do not have a lot, or any, good pvp games with all those mechanism above. But it would be time for a game like that.
And honestly.. if they want the pvp crowd, they have to deliver something. PvP toggle is not enough, and the WvW version of GW2 is also not enough. And any instanced pvp battlefield isn't enough either.
So we will wait and hope for some serious pvp.
Good points. It doesn't have to be a grail to be a big change. And PVP could easily fit under the "destructibility" grail.
And yes, you're right about those things not being "enough". It's time for some serious PVP. =D