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!

"Anything that can cause you death in the future...we will remove it" WTF??

1356710

Comments

  • StizzledStizzled Springfield, MOPosts: 1,264Member Uncommon

    Well, it's pretty much a three way split, 39% would prefer any negative effect be limited and minor, 30% would prefer to negatively affect players in a significant way and 32% would prefer not not have any sort of negative interaction.

     

    SOE probably looked at that and figured that those 39% who would prefer it to be limited or minor (especially those who wanted it for their friends only) would probably also be okay with there being none, so they lumped them together to get a 70% majority. Some may not agree with that but it certainly seems reasonable.


  • MukeMuke BredaPosts: 2,172Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kitarad

    There is no way I am spending hours harvesting and collecting and building and then some clown comes and destroys it in like a minute. No way will I support such a game especially because of the sheer amount of time my work cost me and the other person puts nothing in except to destroy and grief me. I will vehemently support any suggestion to curtail any such negative behaviour.

    Could always ask SOE to add a central hub campfire and then all /dance + /hold hands and sing kumbayaaaaaa  on teamspeak for 10 hours straight.

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,088Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jacxolope

    Okay, I cannot view the video.

     

    Could you clarify something for me- Are they saying "anything that can cause you death in the future...We will remove it" as in ANYTHING? Or is this relating to PVP or something another player can do to cause you death.

     

    Thanks- My reply depends on this answer. =P

    Its for griefing they dont want griefs to be able to kill somone.

  • HrothaHrotha -Posts: 821Member
    Originally posted by bcbully

    Round Table Poll -

    In Landmark, to what degree should you be able to negatively affect other players' gameplay?

     

    Never/Not at all!- 32%

    Only people on my friends list in limited ways.- 14%

    Only people on my friends list, but in significant/game-altering ways.- 6%

    Everyone, all the time, but only in minor ways.- 25%

    I want to be able to cause death and destruction!- 24%

     

    Here is SOE's VIDEO Roundtable response to this poll - What do you guys think? I don't think the response matches the poll. I'm starting to feel like I need a refund.
     
     
    Here's the thread I started on the EQN:L Forums -  Very concerned about the extremely conservative development of Landmark
     
     
     
     

    Welcome to real life, there is no death.

    image

  • AwDiddumsAwDiddums Great YarmouthPosts: 394Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by GwapoJosh
    Originally posted by kitarad

    There is no way I am spending hours harvesting and collecting and building and then some clown comes and destroys it in like a minute. No way will I support such a game especially because of the sheer amount of time my work cost me and the other person puts nothing in except to destroy and grief me. I will vehemently support any suggestion to curtail any such negative behaviour.

    I agree.. You would have to be an idiot to think SOE would let any random person, that walks by, destroy your property.

    Play on a non-combat art and design server, problem solved.

    Likewise play on a FFA PvP server (If one gets created), problem solved.

    The popularity of PvP within the EQ world was miniscule, why on earth would it be put to the forefront in a modern day MMO?

     

  • NildenNilden null, NBPosts: 1,284Member Uncommon

    Landmark is a tool set for building with gathering and crafting. How could any sane person who wants to build something ever play on a FFA PVP server where someone could knock down days of effort in an instant?

    I'll just going to take a wild guess and assume you didn't build anything worth mentioning. Don't get me wrong I'm all for a ffa pvp ruleset server in EQN proper but it seems pointless, counterintuitive, and silly in landmark when it's a building tool set.

    How to post links.

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer

  • FdzzaiglFdzzaigl Somewhere in nowherePosts: 2,325Member Uncommon

    This is aimed at Landmark, I don't see the issue here.

    Imagine working on a super detailed castle for two weeks when some random comes in and destroys it in ten minutes...

    Perhaps they could have specific servers for that kind of play, but it's not like that server will give birth to many new amazing projects.

    Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,209Member Uncommon

    Good job SoE. That is a definite plus in my book. I hope Landmark and EQN won't be those sorts of games.

