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??

1457910

Comments

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,281Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris

     

    ....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.

    As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder. 

     

    Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that. 

     

    That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?

     

    /problem solved

     

    edit - the last time I played WoW pallys were impossible to kill anyways!!!

  • VicDynamoVicDynamo Michigan, MIPosts: 234Member
    This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that. 
  • Kevyne-ShandrisKevyne-Shandris Hephzibah, GAPosts: 1,946Member
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris

     

    ....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.

    As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder. 

     

    Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that. 

     

    That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?

     

    /problem solved

     

    edit - the last time I played WoW pallys were impossible to kill anyways!!!

    Play WoW now and see what the World of Stuncraft has done to paladins. It ain't fun.

     

    And "emergent game play" maybe your cup of tea, but when I rolled my toon on a PvE server it was to play on a server where the PvE is the content. That means anything but PvP and it's concepts.

     

    It takes much more resources to make a good PvE game as art assets aren't cheap, but that's PvE, and players who enjoy it roll on PvE realms and pay for that content.

     

    So solving that problem is this: PvE realm = PvE content and PvP realm = PvP content.

     

    /solved

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,664Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris

     

    ....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.

    As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder. 

    Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that. 

    That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?

    /problem solved

    So it isn't either, but then you say turn PVP off, implying that it is on by default...

    Emergent is just a buzzword like sandbox. It means whatever you want it to mean. There is no one definition or meaning.

    Wouldn't it make more sense to just have either PVP or PVE servers (various types of each even) and then provide the tools for players to do what they want within those rule sets? No default anything.

    Log in to an empty world. Up to players to do it all. 

    The only problem is the one you've created. SOE sounds to be doing pretty much what you are suggesting. Again, not sure why the need to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.

    Now when it comes to EQN. If they try to make it a PVP or PVE game by default and then tack on one afterwards. That will be an issue. I'm hoping they get that figured out. As the story, lore, AI, quests, world in general can be built completely different depending on the games focus or lack of one.

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,664Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris

    ....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.

    As someone who loves a good raid just as much as a good brawl, I could not disagree more. the last thing I want is a PvP only battle ground, or a PvE only dungeon grinder. 

    Emergent game play is neither pve or pvp. Anything can happen. Give me more of that. 

    That being said, build with emergent systems in place, THEN turn combat off on a server(s) for those who don't want it. What's the problem?

    /problem solved

    edit - the last time I played WoW pallys were impossible to kill anyways!!!

    Play WoW now and see what the World of Stuncraft has done to paladins. It ain't fun.

    And "emergent game play" maybe your cup of tea, but when I rolled my toon on a PvE server it was to play on a server where the PvE is the content. That means anything but PvP and it's concepts.

    It takes much more resources to make a good PvE game as art assets aren't cheap, but that's PvE, and players who enjoy it roll on PvE realms and pay for that content.

    So solving that problem is this: PvE realm = PvE content and PvP realm = PvP content.

    /solved

    I hope SOE doesn't provide any content or at least very little. I'd rather have a clean slate and let players build the world.

    Only difference would be that PVP would allow for players to attack one anther. Beyond that SOE doesn't have to do anything.

    No extra content, resources, balance, etc. It is up to players to decide what goes. Would need various types of servers probably, but takes little effort on their part and puts all the load on us.

    EQN is a completely different beast though. That needs a lot of work upfront.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,281Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Prhyme
    This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that. 

    Sadly that's what  the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same. 

  • kairel182kairel182 SMD, RIPosts: 241Member Uncommon

    I'm confused.  Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game.  Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?

     

    Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be.  This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene.  Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.  

     

    Don't get me wrong, I love PvP.  But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it.  I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay.  I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.

  • Ramonski7Ramonski7 Aurora, ILPosts: 2,656Member Uncommon

    Everquest Next: Landmark is for a doozer community:

     

    Why the hell would you invite a fraggle to the party?

