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!

Terry Michaels: "Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of sol

BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member

If so, will they have instancing-like abilities (ex, temp domes that prevent people from entering/exiting where they are fighting) that prevent more pc’s from showing up and always causing the mobs to run?

Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind.

 

http://eqn.junkiesnation.com/2013/09/10/storybricks-and-soe-answer-some-questions/

 

I can't help but wonder if this extends into the PVP context...  teeheehee...  open-world PVP with a life of consequence, please.

 

 

«1

Comments

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Sounds great for PvP servers hehe. IMO he was referring to making the interaction with mobs as natural as possible and not making a complicated situation more complicated. If a bulk of people show up then hopefully someone has some CC off CD :)

    I think this goes back to the quote by Jeff about how there will be many ways to grief people. They will set realistic mechanics in place and let the cards fall.
  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Sounds great for PvP servers hehe. IMO he was referring to making the interaction with mobs as natural as possible and not making a complicated situation more complicated. If a bulk of people show up then hopefully someone has some CC off CD :)

    I think this goes back to the quote by Jeff about how there will be many ways to grief people. They will set realistic mechanics in place and let the cards fall.

    I'm hoping it refers to the whole game, and not just a narrow context. That fits my definition of "sandbox"...  no artificial limits or mechanisms to enforce them. That means the game isn't preventing you from attacking other players with some invisible wall. BUT, like you said, there do need to be mechanisms to limit griefing..  hopefully something more organic. That's where I see "a life of consequence" fitting in with the server remembering everything you do and penalizing you for being a jerk.

     

     

  • Crazy_StickCrazy_Stick Privacy Preferred, NCPosts: 1,059Member
    There is simply no way around it in today's market. If they come out and announce this game as open PVP it is going on dead before it ever launches because they didn't understand what the average player in their supposed target audience wants from a game. While I am not personally against such a feature, history has made the case.
  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member

    The answer that Terry gave means absolutely nothing at this point.  Until they tell us the parts they are holding back. 

    As far as the PVP vs PVE argument; it has been beat dead here on the Forums.  The PVE crowd are all in support of different rule-set servers including PVP dedicated servers.  The PVP crowd outright rejects that option for various reasons. 

  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon

    One has to define 'artificial limits'. If your characters live in a world where gods are present and actively meddle in the affairs of mortals, then I can envision a system in which a god might punish a player character for actions within the game (ie, griefing, ganking, etc). Perhaps there are holy sites where a deity will smite opponents who enter...

    Are these examples of 'artificial limits'? Or are they part of the game play?

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member

    Seems like more reaching on the OPs part because he wants EQN to be 100% OW non-consensual PvP.

    Once more the statement could be applied to many things

    There is a roundtable question that also might relate to PvP

    https://www.everquestnext.com/round-table?poll=contested-content

    That would seem to indicate that PvP may be limited to contested areas but also may have nothing to do with PvP theoretically.

  • muffins89muffins89 Yakima, WAPosts: 1,306Member Uncommon

    how did an article about npc's reactions to pc's get turned into a pvp discussion? 

     

    Terry Michaels: "Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game."

     

    he's saying they are designing the AI to react to the players.  they are not setting limits on how many players it will take to kill certain mobs,  because the mobs are going to react to how they are being engaged. 

     

    I think the prostitute mod corrupted your game files man. -elhefen

  • kaiser3282kaiser3282 Phoenix, AZPosts: 2,661Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
    There is simply no way around it in today's market. If they come out and announce this game as open PVP it is going on dead before it ever launches because they didn't understand what the average player in their supposed target audience wants from a game. While I am not personally against such a feature, history has made the case.

    Open PvP has never been the downfall of a game that was designed for it from the start. The poor design choices and shitty development / coding of PvP games has been their downfall. The only cases that have been made are a) Lots of people want a highly polished & well designed PvE themepark game b) People do not want a poorly designed broken piece of crap for a PvP "sandbox" game *coughdarkfall&mortalcough*.

