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??

1468910

Comments

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

    Landmark is not going to be anything more than a prettier mincraft survival mode.... This saddens me very much so much wasted potential.

     

    Hopefully Next will have the building aspect mixed in with the story and the pvp.

    They have stated that they only about 60% done with the game at this point.  They have also said that the remaining 40% is where all the magic is going to happen.

    Go watch the What is Everquest Next: Landmark Official Video.  http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA

    Edit: Link to EQNL Forum Roadmap https://forums.station.sony.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/eqnl-roadmap.18810/

     

     

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon
    I don't understand why anyone upset at all when they first announced this game they made it pretty clear this is how it would turn out

    Steam: Neph

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Crazystick

    Right now Landmark is about explore/gather/build but the final iteration is supposed to be radically different. In about six weeks basic combat will be in along with armor/weapon/potions and mobs. Later more refined combat will come, reportedly where equipped weapon will determine combat abilities, sounds like pre ARR FF14. From there the "end game" for Landmark developemnt wise will be giving players the same in game tools the devs use to develop EQN content, including mobs (placement, pathing, behavior, etc.) and questing on player claims. The PC Gamer article featured Georgeson taking about players being DMs and Butler saying they want no seperation between the tools the players have in Landmark and SoE devs have in EQN.

    Since Landmark servers and islands are freely traversable this could eventually mean a ton of content to play, depending on players creativity. Just in alpha there are about 100-200 claims per island, now 50 islands per server and five US/EU servers.

    Regardless of Landmark being more than a building game it makes no sense to leve in features players can use to detriment other players. Even if the roles were reversed, with 25% wanting griefing amnesty, SoE would be foolish to subject that portion of thier community to something they don't want.

    I'm glad SoE is stepping up and doing the right thing regarding sandbox gameplay.
  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,275Member Uncommon

    The griefers have already won.

     

    They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.


    When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.

    Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.

    15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.

    I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?

     

     

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,989Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully

    The griefers have already won.

     

    They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.


    When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.

    Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.

    15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.

    I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?

     

     

    It's more than that, people don't seem to want to "compete" anymore in MMO's, outside of controlled combat situations or PVE scenarios.

    Not only do they wish to avoid non-consensual PVP, they aren't interested in competing for resource nodes, learning to form the best relationships in game for mutual benefit, won't spend the time to create the best, most unique gear, they want it dropped or they want to be able to craft everything themselves with no reliance on others.

    These titles are largely about going through the motions for the most part, and everyone wants total control of everything, what they do, what others do to them, what they spend their time on, and they will brook no interference from anyone, be it player, game design or anything else that might spoil their "fun."

    The needs of the many are definitely overlooked to cater to the needs of the one.

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "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

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Both of you seem to be missing the point. It's not that x amount of people don't want to compete or like being "inside a box" it's that they want the CHOICE to do so. Like it or not people bring their real life tendencies and attitudes into game worlds. For some it's the drive to be the very best, often to egotistical proportions (like the need to insist that those of opposite opinion are less than or in need of help).

    Most people want to work with other players, not against them. Isn't this mantra cited over and over? Why is this surprising?

    Have your opinion but most people lose nothing by living in a virtual world devoid of the ability to attack or negetively effect others. It's still a virtual world, not a box. The exact proportions of "real life" stipulations will most likely never be applied to a virtual world. Not the to extent that a PvP fan can claim it should be for everyone.
  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,546Member Uncommon

    I will only say one more thing...

    Once you (generally, not aimed at anyone) can compete with me in real life, in my job, my family life, then you may be able to also lecture me about how I compete with others in the entertainment activity that is a video game. And that won't happen since you really know nothing about me.

    Video game virtual muscle flexing cyber-bullies never impressed me, neither when I was playing UO 17 years ago, nor nowadays. The whole "I'm better than you because I'm more badass in a video game" thing always made me laugh.

    It's actually a good point that the vast majority of players prefer to cooperate with each other than to grief each other. It shows that it's, as usual, only a tiny vocal minority ruining games for everyone else. Makes you wonder who needs "help", doesn't it?

    Give those guys their FFA PvP islands... and lets see those island's population a few months after release, just for a laugh.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,656Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully

    The griefers have already won.

    They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.

    When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.

    Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.

    15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.

    I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?

    Griefers haven't won anything. You are missing it I think.

    SOE will provide space for those that don't want to participate in PVP or other similar things. Living in the box as you call it, although, the box could be an entire server.

    They will most likely also provide the complete opposite with servers that allow for all types of rules and player controlled/governed/maintained things.

    It doesn't have to be black and white. Grey is where the magic happens.

    UO, heck I can go back before that to MUDs and griefers in text based worlds lol. Griefing is just part of things. It isn't 100% avoidable or preventable. Doesn't mean the ENTIRE GAME has to be some FFA crap storm.

    Griefing only exists (to me), if a game was not designed a certain way and players are exploiting that.

    DAoC FFA servers for example, the rules were "handle it yourself." Sure people could complain about griefing, but really it didn't exist. The entire point was to kill and harass one another and that is accepted on day 1 of making a character. There was also a PVE only server, where I'm assuming people would do stupid things and try to hassle one another, and this is where griefing exists. If you want to screw with others, play with like minded people.

    Why you would want to play with "the box people" is beyond me. You play on you server, they play on theirs, and I'll play on something completely different, we all win. Sticking everyone on the same piece of land and going "do what you want" doesn't work because none of us want the same thing.

    Personally, I plan on playing EQN unless LM offers a lot more with the help of creative players. I'm not a builder or too creative on my own, but would love to play in an environment or world mainly built by players with PVP and all that. Until something like that is under full swing, I'll stick to a PVP server (if it is done well) in EQN.

    As a PVPer I always find these discussions amusing. I've seen my fair share of PVP/FFA/OW games go down in a ball of flames. If the system allows, I will camp your corpse all day long until you log off or bring some friends. Then I'll bring mine, and we have some real fun. It always sounds good when it is assumed you'll be the top dog, not so fun when you can't play THE WAY YOU WANT, because someone is stomping on your face.

    One thing I've learned in ~19 years or so of online gaming, the loudest most "hardcore" players are usually the first to call "hacks", "cheater", "OP build", or just rage right out of the game. Be careful what you wish for. Some of us will be there waiting with axes and fireballs in hand =)

    Edit: Nope, neither does SOE, so stop asking questions that are pointless.

  • ThorbrandThorbrand West Palm Beach, FLPosts: 1,198Member
    Why would you have or allow griefing in EQNL? We are not talking about EQN and of course you can't destroy peoples hard earned claims. This is right in everyway as far as a game goes. I don't know what world people are living on but Landmark isn't EQN! 
  • SlampigSlampig Chantilly, VAPosts: 2,376Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Refund for what? You got everything you paid for.

    Seems to me he is complaining because he can't gank other players. Good, ganking other players is freaking weak and contrary to what the PvPers would try and have you believe, involves zero skill, just a willingness to wait for someone to come along and engage a monster.

    I like PvP, I cannot STAND chump gankers.

    That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!

  • cronius77cronius77 Fairfax, VAPosts: 1,347Member Uncommon
    the number one complaint in 7 days to die which is a voxel based similar game is how if you have a open server morons come in destroy your bases an grief you then leave. Key being the word morons here.  People can rationalize bad behavior all they wish but being able to build projects that take numbers of days and hours to complete only to have some net nerd come in and destroy it for the shits and giggles should not be rewarded and removed. There can be reasonable pvp in games but to allow people to destroy what you built by griefing and nonsense destroys games in the long term. Go look at where shadowbane is and go look at crappy darkfall.  Hell I remember the 4am raids on towns while everyone is sleeping in shadowbane and you log in to find whatever buildings were not protected by your tree of life completely destroyed and it took sometimes upward of a week to build. That mess got old really fast and I know I never want to see that garbage in a video game again. People who enjoy doing that shit got some serious mental issues for real....
  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,275Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Thorbrand
    Why would you have or allow griefing in EQNL? We are not talking about EQN and of course you can't destroy peoples hard earned claims. This is right in everyway as far as a game goes. I don't know what world people are living on but Landmark isn't EQN! 

    Read the links in OP, and/or this thread. You will see no one wants all those works of art/creations/visions to be destroyed.

     

    Those things, or the people who want more freedoms need their own servers. This was never a pvp/pve debate I love them both.  Some people are carrying years of baggage though, and that's all they can see...