     

    You know what they eat right?

    image
    "Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."

  • jusomdudejusomdude Posts: 2,389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kairel182

    I'm confused.  Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game.  Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?

     

    Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be.  This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene.  Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.  

     

    Don't get me wrong, I love PvP.  But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it.  I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay.  I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.

    Somehow most players equate sandbox with ffa pvp. IDK where it started, but I'm glad SoE doesn't agree. FFA PvP is the lowest form of PvP there is, bacause it usually revolves around griefing no matter how people try to spin it as otherwise.

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,664Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Prhyme
    This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that. 

    Sadly that's what  the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same. 

    You do realize that currently all you can do is gather and build right? Unless you are a builder fan, there is very little to do. Once more systems are incorporated, more diverse fans will be on more. At least speaking for myself.

    I'm still under the assumption that you don't even know what you are having an issue with though. This "NO!" situation isn't real.

    There is nothing in place to have any level of PVP or more depth to game play as it hasn't been added. At least wait until they start actually adding more things before going all doom and gloom.

  • KyllienKyllien Renton, WAPosts: 315Member
    Originally posted by kairel182

    I'm confused.  Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game.  Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?

     

    Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be.  This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene.  Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.  

     

    Don't get me wrong, I love PvP.  But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it.  I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay.  I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.

    It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture.  I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)

    To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.

    Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.

    Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,281Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Prhyme
    This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that. 

    Sadly that's what  the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same. 

    You do realize that currently all you can do is gather and build right? Unless you are a builder fan, there is very little to do. Once more systems are incorporated, more diverse fans will be on more. At least speaking for myself.

    I'm still under the assumption that you don't even know what you are having an issue with though. This "NO!" situation isn't real.

    There is nothing in place to have any level of PVP or more depth to game play as it hasn't been added. At least wait until they start actually adding more things before going all doom and gloom.

    It's Alpha, I can't think of a better time for a gamer to say "Heeeey!" No one will be able to say "BC you should have said something back in Alpha!"

     

    Plus I do it for the people who are not in, who have the same interest. Who would also have issue with the tone and course of development. 

     

  • UnkillableUnkillable Cicero, ILPosts: 109Member

    Its good to see BC paying attention to this title. But i think you guys are missing one major point here. EQ Next is still on the way? wont we have our fill of PvP from that title? the separate game? If this is the building sandbox, Landmark holds its effectiveness as a building game, i was under the assumption that "NEXT" was going to be a more full featured MMO?

     

    Another simple solution stands here: Public Claims - Simply allow the creation of Public Claim Flags, when placed the claim is open to the public.

     

    that would seem to allow people that wanted to open a claim up to everyone to do so. And if they made servers like BC is saying then on pvp servers there would be a higher number of public claims, and everyones private claims can still be seen in game that way as well.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by Kyllien
    Originally posted by kairel182

    I'm confused.  Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game.  Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?

     

    Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be.  This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene.  Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.  

     

    Don't get me wrong, I love PvP.  But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it.  I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay.  I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.

    It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture.  I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)

    To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.

    Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.

    Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.

     

    Given that the reason EQN:L exists is so that players can build things and put them into EQN, for a price, I'm not sure why anyone would make the jump to EQN:L needing to be an OW PvP game with the ability to destroy what people are building.  That is basically the opposite of the original purpose of the game.  The base game will be a building game, like single player Minecraft.  Maybe with monsters, maybe not.

     

    That said, the developers have already mentioned different continents or different servers can or will have different rule sets.  They are miles away from it right now, but it is something they've mentioned in interviews and such because people want monsters and PvP.

     

    Maybe instead of getting all bent out of shape because a developer doesn't want to build a game for the smallest audience possible, be happy that one of the larger developers is building a game that could accommodate one of the smallest audiences possible within the folds of one of their games*.

     

    **

     

    * Not Kyllien in particular, just the doom and gloom crowd in general.