    We have yet to see a well funded & highly polished game resembling anything close to a sandbox with any sort of focus on PvP rather than just being tacked on half-assed PvP. The closest were games like UO and SWG, which for their time were amazing games... then they were changed. But just as the PvE market has grown since then, the PvP market has too. The void left by games like UO and SWG have not been filled by any newer games. Some have attempted, but failed horribly due to low budgets and inexperienced programmers and poor design choices. There is still a huge void waiting to be filled by an actual quality PvP game, rather than forcing PvPers to either choose between a bad game or a good game with only tacked on PvP.

    If EQ Next does open PvP right, along with the rest of the game, it will only make it more succesfull.

    BTW if they make it open PvP, PvPers are obviously their target audience. Being a PvE player and wishing a PvP game was a PvE game doesn't make you their target audience.

  • ignore_meignore_me Apple Valley, CAPosts: 1,987Member
    Originally posted by kaiser3282
    Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
    There is simply no way around it in today's market. If they come out and announce this game as open PVP it is going on dead before it ever launches because they didn't understand what the average player in their supposed target audience wants from a game. While I am not personally against such a feature, history has made the case.

    Open PvP has never been the downfall of a game that was designed for it from the start. The poor design choices and shitty development / coding of PvP games has been their downfall. The only cases that have been made are a) Lots of people want a highly polished & well designed PvE themepark game b) People do not want a poorly designed broken piece of crap for a PvP "sandbox" game *coughdarkfall&mortalcough*.

    We have yet to see a well funded & highly polished game resembling anything close to a sandbox with any sort of focus on PvP rather than just being tacked on half-assed PvP. The closest were games like UO and SWG, which for their time were amazing games... then they were changed. But just as the PvE market has grown since then, the PvP market has too. The void left by games like UO and SWG have not been filled by any newer games. Some have attempted, but failed horribly due to low budgets and inexperienced programmers and poor design choices. There is still a huge void waiting to be filled by an actual quality PvP game, rather than forcing PvPers to either choose between a bad game or a good game with only tacked on PvP.

    If EQ Next does open PvP right, along with the rest of the game, it will only make it more succesfull.

    BTW if they make it open PvP, PvPers are obviously their target audience. Being a PvE player and wishing a PvP game was a PvE game doesn't make you their target audience.

    A situation that will sort itself out with lightning quickness as the huge sucking sound of the PvE players quitting (or avoiding the game altogether) registers in the SOE bank accounts. If they designed the game to be PvP and don't announce that the consequent ganking will be a short-lived affair.

    Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011

  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kaiser3282
    Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
    There is simply no way around it in today's market. If they come out and announce this game as open PVP it is going on dead before it ever launches because they didn't understand what the average player in their supposed target audience wants from a game. While I am not personally against such a feature, history has made the case.

    Open PvP has never been the downfall of a game that was designed for it from the start. The poor design choices and shitty development / coding of PvP games has been their downfall. The only cases that have been made are a) Lots of people want a highly polished & well designed PvE themepark game b) People do not want a poorly designed broken piece of crap for a PvP "sandbox" game *coughdarkfall&mortalcough*.

    We have yet to see a well funded & highly polished game resembling anything close to a sandbox with any sort of focus on PvP rather than just being tacked on half-assed PvP. The closest were games like UO and SWG, which for their time were amazing games... then they were changed. But just as the PvE market has grown since then, the PvP market has too. The void left by games like UO and SWG have not been filled by any newer games. Some have attempted, but failed horribly due to low budgets and inexperienced programmers and poor design choices. There is still a huge void waiting to be filled by an actual quality PvP game, rather than forcing PvPers to either choose between a bad game or a good game with only tacked on PvP.

    If EQ Next does open PvP right, along with the rest of the game, it will only make it more succesfull.

    BTW if they make it open PvP, PvPers are obviously their target audience. Being a PvE player and wishing a PvP game was a PvE game doesn't make you their target audience.

    UO was changed because open world PvP was destroying the game.  That is a fact. A few people were ruining the experience of hundreds of other players, and if the devs hadn't done anything (ie Trammel) the game would have ceased to exist.

    You open world PvPers are your own worst enemy to be honest. You lament not having a well-funded game, but no serious investor is going to risk tens of millions of dollars on a game system that has little to no proof of concept.  The reality is that most players do not want open world pvp.  That means you're stuck with the likes of Darkfall, and you should count yourself lucky to have that.