     

    This is a freedom vs restriction and course of development discussion. 

  • kragekrage Miami, FLPosts: 419Member

    I just can't see a game where people toil over creating structures to the best of their ability, farming materials over days, weeks, months, or even years would want to play a game where those labors of love can just be taken away in a fraction of the time they took to make it lol.

    I think beach bullies comes to my mind, people want to build

    and the non-consensual pvpers (Griefers imo in this kind of game) want to

    Again though, I would not mind a PVP server, PVP island, or event setting to flag your claim at all...I am just not on board with forcing others (Like my wife who does not like PVP) to deal with your preferred gameplay that directly ruins their gameplay.

    I would really even love to see and play with Guild claims that can go to war and attempt to invade each others castles or other structures with traps and other cool things to defeat intruders...just not as the base gameplay for everyone.

    image
  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,656Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Thorbrand
    Why would you have or allow griefing in EQNL? We are not talking about EQN and of course you can't destroy peoples hard earned claims. This is right in everyway as far as a game goes. I don't know what world people are living on but Landmark isn't EQN! 

    Read the links in OP, and/or this thread. You will see no one wants all those works of art/creations/visions.

    Those things, or the people who want more freedoms need their own servers. This was never a pvp/pve debate I love them both.  Some people are carrying years of baggage though, and that's all they can see...

    This is a freedom vs restriction and course of development discussion. 

    What does that even mean?

    Freedom to play the way you want, even if that means doing things that others don't like? Or freedom to do what you want with others that want the same thing?

    Again, you say it isn't a pvp/pve debate, then what are you talking about. SOE is going to allow for multiple types of systems. There isn't one system to rule them all.

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Hephzibah, GAPosts: 1,946Member
    Originally posted by Kyleran
    Originally posted by bcbully

    The griefers have already won.

     

    They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.


    When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.

    Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.

    15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.

    I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?

     

     

    It's more than that, people don't seem to want to "compete" anymore in MMO's, outside of controlled combat situations or PVE scenarios.

    Not only do they wish to avoid non-consensual PVP, they aren't interested in competing for resource nodes, learning to form the best relationships in game for mutual benefit, won't spend the time to create the best, most unique gear, they want it dropped or they want to be able to craft everything themselves with no reliance on others.

    These titles are largely about going through the motions for the most part, and everyone wants total control of everything, what they do, what others do to them, what they spend their time on, and they will brook no interference from anyone, be it player, game design or anything else that might spoil their "fun."

    The needs of the many are definitely overlooked to cater to the needs of the one.

     

    Because after over 10 years of it, it became older than dirt.

     

    Call it for what it really is: burnout of the same resource "threats".

    Call it for what it really is: sick of FFA PvP in the nth MMO.

    Call it for what it really is: not worth the time or money to waste on griefers.

     

    I want to build a shiny new cathedral in a very pretty locale. I don't want to build it where heathens can defile it because they're heathens, and doing it because they're bored heathens, like they do in the nth MMO.

     

    The only danger I seek is that God will be angry if it's not done, not the wrath of fellow humans snorting cocaine and bragging they can in chat.

     

    Until people can play like human beings in an anonymous social scene, PvP needs to stay in it's own corner.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by krage

    I just can't see a game where people toil over creating structures to the best of their ability, farming materials over days, weeks, months, or even years would want to play a game where those labors of love can just be taken away in a fraction of the time they took to make it lol.

    I think beach bullies comes to my mind, people want to build

    and the non-consensual pvpers (Griefers imo in this kind of game) want to

    Again though, I would not mind a PVP server, PVP island, or event setting to flag your claim at all...I am just not on board with forcing others (Like my wife who does not like PVP) to deal with your preferred gameplay that directly ruins their gameplay.

    I would really even love to see and play with Guild claims that can go to war and attempt to invade each others castles or other structures with traps and other cool things to defeat intruders...just not as the base gameplay for everyone.

     

    I keep coming back to Minecraft as an example of what might or might not work.  Playing on Minecraft servers where players have unfettered freedom results in a couple of things that I've seen.  One is the world is just a mess.  It's nearly impossible to even run through populated areas, much less build anything.  Two is that the players who have been there longer tend to farm the weaker players, especially the new players.  Three is that players don't actually build anything visible, and nothing that isn't 100% functional.  Think an obsidian box with a hidden water drop exit and possibly a bed the player can /home to if it's allowed on the server.