     

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

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen USA, GAPosts: 2,451Member Uncommon
    I suspect they'll have a way to turn pvp on or have zones specifically for pvp. I agree they should have zones/servers for that for people that want it. Normally, I would choose a pvp server, but in Landmark, I really don't see the need for it, since the building part is what I like best about the game. In this particular game I just haven't had the urge to wanna pvp anyone. At the moment I'm really liking the mature community as well, I'm sure that's because it's mostly adults with the money to plop down $60-$100 for the game. Once it goes free to play, there goes the community lol. Hopefully, can get a server going where most of us that are in alpha atm will be going to, to at least have us all in one place...Not sure that will happen, but would be nice.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • fs23otmfs23otm Winter Haven, FLPosts: 293Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Kyllien
    Originally posted by kairel182

    I'm confused.  Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game.  Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?

     

    Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be.  This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene.  Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.  

     

    Don't get me wrong, I love PvP.  But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it.  I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay.  I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.

    It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture.  I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)

    To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.

    Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.

    Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.

     

    EQN:L is not going to be an MMORPG. It is just a toolset/minecraft game to build in. Those items being built could and may be used in EQN to help curtail development costs. 

    EQN is the game that will have combat, PVP, dungeons, etc....

     

  • ApraxisApraxis RegensburgPosts: 1,515Member Uncommon
    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
     
    Here's the thread the actual poll was attached too, from the EQN site. Everyone can post here.
     
     
     
     

    Well.. it's SOE they never undestood PvP, or made any strong pvp game.. they are by heart a PvE company. So i am not really surprised.. the best one could hope are either pvp(player effecting mechanismn) enabled servers or continents.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by fs23otm
    Originally posted by Kyllien
    Originally posted by kairel182

    I'm confused.  Everquest has and always will/should be about a strong PvE and group based style game.  Why are you surprised that the Landmark, which is nothing more than testing the basics of the game and engine through building and harvesting will not host any such PvP, especially FFA style?

     

    Not every game can be a PvP, RvR, FFA PvP style focused game nor should they be.  This should have ZERO PvP in any form so they can craft an exceptionally strong PvE scene.  Mixing the two and creating silly rule sets never works and merely appeases a small subset of players but usually only half-assed.  

     

    Don't get me wrong, I love PvP.  But MMO's in general aren't designed properly for it.  I'm looking into something such as Camelot Unchained for my unrelenting PvP itch and EQ:Next for me solid PvE core gameplay.  I really hope neither compromise their core ideas.

    It looks like you are missing a big piece of the EverQuest Next: Landmark picture.  I recomend you go watch the videos on the EverQuest Next Landmark youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE1KffI-n1RVN4iOTNEMMaA)

    To put it simply while Everquest Next and Landmark share many things they are going to be fundementaly different.

    Everquest Next is the MMORPG being made my SOE.

    Everquest Next Landmark is going to be the MMORPG made by the players.

     

    EQN:L is not going to be an MMORPG. It is just a toolset/minecraft game to build in. Those items being built could and may be used in EQN to help curtail development costs. 

    EQN is the game that will have combat, PVP, dungeons, etc....

     

     

    That is the reason they started building EQN:L, but that's not where they are stopping with it.  People will be building things for EQN, but there is enough interest in an unscripted game world that they are adding additional game elements.

     

    If you think this is a money saving venture on the part of SOE, you have obviously not built a software system using two separate code paths with shared libraries.  It may not be as expensive as two completely different applications, but it's not cheaper than just writing one application.  They are doing this because they believe that enough people will play EQN:L as a game to make it worth their time.  Maybe they think it will push people into EQN.  What they are not thinking is that it will be cheaper to write EQN and EQN:L versus just writing EQN.

     

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

  • fs23otmfs23otm Winter Haven, FLPosts: 293Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    That is the reason they started building EQN:L, but that's not where they are stopping with it.  People will be building things for EQN, but there is enough interest in an unscripted game world that they are adding additional game elements.