    The game will likely have pvp and competition for resources. What it apparently won't be is a huge chaos pit where griefers get to ruin others' creations and game. Guess what, pvp does not equal ruining things for other people. It's not a huge surprise that people don't want to play with others whose entire purpose is to ruin your game and all that you've built. In a strategy based game with short game cycles that could be fun, but in a persistent world it is not.

    I really hope the gank and grief crowd move on to another game.

    Oh, and anyone who has been paying any attention to this game at all should know they don't base their design decisions directly off of those polls. Those are to generate community discussion. If they consider community input on a matter at all it is those discussions they reference. Smokejumper and team said so a while ago in response to a question asking them that very thing.

  • coretex666coretex666 PraguePosts: 1,934Member Uncommon

    I find both upcoming Everquests quite interesting as there are some really nice ideas, but I am afraid that both will be extremely casual like vast majority of mainstream MMOs / MMORPGs.

    Dont think I belong to their target audience for these. Would appreciate if they were more like Minecraft which is fairly hardcore and punishing. :)

    Waiting for L2 EU Classic

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by coretex666

    I find both upcoming Everquests quite interesting as there are some really nice ideas, but I am afraid that both will be extremely casual like vast majority of mainstream MMOs / MMORPGs.

    Dont think I belong to their target audience for these. Would appreciate if they were more like Minecraft which is fairly hardcore and punishing. :)

    Man, I never played EQ, but judging by the EQNL forums, it has to have the most softcore, risk adverse player base in the industry, it's extreme. 

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Kyleran

    Most definitely not the title for me, I fully support "emergent griefing", heck, creativity should be rewarded and not removed.

    Perhaps the title needs to be changed to Everquest Next: Safety Edition image

    Dude you have no idea how disgusting that video is to me.  

     

    AT THIS POINT EQN:L is more of a tool than an mmorpg. Who knows that could change in a month. Videos like this don't give me much hope though. 

    Dude you are just now realizing that its a tool more than a game?

    EQNL will forever be a building tool first and foremost and it will never be always be casual friendly.

     

  • hayes303hayes303 Edmonton, ABPosts: 369Member

    Landmark was always kind of like a toy box where players could design and build for EQN. 

    This forum represents a very small amount of the players that SOE is hoping to get for EQN. I don't think our opinions matter very much at this point in their dev cycle. I would imagine there will be some sort of server set aside for FFA PVP and rampant griefing, but it would make absolutly 0 sense for SOE to limit the player base by making the whole game like that.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by coretex666

    I find both upcoming Everquests quite interesting as there are some really nice ideas, but I am afraid that both will be extremely casual like vast majority of mainstream MMOs / MMORPGs.

    Dont think I belong to their target audience for these. Would appreciate if they were more like Minecraft which is fairly hardcore and punishing. :)

    Man, I never played EQ, but judging by the EQNL forums, it has to have the most softcore, risk adverse player base in the industry, it's extreme. 

    How are you surprised by this??????

    Crafting/ building games always appeal to players that only have an interest in being artistic and creative. Anything that would hinder that is seen as a negative.

    EQNL will NEVER be any kind of a hard core game - this you can take to the bank.

     

    Also EQ players and EQNL players are completely different playerbases - don't confuse them just because there is EQ in there.

    EQ1 players - hard core PvE and PvP(PvP server rulest)

    EQNL players - builders/crafters most have zero interest in any type of combat let alone PvP

     

  • someforumguysomeforumguy HomePosts: 3,540Member Uncommon

    We always annoy each other on our Minecraft server. But this is between friends. But allowing this on a public server? Hell no. Why? Because the consequense will always mainly be for the creator and not the griefer. One person can easily destroy many creations within a short time, while creating something takes a lot longer then that.

    This is also why on Minecraft servers that allow total anarchy, you barely see anything interesting built. You mainly see players constantly griefing each other in quite uninteresting ways.

    I also think that it doesn't fit within the goal that the devs set for EQNext Landmark.