     

    "Freedom" results in a lot of negatives when applied to the general gamer population.

     

    A server that implements some restrictions on player behavior results in a very different experience.  If players can claim chunks that give both build and PvP protections, then they build things worth seeing.  Alliances with other players become meaningful and having a space to build and to be safe doesn't require being the largest single group on the server.  Another side effect of build restrictions combined with allowing OW PvP outside of safe zones is that the world doesn't turn into swiss cheese, and new players are both careful, but not farmed.

     

    Is SOE going too far into the "protective" side of things?  Maybe, but probably not.  Most Minecraft players aren't on PvP servers, and if they are, most of them are playing with friends, not the general public.  A great many players are playing the single player version of the game.  SOE has probably read this one correctly.  Players who can have their constructions destroyed probably aren't going to build anything worth putting in EQN, which is why EQN:L exists.  I'm not sure why people thought EQN:L was going to be a better Darkfall or Mortal Online.

     

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

  • VorthanionVorthanion Laguna Vista, TXPosts: 2,117Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by DamonVile

    The way land mark seems to be going about things makes me think they took a page right out of firefalls development.

    Nobody really seems to have any idea what they really want to build but if enough people ask for it they'll add it in.

    I almost feel like they really have nothing designed beyond building tools, idk. Beta starts in 3 weeks though...

    Umm......Landmark's primary focus is building.  This has priority over pve and pvp.  Maybe you are following the wrong game and EQN is the one you should be waiting on.  This is their minecraft game.  EQN is the one that is focusing on adventuring, parkour and pvp.

    image
  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    Vorthanion

    Landmark will be a lot more than structure building once it's fully fleshed out, PvE and PvP included. A good way to look at it, and similar has been said by SoE, Landmark will have content developed by players, EQN will have content developed by SoE.
  • MrG8MrG8 SwedenPosts: 82Member
    Haha you guys are amazing, you actually WANT to be able to ruin for others? Oh jesus... Well, what if they made one server that this would be possible? A server where someone actually can ruin your whole gameplay.... lets make that and see how many will play on that server... probably not a lot of people.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by Aelious
    Vorthanion

    Landmark will be a lot more than structure building once it's fully fleshed out, PvE and PvP included. A good way to look at it, and similar has been said by SoE, Landmark will have content developed by players, EQN will have content developed by SoE.

     

    One of the ideas they have floated is having continents with different rule sets.  Some continents would be "safe" and others would have monsters and a continent that not only has monsters, but has monsters inside player Landmarks.

     

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieltack/2013/10/02/everquest-next-landmark-is-much-more-than-a-world-builder/

     

    Seems like they could do the same thing with PvP.  It wouldn't make sense for a "safe" continent to have PvP, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be as many continents as there are rule sets.  A continent with a PvP rule set, but building is protected and a continent with a PvP rule set and where destruction is possible, but only using siege weapons, and so on.

     

    **

     

    If continent generation is largely procedure, the additional cost for additional continents would be negligible.

     

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

  • midnitewolfmidnitewolf Orlando, FLPosts: 55Member Uncommon

    Here is the community's problem.  They all want it their way and if it isn't they gripe about it instead of moving on to a game that does have what they want in it.  This then leads to the problem with developers, they want to try to be everything to everyone instead, of just trying to make a good game that appeals to a subset of people.  These two things combined are the downfall of the MMO.

    32% want Landmark to not have negative situations such as PvP or having their creations destroyed by other random players, what is wrong with them designing the game to accommodate that at the expense of those seeking mayhem and destruction.  For god's sake the game doesn't have to accommodate everyone, rather it just has to accommodate enough to be profitable.

    Same goes with PvP vs PvE, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a game that offers zero PvP and there are millions of players that would be perfectly find with a well made 100% PvE game that didn't face situations where PvP balancing screwed up PvE gameplay. Again the game doesn't have to be everything to everyone.

    Anyway, the sooner developers start realizing this fundamental truth and start designing games that appeal to specific markets that would generate modest but still highly profitable games rather than trying to be the next WoW, the sooner we will actually have good MMOs again.