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by Drakynn

    Seems like more reaching on the OPs part because he wants EQN to be 100% OW non-consensual PvP.

    Once more the statement could be applied to many things

    There is a roundtable question that also might relate to PvP

    https://www.everquestnext.com/round-table?poll=contested-content

    That would seem to indicate that PvP may be limited to contested areas but also may have nothing to do with PvP theoretically.

    Contest content does not mean PvP.  It means open dungeons, contested bosses basically how far do you want them to go with allowing kill stealing.  Most people are responding that they would like a balance between contested and non contested. 

    The PvP discussions will be coming later.

  • BigdaddyxBigdaddyx California, WAPosts: 1,986Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
    There is simply no way around it in today's market. If they come out and announce this game as open PVP it is going on dead before it ever launches because they didn't understand what the average player in their supposed target audience wants from a game. While I am not personally against such a feature, history has made the case.

    This is why best solution is to separate PVP servers from PVE ones. If that is even a possibility with their game design.

  • KanethKaneth Posts: 1,930Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Drakephire
    Originally posted by kaiser3282
    Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
    There is simply no way around it in today's market. If they come out and announce this game as open PVP it is going on dead before it ever launches because they didn't understand what the average player in their supposed target audience wants from a game. While I am not personally against such a feature, history has made the case.

    Open PvP has never been the downfall of a game that was designed for it from the start. The poor design choices and shitty development / coding of PvP games has been their downfall. The only cases that have been made are a) Lots of people want a highly polished & well designed PvE themepark game b) People do not want a poorly designed broken piece of crap for a PvP "sandbox" game *coughdarkfall&mortalcough*.

    We have yet to see a well funded & highly polished game resembling anything close to a sandbox with any sort of focus on PvP rather than just being tacked on half-assed PvP. The closest were games like UO and SWG, which for their time were amazing games... then they were changed. But just as the PvE market has grown since then, the PvP market has too. The void left by games like UO and SWG have not been filled by any newer games. Some have attempted, but failed horribly due to low budgets and inexperienced programmers and poor design choices. There is still a huge void waiting to be filled by an actual quality PvP game, rather than forcing PvPers to either choose between a bad game or a good game with only tacked on PvP.

    If EQ Next does open PvP right, along with the rest of the game, it will only make it more succesfull.

    BTW if they make it open PvP, PvPers are obviously their target audience. Being a PvE player and wishing a PvP game was a PvE game doesn't make you their target audience.

    UO was changed because open world PvP was destroying the game.  That is a fact. A few people were ruining the experience of hundreds of other players, and if the devs hadn't done anything (ie Trammel) the game would have ceased to exist.

    You open world PvPers are your own worst enemy to be honest. You lament not having a well-funded game, but no serious investor is going to risk tens of millions of dollars on a game system that has little to no proof of concept.  The reality is that most players do not want open world pvp.  That means you're stuck with the likes of Darkfall, and you should count yourself lucky to have that.

    The highlighted portion is by far the most true statement when it comes to the discussion of open world PvP. OW PvP players have nearly negated any chance of their ever being a AAA OW PvP game, and that's because those types of games tend to bring the worst out of the general community. Even Darktide in AC1, which I really liked, was plagued with idiots ganking newbs in starting zones. I remember dropping from portal space and then having to run about 10 minutes away from town before I finally found an area where I could find mobs my level to kill, loot and the players were similarly leveled hence the pvp was actual pvp.

    I could see EQN having zones dedicated to PvP, but I highly doubt SOE is going to be stupid enough to attempt to cut out the majority of the gaming public. It'll be interesting to see what they do, because their decisions will literally make or break the game even before it's released.

  • ghorgosghorgos NirgendwoPosts: 190Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind. 

    because being limited to 8 skills is no artificial limit? Seems like this statement is limited as well.

    (I know different context for the above statement but the game already has some limits and talking about no limits is hard to believe)

  • ariestearieste toronto, ONPosts: 3,308Member Common
    Originally posted by ghorgos
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind. 

    because being limited to 8 skills is no artificial limit? Seems like this statement is limited as well.

    (I know different context for the above statement but the game already has some limits and talking about no limits is hard to believe)

    +1.  Good point.  Also, i laughed pretty hard.  