  • NecropsieNecropsie BursaPosts: 142Member Uncommon

     

    The days of a sandbox working with FFA ruleset is sadly gone, imho. A sandbox needs all kinds of players and the FFA crowd generally destroys the playerbase until its only the FFA crowd left. Te whole 'all wolves and no sheep equals bored wolves. Then, since the paying playerbase are generally PVP minded the game shifts towards an arena.

    This. This sums up everything in today's "modern" ffa pvp games. That wolf pack also shouts louder then everyone else and calls everyone a care bear. They are like parasitic monsters poisoning every mmo out there.

    Just look at ESO comments:

    "I want PVP!"

     "Ok, there is a huge map just for that."

    "NO I WANT PVP"  

    That means "i want to kill all other new players, call them noobs and make their playing experience hell because i am a pathetic human being with no other accomplishments in life."

    And the funny thing is, they are really surprised when no one wants to play their games.

    Stages of a new mmo: 1) It's just beta. It still has plenty of time before release. 2) It just launched. Give it time. WoW wasn't built in a day. 3) We don't need you anyway. 4) F2P announced. 5)Huge influx of players. 6) Look how much has changed. 7) Cash shop is the only thing developed lately. 8) It has been a long journey and we thank everyone who was part of it. Shutting down in 3 months. (Courtesy of Robokapp.)

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by coretex666

    I find both upcoming Everquests quite interesting as there are some really nice ideas, but I am afraid that both will be extremely casual like vast majority of mainstream MMOs / MMORPGs.

    Dont think I belong to their target audience for these. Would appreciate if they were more like Minecraft which is fairly hardcore and punishing. :)

    Man, I never played EQ, but judging by the EQNL forums, it has to have the most softcore, risk adverse player base in the industry, it's extreme. 

    How are you surprised by this??????

    Crafting/ building games always appeal to players that only have an interest in being artistic and creative. Anything that would hinder that is seen as a negative.

    EQNL will NEVER be any kind of a hard core game - this you can take to the bank.

     

    Also EQ players and EQNL players are completely different playerbases - don't confuse them just because there is EQ in there.

    EQ1 players - hard core PvE and PvP(PvP server rulest)

    EQNL players - builders/crafters most have zero interest in any type of combat let alone PvP

     

    This is SOE's description of Landmark right from the site.

     

    "Have you ever wanted to build a game?Landmark gives you all the tools you need to design anything you can imagine. Your creations could even end up as a part of EverQuest Next"

     

    Smedley has also said that players will be given system development tools to create their own rule sets/systems. To do this players need their own islands (think shards).

     

    Here's what Dave Georgeson says about combat - “We’ve always intended to have combat in Landmark."

  • PsychoticHamsterPsychoticHamster Brooklyn, NYPosts: 97Member Common
    It seems like they're talking about to what extent the players can mess with one another, but there will be npc monsters and fall damage that can kill you, so I think your thread title is a bit misleading. AFAIK Landmark won't have PvP elements, so I don't see why they would allow players to negatively affect one another. More than anything it would be a minor hindrance used only by people who want to grief, your claims can't be damaged by others, and there's no way that SOE would include a player loot system, so it would just be killing for the sake of killing. I can't help but feel that this system would not end well.

    image
  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,539Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by coretex666

    I find both upcoming Everquests quite interesting as there are some really nice ideas, but I am afraid that both will be extremely casual like vast majority of mainstream MMOs / MMORPGs.

    Dont think I belong to their target audience for these. Would appreciate if they were more like Minecraft which is fairly hardcore and punishing. :)

    Man, I never played EQ, but judging by the EQNL forums, it has to have the most softcore, risk adverse player base in the industry, it's extreme. 

    How are you surprised by this??????

    Crafting/ building games always appeal to players that only have an interest in being artistic and creative. Anything that would hinder that is seen as a negative.

    EQNL will NEVER be any kind of a hard core game - this you can take to the bank.

