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?
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.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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."
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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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?
They're going that route when 50% say they want more. It seems like there has to be a better way. Give those people a server where "all negative" is tuned off... Idk There has to be a better way.
Granted that the next TWO opinions add up to 49%, but that is not how it works. The majority (choosing ONLY one answer) said "Never/Not At All." You don't get to add in TWO different answers and say that is the majority. Why not add ALL the other "I wanna hurt people!" answers (69%)?
So, what should they do? Make it so that "Everyone, All The Time, BUT Only In Minor Ways" (#2 answer) OR "Death And Destruction" (#3 Answer)? Which way do they go?
I don't see the basis for your complaint, except that *your* SINGLE answer didn't win the poll. Now, you're trying to grab in extra votes to enforce your opinion.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
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...
They got you hook, line and sinker.
If you want to drink the SoE kooliad, its your choice.
Just remember, execs say a lot of things, many of them don't pan out.
My 2c
lmao
a lot of other people too. Islands are literally empty with 100% of the space taken by abandoned claims atm. If things continue down this route the game will literally be DOA.
It's eerily similar to the End of Nations Alpha. Not as bad, but there can't be more than 10% of the people who bought, who are actually still playing.
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
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.
You could be disgusted at how software patents, if they become prevalent, could ruin general purpose computer. You could be disgusted at the disparity between the rich and poor world wide and probably in the country you live in. You could be disgusted at the amount of money the United States government pays out to corporations that have more money than most countries. But no. You are disgusted at a game that won't allow you to ruin another player's day. Nice.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
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
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.
You could be disgusted at how software patents, if they become prevalent, could ruin general purpose computer. You could be disgusted at the disparity between the rich and poor world wide and probably in the country you live in. You could be disgusted at the amount of money the United States government pays out to corporations that have more money than most countries. But no. You are disgusted at a game that won't allow you to ruin another player's day. Nice.
Build a bigger strawman. Keep building them, so that your stance has relevance. While you're at it, get over yourself.
I have no idea why game designers for so-called social games like these are so far behind in understanding how society works. Acknowledging that games are a (distorted) mirror of life is a first step. If you intend to make an anarchy simulator in the form of FFA PvP with boundless destruction and little or no consequence for destructive behavior, understand that your playerbase will be that much smaller for it. Landmark seems to me to be an even worse case due to the massive amounts of time put into gathering resources and building that could be destroyed on a whim. Hell, there aren't even sides or objectives yet to give rationale to otherwise give cause for kicking sand in the face of every other player.
I just don't see the outrage, especially when it's clear that with an opt-in system they'll permit death and destruction to occur for those who want that kind of gameplay.
Really not sure why seperate server types is not the solution. Just 2 different ones is all that would be needed to ensure players can be catered to. One has FFA PvP with property destruction, the other doesn't. In the long run all the bitter kids will be on one server destroying everything and the rest who want to create will be happily creating on the other server.
First, I love PVP. Openworld, BGs, Arenas, Dueling...anything really.
That said I am glad they are not making the default playstyle in a game like EQ:L have players negatively impact others. Why? Well because while most people wont mess with eachother, one griefer is more than enough to harm several non-pvp minded players in a super short time.
You take a few weeks to build something nice, another can likely tear it down in minutes. So yep that makes no sense allowing that as the base gameplay. If they did there would be no cool structures, it would be a barren landscape with shoddy structures since no one would really want to invest the time in something so vulnerable and fragile.
I am about everyone having a good time though, so I hope they make an open PVP/Griefing server or setting for each player to choose their playstyle.
We all know the truth though even if they make an entire PVP server it will be lower pop or have more transient players and the Griefer in the guise of "hardcore" pvpers will be moaning about how unfair it is since they only really want to crap all over other peoples gameplay not really interested in true PVP or the fun of others lol.
As for controlled NPCs or limited threats for players, that is 100% ok (Minecraft zombies), and I hope they add it because it helps make those structures more precious when you have to defend it a little bit. Plus decay IMO is necessary to manage abandoned plots + the monetary costs/tasks...not to mention a way to spur the game trade economy.
Even then that NPC invasion should be a setting that players can toggle that rewards them for this riskier gameplay...and for those who are on PVP servers they should have the best rewards for thriving in such a dangerous environment.
Comments
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?
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.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/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!
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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."
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...
“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.
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.
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!
You hit the nail on the head man.
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.
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
So, what should they do? Make it so that "Everyone, All The Time, BUT Only In Minor Ways" (#2 answer) OR "Death And Destruction" (#3 Answer)? Which way do they go?
I don't see the basis for your complaint, except that *your* SINGLE answer didn't win the poll. Now, you're trying to grab in extra votes to enforce your opinion.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
As such eliminating elements such as player conflict makes perfect sense. Perhaps EQ next will deliver a more realistic gameplay experience.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
a lot of other people too. Islands are literally empty with 100% of the space taken by abandoned claims atm. If things continue down this route the game will literally be DOA.
It's eerily similar to the End of Nations Alpha. Not as bad, but there can't be more than 10% of the people who bought, who are actually still playing.
You could be disgusted at how software patents, if they become prevalent, could ruin general purpose computer. You could be disgusted at the disparity between the rich and poor world wide and probably in the country you live in. You could be disgusted at the amount of money the United States government pays out to corporations that have more money than most countries. But no. You are disgusted at a game that won't allow you to ruin another player's day. Nice.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Build a bigger strawman. Keep building them, so that your stance has relevance. While you're at it, get over yourself.
No one wants to kick over your sand castle.
Isn't it a "sandbox game"?
Don't fear, mom is around - no other child is going to destroy your castle.
I have no idea why game designers for so-called social games like these are so far behind in understanding how society works. Acknowledging that games are a (distorted) mirror of life is a first step. If you intend to make an anarchy simulator in the form of FFA PvP with boundless destruction and little or no consequence for destructive behavior, understand that your playerbase will be that much smaller for it. Landmark seems to me to be an even worse case due to the massive amounts of time put into gathering resources and building that could be destroyed on a whim. Hell, there aren't even sides or objectives yet to give rationale to otherwise give cause for kicking sand in the face of every other player.
I just don't see the outrage, especially when it's clear that with an opt-in system they'll permit death and destruction to occur for those who want that kind of gameplay.
Lolipops !
First, I love PVP. Openworld, BGs, Arenas, Dueling...anything really.
That said I am glad they are not making the default playstyle in a game like EQ:L have players negatively impact others. Why? Well because while most people wont mess with eachother, one griefer is more than enough to harm several non-pvp minded players in a super short time.
You take a few weeks to build something nice, another can likely tear it down in minutes. So yep that makes no sense allowing that as the base gameplay. If they did there would be no cool structures, it would be a barren landscape with shoddy structures since no one would really want to invest the time in something so vulnerable and fragile.
I am about everyone having a good time though, so I hope they make an open PVP/Griefing server or setting for each player to choose their playstyle.
We all know the truth though even if they make an entire PVP server it will be lower pop or have more transient players and the Griefer in the guise of "hardcore" pvpers will be moaning about how unfair it is since they only really want to crap all over other peoples gameplay not really interested in true PVP or the fun of others lol.
As for controlled NPCs or limited threats for players, that is 100% ok (Minecraft zombies), and I hope they add it because it helps make those structures more precious when you have to defend it a little bit. Plus decay IMO is necessary to manage abandoned plots + the monetary costs/tasks...not to mention a way to spur the game trade economy.
Even then that NPC invasion should be a setting that players can toggle that rewards them for this riskier gameplay...and for those who are on PVP servers they should have the best rewards for thriving in such a dangerous environment.