     

    Considering how hard it is to create a challenging and balanced PvE encounter for an "artificially limited" number of players, I have serious doubts about their ability to create an encounter that is equally challenging and balanced regardless of whether it's being fought by 3, 30 or 300 people.  

     

    Heck, just imagine the testing that would need to be done:  instead of testing every encounter with 6 people (i.e. 1 group), you now need to test it with 1, with 2, with 3, with 4, with 5, with 6, with 7, with 8...etc, etc.   Because the mob can't simply hit harder, it's gotta gain new abilities and stuff.

    "I’d rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."

    - Raph Koster

    Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
    Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2
    Currently Playing: EQ2, Firefall

  • drbaltazardrbaltazar drummondville, QCPosts: 7,987Member
    they wont need instancing!what they use doesn't need it!there is a racing game that use similar thing and ask the guys that play it.im not sure any have seen the whole world yet ! this is probably harder to code but it does have huge benefit!
  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,281Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    If so, will they have instancing-like abilities (ex, temp domes that prevent people from entering/exiting where they are fighting) that prevent more pc’s from showing up and always causing the mobs to run?

    Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind.

     

    http://eqn.junkiesnation.com/2013/09/10/storybricks-and-soe-answer-some-questions/

     

    I can't help but wonder if this extends into the PVP context...  teeheehee...  open-world PVP with a life of consequence, please.

     

     

    This is the at the core of sandbox design.

     

    yep yep, Idk how or why people keep saying, quote after quote "it doesn't mean that" Trust me guys you will be ok, and than SOE for it.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,281Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kaneth
    Originally posted by Drakephire
    Originally posted by kaiser3282
    Originally posted by Crazy_Stick
    There is simply no way around it in today's market. If they come out and announce this game as open PVP it is going on dead before it ever launches because they didn't understand what the average player in their supposed target audience wants from a game. While I am not personally against such a feature, history has made the case.

    Open PvP has never been the downfall of a game that was designed for it from the start. The poor design choices and shitty development / coding of PvP games has been their downfall. The only cases that have been made are a) Lots of people want a highly polished & well designed PvE themepark game b) People do not want a poorly designed broken piece of crap for a PvP "sandbox" game *coughdarkfall&mortalcough*.

    We have yet to see a well funded & highly polished game resembling anything close to a sandbox with any sort of focus on PvP rather than just being tacked on half-assed PvP. The closest were games like UO and SWG, which for their time were amazing games... then they were changed. But just as the PvE market has grown since then, the PvP market has too. The void left by games like UO and SWG have not been filled by any newer games. Some have attempted, but failed horribly due to low budgets and inexperienced programmers and poor design choices. There is still a huge void waiting to be filled by an actual quality PvP game, rather than forcing PvPers to either choose between a bad game or a good game with only tacked on PvP.

    If EQ Next does open PvP right, along with the rest of the game, it will only make it more succesfull.

    BTW if they make it open PvP, PvPers are obviously their target audience. Being a PvE player and wishing a PvP game was a PvE game doesn't make you their target audience.

    UO was changed because open world PvP was destroying the game.  That is a fact. A few people were ruining the experience of hundreds of other players, and if the devs hadn't done anything (ie Trammel) the game would have ceased to exist.

    You open world PvPers are your own worst enemy to be honest. You lament not having a well-funded game, but no serious investor is going to risk tens of millions of dollars on a game system that has little to no proof of concept.  The reality is that most players do not want open world pvp.  That means you're stuck with the likes of Darkfall, and you should count yourself lucky to have that.

    The highlighted portion is by far the most true statement when it comes to the discussion of open world PvP. OW PvP players have nearly negated any chance of their ever being a AAA OW PvP game, and that's because those types of games tend to bring the worst out of the general community. Even Darktide in AC1, which I really liked, was plagued with idiots ganking newbs in starting zones. I remember dropping from portal space and then having to run about 10 minutes away from town before I finally found an area where I could find mobs my level to kill, loot and the players were similarly leveled hence the pvp was actual pvp.

    I could see EQN having zones dedicated to PvP, but I highly doubt SOE is going to be stupid enough to attempt to cut out the majority of the gaming public. It'll be interesting to see what they do, because their decisions will literally make or break the game even before it's released.