     

    Also EQ players and EQNL players are completely different playerbases - don't confuse them just because there is EQ in there.

    EQ1 players - hard core PvE and PvP(PvP server rulest)

    EQNL players - builders/crafters most have zero interest in any type of combat let alone PvP

     

    This is SOE's description of Landmark right from the site.

     

    "Have you ever wanted to build a game?Landmark gives you all the tools you need to design anything you can imagine. Your creations could even end up as a part of EverQuest Next"

     

    Smedley has also said that players will be given system development tools to create their own rule sets/systems. To do this players need their own islands (think shards).

    BC - let me tell you a little secret - Smedly is a hell of a salesman, he is so good that many gamers don't even know it.

     

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by DMKano
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by coretex666

    I find both upcoming Everquests quite interesting as there are some really nice ideas, but I am afraid that both will be extremely casual like vast majority of mainstream MMOs / MMORPGs.

    Dont think I belong to their target audience for these. Would appreciate if they were more like Minecraft which is fairly hardcore and punishing. :)

    Man, I never played EQ, but judging by the EQNL forums, it has to have the most softcore, risk adverse player base in the industry, it's extreme. 

    How are you surprised by this??????

    Crafting/ building games always appeal to players that only have an interest in being artistic and creative. Anything that would hinder that is seen as a negative.

    EQNL will NEVER be any kind of a hard core game - this you can take to the bank.

     

    Also EQ players and EQNL players are completely different playerbases - don't confuse them just because there is EQ in there.

    EQ1 players - hard core PvE and PvP(PvP server rulest)

    EQNL players - builders/crafters most have zero interest in any type of combat let alone PvP

     

    This is SOE's description of Landmark right from the site.

     

    "Have you ever wanted to build a game?Landmark gives you all the tools you need to design anything you can imagine. Your creations could even end up as a part of EverQuest Next"

     

    Smedley has also said that players will be given system development tools to create their own rule sets/systems. To do this players need their own islands (think shards).

    BC - let me tell you a little secret - Smedly is a hell of a salesman, he is so good that many gamers don't even know it.

     

    Here's what Georgeson says about combat - “We’ve always intended to have combat in Landmark. Full Article, read it. Let me tell you EQNL is nothing like this, nor has there been any move towards this.

     

    It's Alpha though, if ever there is a place for a gamer to voice his concerns, it's here..

     

    As far as a salesman Planetside 2 is everything and more HE said it would be.. Call me crazy, I figure EQNL will be everything SOE says it will be, or ATLEAST something that resembles it...

     

     

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by PsychoticHamster
    It seems like they're talking about to what extent the players can mess with one another, but there will be npc monsters and fall damage that can kill you, so I think your thread title is a bit misleading. AFAIK Landmark won't have PvP elements, so I don't see why they would allow players to negatively affect one another. More than anything it would be a minor hindrance used only by people who want to grief, your claims can't be damaged by others, and there's no way that SOE would include a player loot system, so it would just be killing for the sake of killing. I can't help but feel that this system would not end well.

    “This is just the beginning,” says Georgeson.  “Imagine what will happen when we add PvP to EverQuest Next Landmark.” (Nov. 2013 pre-alpha)

     

    Here goes that "Doomsday scenario" again...  No one wants to knock over your house or statue. You art should be protected. You should have your own server and or mode.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,778Member Uncommon

    i want to be able to cause death and destruction.

    Although i know i will not cause death and destruction, the FACT that this feature is in a game makes the game far superior than limiting everyone to be happy sheeps.

    image
  • PilnkplonkPilnkplonk zagrebPosts: 1,532Member

    I don't understand what's the fuss...

    From what I gather, EQNL is more of a game-making tool than a game in itself. If SOE is wise they'll allow players to create their own rulesets for their shards so you can have a PVP shard, builder shard, RP shard or whatever. Imo the idea of imposing a single rigid ruleset from above would seriously detract from EQNL's appeal UNLESS the players are given the option to toy and tinker with it in their own private instances. For example, I wouldn't like FFA PvP (or almost any PVP) in my day-to-day crafting but I'd love the option of creating PVP battleground instances, monster-filled dungeons etc which can exist on their own.