  • kragekrage Miami, FLPosts: 419Member

    Separate continents of varying threats would be great, go when you have that itch to adventure against NPCs on a island with NPC theme threats, or even PVP islands. If they do this I hope the rewards scale based on the difficulty, like there should never be an exclusive material per se but some of the more rare materials/rewards should be gated behind the more dangerous tasks like mining in a pvp zone or exploring that cave with a dragon poking his head out lol.

    Especially on PVP zones, if people lay claims there that are able to get torn up by others hopefully the material gathering side is lessened through abundant materials. That and it will still make for a nice day trip for PVP-PVErs who just want to maximize farming mats without fearing a bit of pvp.

    image
  • SinellaSinella BudapestPosts: 340Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully

    The griefers have already won.

     

    They have these people completely terrified, and happy to live boxes.


    When they see new things, their first thought is "Will I be griefed?" If they can conceive away they may possibly be griefed, their first thought is to get rid of it. It's a form of PTS for some.

    Whatever was done to those people had to be wrong. I see people citing UO, 15 years ago as reasons why they feel as they do.

    15 years later, they would rather play in a box than build in a world because of those same griefers. I feel for these people. I wont pretend to know how to help.

    I have to ask though, Is this the type of design we really want for the entirety of Landmark?

     

     

    I think you really misunderstand things. Where you see freedom I see awful restrictions. Where you see restrictions I see freedom. I'm not happy to live in boxes..that's why I'm glad they don't allow other players to destroy people's creations or non-consensual PvP.

    FFA PvP is the biggest restriction for me in a game, that's why I don't like games like that. How annoying it is when another player can stop me doing whatever I like, when he can waste my precious gaming time by forcing me to entertain him....where is my freedom then. I want a game where I can spend my time as I choose to, and that decision doesn't have to depend on the mood of some bullying kid who had a bad day and who wants to let his anger out on me or on my in-game creation. This is exactly the design I want to see in Landmark.

     

  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIPosts: 2,253Member


    Originally posted by Sinella

    FFA PvP is the biggest restriction for me in a game, that's why I don't like games like that. How annoying it is when another player can stop me doing whatever I like, when he can waste my precious gaming time by forcing me to entertain him....where is my freedom then. I want a game where I can spend my time as I choose to, and that decision doesn't have to depend on the mood of some bullying kid who had a bad day and who wants to let his anger out on me or on my in-game creation. This is exactly the design I want to see in Landmark.


    You have a really warped view of PvP. I think the best way for some like you and someone like me to coexist in gaming is to go with the specialty server. We just view gaming in such a completely different fashion.

    Having said that in Landmark itself PvP doesn't make much sense unless it is consensual. In EQN I fully expect to see a PvP server.

  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Hephzibah, GAPosts: 1,946Member
    Originally posted by Ender4

     


    Originally posted by Sinella

     

    FFA PvP is the biggest restriction for me in a game, that's why I don't like games like that. How annoying it is when another player can stop me doing whatever I like, when he can waste my precious gaming time by forcing me to entertain him....where is my freedom then. I want a game where I can spend my time as I choose to, and that decision doesn't have to depend on the mood of some bullying kid who had a bad day and who wants to let his anger out on me or on my in-game creation. This is exactly the design I want to see in Landmark.

     


     

    You have a really warped view of PvP. I think the best way for some like you and someone like me to coexist in gaming is to go with the specialty server. We just view gaming in such a completely different fashion.

    Having said that in Landmark itself PvP doesn't make much sense unless it is consensual. In EQN I fully expect to see a PvP server.

    The issue is, even if players had a PvE server (like WoW offers) we're not free of the PvP, nor have options to turn it off, despite being on PvE servers (Shandris-Bronzebeard are PvE connected realms, not PvP).

     

    New content that PvE players pay for, is being used to make content at their expense on those very PvE realms (Timeless Isle even allows same faction players TO KILL THEIR OWN FOR PVP COINS).

     

    Enough of that madness.

     

    Either it is PvE or it isn't. The two play styles are at odds in what their goals are to do in the game. Instance PvP is fine, because it's OFF THE SERVER.

Sign In or Register to comment.