     

    If you think this is a money saving venture on the part of SOE, you have obviously not built a software system using two separate code paths with shared libraries.  It may not be as expensive as two completely different applications, but it's not cheaper than just writing one application.  They are doing this because they believe that enough people will play EQN:L as a game to make it worth their time.  Maybe they think it will push people into EQN.  What they are not thinking is that it will be cheaper to write EQN and EQN:L versus just writing EQN.

     

    Who said anything about writing EQN. EQN:L allows people to model structure and items. SOE will take those said assest and use them in EQN, thus saving time and artist/model pay. 

    EQN:L is being used as a cost saving measure for EQN. Yes, they are adding things to EQN to attract people to spend money on it because SOE wants to turn a profit on stuff they produce. 

    EQN:L is still going to be a sole source controlled Minecraft experience. It will not be the "MMORPG" that is controlled by the players that was quoted a few posts up. 

  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,281Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Apraxis
    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
     
    Here's the thread the actual poll was attached too, from the EQN site. Everyone can post here.
     
     
     
     

    Well.. it's SOE they never undestood PvP, or made any strong pvp game.. they are by heart a PvE company. So i am not really surprised.. the best one could hope are either pvp(player effecting mechanismn) enabled servers or continents.

    Planetside 2 and it's 6 million players beg to differ. SOE and the Forgelight engine are capable of create revolutionary pvp.  EQ:L is made from the same engine. Heck the worlds look exactly the same.  

     

    But yes, different sever types seems to be the answer.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member
    Originally posted by fs23otm
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     

    Originally posted by fs23otm

    EQN:L is not going to be an MMORPG. It is just a toolset/minecraft game to build in. Those items being built could and may be used in EQN to help curtail development costs. 

    EQN is the game that will have combat, PVP, dungeons, etc....

    That is the reason they started building EQN:L, but that's not where they are stopping with it.  People will be building things for EQN, but there is enough interest in an unscripted game world that they are adding additional game elements.

     

    If you think this is a money saving venture on the part of SOE, you have obviously not built a software system using two separate code paths with shared libraries.  It may not be as expensive as two completely different applications, but it's not cheaper than just writing one application.  They are doing this because they believe that enough people will play EQN:L as a game to make it worth their time.  Maybe they think it will push people into EQN.  What they are not thinking is that it will be cheaper to write EQN and EQN:L versus just writing EQN.

     

    Who said anything about writing EQN. EQN:L allows people to model structure and items. SOE will take those said assest and use them in EQN, thus saving time and artist/model pay. 

    EQN:L is being used as a cost saving measure for EQN. Yes, they are adding things to EQN to attract people to spend money on it because SOE wants to turn a profit on stuff they produce. 

    EQN:L is still going to be a sole source controlled Minecraft experience. It will not be the "MMORPG" that is controlled by the players that was quoted a few posts up. 

     

    I quoted your post back in because this is going to make more sense with your post in there rather than snipped out.

     

    You are saying that EQN:L is going to be a cost saving measure.  It's not.  It might generate more money, but it's not going to be cheaper to produce and run two separate games than to run one game.  Especially given the amount of man power it's going to take to vet all the content from EQN:L that will eventually end up in EQN.  Never mind that even if they run on the same engine there will be a separation of code between the two games.  No cost saving is going to happen.  They think they will make more money.

     

    Here's an interview with a developer, talking about the goal of EQN:L being a full blown MMORPG.

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

     

    Unless you have information that actually refutes what the people developing the game are saying, you are wrong.