    Man, just stop. Wipe a dungeon party, and see what happens to you. Even worse tell someone you never have been there, wtf? Why do you think no one plays tank or healer? New players in those roles, 9/10 times don't stand a chance. The worst possible thing you can be is a new tank, in a new dungeon. You'll have 4 our of 5 players with their finger on the kick button.

     

    The pve only community can and regularly do, deny people content, based on gear, experience, or whatever it is they maybe feeling that day. Heck a addon was made to help them do it better. Gear score anyone? Oh, you don't want/know how to glitch the dungeon? /kick. 

     

    There are idiots on both sides of the fence. 

     

    edit - " I highly doubt SOE is going to be stupid enough to attempt to cut out the majority of the gaming public."

     

    Really? the last time I checked, shows the vast majority of the gaming community play pvp only games, and it's not even close.

     

     

     

  • EnrifEnrif PforzheimPosts: 151Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    If so, will they have instancing-like abilities (ex, temp domes that prevent people from entering/exiting where they are fighting) that prevent more pc’s from showing up and always causing the mobs to run?

    Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind.

     

    http://eqn.junkiesnation.com/2013/09/10/storybricks-and-soe-answer-some-questions/

     

    I can't help but wonder if this extends into the PVP context...  teeheehee...  open-world PVP with a life of consequence, please.

     

     

    you should have quoted all of that question, because the context is wrong without it.

     

    Are human AI-equivalent mobs going to be designed such that it is required that no more than x people can fight said mobs at the same time (given that mobs can potentially run away at any time if they are outnumbered/outclassed/outskilled)? 

    If so, will they have instancing-like abilities (ex, temp domes that prevent people from entering/exiting where they are fighting) that prevent more pc’s from showing up and always causing the mobs to run?

    Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind.

     

    Example i would think of are World Bosses in WoW. They got "tagged" by the one who got the damage on it first and his group. artificial locking everyone out of the boss rewards. This SOE don't want. What this means also. IF you help someone you can get rewards, instead of WoW's you help some not in your group, You dont get a thing at all. Sounds a little bit like GW2 where you only have to hit a mob and you can get loot. Lets hope SOE can make the right balance between these two.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    The quoted text from SOE had nothing to do with PvP and everything to do with Open World PvE content. Hopes for some sort of PvP relevance are misplaced in this particular case. It is, yet again, another statement from a developer that is being misinterpreted to mean what the reader wants, and not what the speaker is saying.

    If we assume that SOE wants to attract as many MMORPG players as possible, and we know that "full" PvP games do not attract nearly as many players as "consensual" PvP games, then we can be pretty sure that SOE isn't not implementing a "full" PvP game.

    That said, we also know that they are capable of spinning up multiple servers, and it doesn't seem likely that they'll require the same rule set on all servers, so it's entirely possible that they could spin up a "full" PvP server. If they do, then we can argue about how successful that server is, relative to the other servers.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • jesteralwaysjesteralways BangladeshPosts: 1,045Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by muffins89

    how did an article about npc's reactions to pc's get turned into a pvp discussion? 

     

    Terry Michaels: "Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game."

     

    he's saying they are designing the AI to react to the players.  they are not setting limits on how many players it will take to kill certain mobs,  because the mobs are going to react to how they are being engaged. 

     

    Same here, don't understand how a mob AI related comment turn into pvp discussion. if they can indeed create a situation that mob becomes increasingly difficult and smart with the number of players increasing, then that will be really great.

    i want an open world, no phasing, no instancing.i want meaningful owpvp.i want player driven economy.i want meaningful crafting.i want awesome exploration, a sense of thrill.i want ow housing with a meaningful effect on my entire gameplay experience, not just some instanced crap.i want all of these free of cost, i don't wanna pay you a cent, game devs can eat grass and continue developing game for me.
    Seems like that is the current consensus of western mmo players.

  • jesteralwaysjesteralways BangladeshPosts: 1,045Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Enrif
    Originally posted by Bidwood

    If so, will they have instancing-like abilities (ex, temp domes that prevent people from entering/exiting where they are fighting) that prevent more pc’s from showing up and always causing the mobs to run?

    Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind.

     

    http://eqn.junkiesnation.com/2013/09/10/storybricks-and-soe-answer-some-questions/

     

    I can't help but wonder if this extends into the PVP context...  teeheehee...  open-world PVP with a life of consequence, please.

     

     

    you should have quoted all of that question, because the context is wrong without it.

     

    Are human AI-equivalent mobs going to be designed such that it is required that no more than x people can fight said mobs at the same time (given that mobs can potentially run away at any time if they are outnumbered/outclassed/outskilled)? 

    If so, will they have instancing-like abilities (ex, temp domes that prevent people from entering/exiting where they are fighting) that prevent more pc’s from showing up and always causing the mobs to run?

    Terry Michaels: This sounds exactly like the kind of thing we do not want in EverQuest Next. Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game. You will just have to wait for more information about our combat to see what we have in mind.

     

    Example i would think of are World Bosses in WoW. They got "tagged" by the one who got the damage on it first and his group. artificial locking everyone out of the boss rewards. This SOE don't want. What this means also. IF you help someone you can get rewards, instead of WoW's you help some not in your group, You dont get a thing at all. Sounds a little bit like GW2 where you only have to hit a mob and you can get loot. Lets hope SOE can make the right balance between these two.

     

    Reward system based on contribution had already been implemented in DCUO; another game developed and published by SOE, mob tagging is completely obsolete in DCUO. apart from DCUO, Rift also have the same contribution based reward system. Try playing DCUO at least and you will have a nice idea as to what kind of system they want to implement for open world pve encounter in EQN.

    i want an open world, no phasing, no instancing.i want meaningful owpvp.i want player driven economy.i want meaningful crafting.i want awesome exploration, a sense of thrill.i want ow housing with a meaningful effect on my entire gameplay experience, not just some instanced crap.i want all of these free of cost, i don't wanna pay you a cent, game devs can eat grass and continue developing game for me.
    Seems like that is the current consensus of western mmo players.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,281Member Uncommon
    Well if it wast 2 hours long I would have listened before I commented!
  • KarbleKarble San Diego, CAPosts: 741Member

    They might give big mobs special powers to deal with player numbers. For instance......

     

    If an elemental dragon is being attacked by a raid of 15 players it may only shoot out mild electricity oae, do a tail sweep, directional fire breath.

    If there is another group or more that comes and starts attacking, it then has deeper options at it's disposal to use...like

     

    Earthquake aoe hitting everyone and also knocking everyone down, chain lightning that jumps between people standing 12 feet or shorter between eachother and the more jumps it does the higher the damage, Also it get a burrow regen which allows the dragon to burrow if not stunned during the short skill telegraph and regen some of it's power and health while burrowed in the ground.

     

    This solves the limit issue and also adds further to strategies players must use when attacking in different numbers.

  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    The quoted text from SOE had nothing to do with PvP and everything to do with Open World PvE content. Hopes for some sort of PvP relevance are misplaced in this particular case. It is, yet again, another statement from a developer that is being misinterpreted to mean what the reader wants, and not what the speaker is saying.

    If we assume that SOE wants to attract as many MMORPG players as possible, and we know that "full" PvP games do not attract nearly as many players as "consensual" PvP games, then we can be pretty sure that SOE isn't not implementing a "full" PvP game.

    That said, we also know that they are capable of spinning up multiple servers, and it doesn't seem likely that they'll require the same rule set on all servers, so it's entirely possible that they could spin up a "full" PvP server. If they do, then we can argue about how successful that server is, relative to the other servers.

    "Artificial limits and mechanisms that enforce those limits are not the types of solutions we are designing for this game."

     

    "FOR THIS GAME".

     

    Not for "everything to do with Open World PvE content" in this game.

     

    "FOR THIS GAME".

     

    I'm not misinterpreting anything. I'm taking what he said at face value. He's saying that for this game (Everquest Next), they won't be designing solutions that impose artificial limits and mechanisms to enforce them." That's exactly how a sandbox is supposed to be designed.

     

    I'm speculating about what this could mean for PVP, but that's very different from what you're doing - which is assuming his statement only refers to open-world PVE content.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.