    It's a bit of a balancing act really because this places EQNL squarely between being a game-game and an open toybox. I hope SOE finds the right balance with this but imo they do have one succesful example of this approach to build on - Minecraft. Now, how they'll go on implementing it here... we'll see, but I remain cautiously optimistic. IMO it all depends on whether the players are going to be able to create their own shards and how much will they be able to modify their rulesets.

    Basically what id' like to see is "regenerating content" in said instances... For example, I can use resources to create a wonderful castle in my personal instance and then make it destructible to other players. Each time this instance is activated the said castle is brand new - the way standard instances is MMORPGs work. Usually I'm against instancing in MMOs but EQNL is not a mmo in a classical sense so that could be an avenue well worth exploring - all the destruction with none of the griefing!

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,277Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

    I don't understand what's the fuss...

    From what I gather, EQNL is more of a game-making tool than a game in itself. If SOE is wise they'll allow players to create their own rulesets for their shards so you can have a PVP shard, builder shard, RP shard or whatever. Imo the idea of imposing a single rigid ruleset from above would seriously detract from EQNL's appeal UNLESS the players are given the option to toy and tinker with it in their own private instances. For example, I wouldn't like FFA PvP (or almost any PVP) in my day-to-day crafting but I'd love the option of creating PVP battleground instances, monster-filled dungeons etc which can exist on their own.

    It's a bit of a balancing act really because this places EQNL squarely between being a game-game and an open toybox. I hope SOE finds the right balance with this but imo they do have one succesful example of this approach to build on - Minecraft. Now, how they'll go on implementing it here... we'll see, but I remain cautiously optimistic. IMO it all depends on whether the players are going to be able to create their own shards and how much will they be able to modify their rulesets.

    You hit the nail on the head man.

  • NaralNaral Solway, MNPosts: 751Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by bcbully
    Round Table Poll -

     

    In Landmark, to what degree should you be able to negatively affect other players' gameplay?
    Never/Not at all!- 32%

    Only people on my friends list in limited ways.- 14%

    Only people on my friends list, but in significant/game-altering ways.- 6%

    Everyone, all the time, but only in minor ways.- 25%
    I want to be able to cause death and destruction!- 24%


    Wait a second. The "majority" (32%) answered "Not at all" and when they go that route, you're upset?

     

    I agree. Furthermore, 52% wanted it to be limited to friends, or not at all. Over half of those surveyed wanted it to be grief proof essentially, it sounds to me like they more or less listened to the majority, or am I missing something?

    I have yet to play a game where greifing was allowed that I enjoyed. They have my attention now. =)

  • BBPD766BBPD766 Boynton Beach, FLPosts: 97Member
    Originally posted by Karteli
    Originally posted by Ikeda

    If you want more.. go play a game with more.  

    I enjoy not getting griefed by young idiots.  Because that's EXACTLY what FFA PVP caters to.  Those clowns wouldn't know honor if it bit them on the arse.  They don't check themselves and all it'd take is one moment of Haha this'll be awesome.. because they'll post their dumb antics on youtube so their brethren see it and then their brethren will follow the lead because they're like lemmings.

    For the same reason, I HATE the food patch in Minecraft.  It's a waste and I don't need a game giving me shit about mining all day.  I don't need to eat.. it's a GAME.

    To my understanding, you can still play EQL without worrying about death.  EQN is where death comes into context.  And the way SOE is presenting death in EQN, it seems like WoW.  Whoops I died, guess I get unlimited tries.

    Really? And just where did you learn about where SOE is presenting death in EQN that makes it seem like WoW? Or for that mater that you get unlimited tries? The death system isnt even in place according to the video below...

    https://www.everquestnext.com/round-table?poll=death-penalty-eqn

Sign In or Register to comment.