     

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

  • AeliousAelious Portland, ORPosts: 2,854Member Uncommon
    fs23otm

    Additional to what Lizard is saying Landmark isn't just about building structures for EQN. SoE plans to have the same tools in Landmark for the players to create content as the SoE developers have to make EQN. This means not only free roaming mobs placed by SoE in public areas but mobs/quest content on player claims. In the end Landmark will indeed be a full featured MMO, created by players. All islands/servers are freely travelled and at 50 islands a server... There will be a lot of content to play.
  • Ender4Ender4 milwaukee, WIPosts: 2,253Member


    Originally posted by Apraxis
    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   Here's the thread the actual poll was attached too, from the EQN site. Everyone can post here.        
    Well.. it's SOE they never undestood PvP, or made any strong pvp game.. they are by heart a PvE company. So i am not really surprised.. the best one could hope are either pvp(player effecting mechanismn) enabled servers or continents.

    As someone who has loved PvP for 25 years now dating back to doing in MUDs, EQ was one of the better PvP games to be made. Newer games are the ones that don't understand PvP. I want to have organic fights over content that matters, not just trade objectives all day.

  • AlleinAllein San Diego, CAPosts: 1,664Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Prhyme
    This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that. 

    Sadly that's what  the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same. 

    You do realize that currently all you can do is gather and build right? Unless you are a builder fan, there is very little to do. Once more systems are incorporated, more diverse fans will be on more. At least speaking for myself.

    I'm still under the assumption that you don't even know what you are having an issue with though. This "NO!" situation isn't real.

    There is nothing in place to have any level of PVP or more depth to game play as it hasn't been added. At least wait until they start actually adding more things before going all doom and gloom.

    It's Alpha, I can't think of a better time for a gamer to say "Heeeey!" No one will be able to say "BC you should have said something back in Alpha!"

    Plus I do it for the people who are not in, who have the same interest. Who would also have issue with the tone and course of development. 

    You are correct, this is the best type to bring up such topics, but currently, they are planning pretty much what you want, unless I'm totally missing something?

    They want PVE, PVP, players creating worlds to play in, etc. Just no griefing. Obviously we all have different ideas of these terms, but to me, there is no griefing in PVP unless it is exploiting a flaw or bug in the game, not the actual interactions themselves.

    The tone and course of development is the exact same since the reveal. Latest video wasn't "We love Carebears!". It was "we don't like griefers."

  • Brabbit1987Brabbit1987 Ontario, CanadaPosts: 729Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Allein
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Prhyme
    This was no surprise at all. Landmark was never going to be a PvP game. It's a bridge to pay the bills for EQN. It's a cute builder that by a dev that has talked a pretty good game but hasn't come through on 90% of it. Landmark is satisfying as a builder, I give it that. 

    Sadly that's what  the "NO!" contingent wants. There are no more than 500 (very generous guess) people spread across 200 islands at any given time. The population of this Alpha is about the same as End of Nations. Yet they still want more of the same. 

    You do realize that currently all you can do is gather and build right? Unless you are a builder fan, there is very little to do. Once more systems are incorporated, more diverse fans will be on more. At least speaking for myself.

    I'm still under the assumption that you don't even know what you are having an issue with though. This "NO!" situation isn't real.

    There is nothing in place to have any level of PVP or more depth to game play as it hasn't been added. At least wait until they start actually adding more things before going all doom and gloom.

    It's Alpha, I can't think of a better time for a gamer to say "Heeeey!" No one will be able to say "BC you should have said something back in Alpha!"

    Plus I do it for the people who are not in, who have the same interest. Who would also have issue with the tone and course of development. 

    You are correct, this is the best type to bring up such topics, but currently, they are planning pretty much what you want, unless I'm totally missing something?

    They want PVE, PVP, players creating worlds to play in, etc. Just no griefing. Obviously we all have different ideas of these terms, but to me, there is no griefing in PVP unless it is exploiting a flaw or bug in the game, not the actual interactions themselves.

    The tone and course of development is the exact same since the reveal. Latest video wasn't "We love Carebears!". It was "we don't like griefers."

    This was exactly my thoguhts on the matter. To me it does not sound like they are catering to the carebears. It simply sounded like they don't want players taking advantage of some features to screw with other players and griefing them.

Sign In or Register to comment.