It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"
Originally posted by Bidwood I'm trolling because you don't like my theory? no. why not move along and let like minded people discuss? the devs have said a lot about the game but have sworn to secrecy on pvp. I wonder why? because, if my theory is rigjt (which it is) they want to reveal this in a very specific way way and get as many skeptics to try it as possible
So how do the battlegrounds mentioned by Smed fit into your "theory" of open world PVP?
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERATried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas80 Sylvari Ranger
Originally posted by Bidwood my theory?
Originally posted by Bidwood Except Smedley CONFIRMED that SOE is headed in the direction of Eve Online with PVP.
One is not like the other.
Anyway, never played open world PVP before. I don't think I would like it, but would probably give it a chance if I had to.
If it is a server ruleset situation, I'll choose my PvE server then.
Originally posted by Pednick Originally posted by Athena_Starfire If EQN is open PvP myself and my large-ish gaming group will not be playing it.. We were looking forward to it. Too Bad..
Don't worry it's not, if you watched the youtube presentation with all the devs and videos they showed they mentioned PvE more than PvP [mod edit]
Well, Everquest Next may have Open PvP but according to OFFICAL word EQ LANDMARK has no planned PvP
I am not at all interested in EQN only LANDMARK
Originally posted by Athena_Starfire Originally posted by Pednick Originally posted by Athena_Starfire If EQN is open PvP myself and my large-ish gaming group will not be playing it.. We were looking forward to it. Too Bad..
EQN:L PvP Nov 2013 Pre-Alpha
Roadmap Phase 3 PvP
Stephanie B seems misinformed. There's a lot of references out there.
Building =/= PvE...
Originally posted by Athena_Starfire Well, Everquest Next may have Open PvP but according to OFFICAL word EQ LANDMARK has no planned PvP I am not at all interested in EQN only LANDMARK ******************************************************* Discussion Thread Response Via Email (TSR Stephanie B.) 03/04/2014 02:54 PM Greetings AthenaStarfire, Thank you for contacting Sony Online Entertainment. EQNL should not be PVP but this could change you can read more oabout the road map of the game here: https://forums.station.sony.com/eqnlandmark/index.php?threads/eqnl-roadmap.18810/ You do not need a forum account to look at this page. If you have any more questions or concerns, please let me know. Regards, Stephanie B Senior Contact at SOE Account, Billing, and Technical Support Cheers
Not sure what you initially asked the TSR, but an Account, Billing, Tech Support Rep probably not the best source of future development of a game. Besides that, the link you provided and multiple other confirmations are out that EQN and LM will both have PVP in some form.
From the way they've talked about PVP in LM, I'd assume it will be 100% consensual where players can build arenas and other "friendly" type combat things. They could possibly have PVP continents with less restrictions on claims and other fun things, but I doubt it is a major priority at the moment.
Hopefully we'll get a better picture after March when they start rolling out more systems into LM.
no thanks. that type of system caters to griefers - which is exactly what I ran into in Eve before I stopped playing it. Cruise around in HighSec space, mining an asteroid, and some pirate who already has a large negative rep for ganking noobs comes in and 1-shots you because the penalties to him are meh and he is bored and likes to gank new players.
Give this game time and you will see the same thing. You see it in any game that uses this model, even on WoW PVP servers. Then enjoy being corpse camped and killed over and over or prevented from rezing... down this path lies darkness and is of no interest to me. For that reason alone I'd skip this game.
=-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums.
Landmark - I think it will be flagging/guild type stuff, and I could see having a pvp world/server, but not sure if that would work well.
EQN - I think it will just be classic EQ type servers, maybe along with the type of PvP in Landmark, where you can guild/flag.
I don't see a all pvp, all the time for everyone, no matter what anyone has said, or what anyone has gleaned from a tweet. I watched panels, and I think the above is going to end up being pretty accurate. They talked about being able to create scenario type stuff and having battles in it, with destructible content (which, I think you will be able to scale how destructible it is, hp wise and such).
Come on people, the OP is clearly trolling and baiting trying to stir things up.
UO failed with PvP only
M59 failed with PvP only
Why? Because it's a bad business model which is mmorpg suicide.
P.S: Even Garriot's "shroud of the Avatar" isn't open world PvP because even he knows that's not a smart business model.
P.P.S: Also not getting baited anymore from this troll thread and this is my last response to this joke of a thread.
Originally posted by Pednick Nothing was confirmed by Smedly, it's a bold faced lie if anything the only thing that is confirmed on the official site is that their will be different specialty servers, PvE, PvP, Role-playing as show on here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f6w1BGsgLjQ
After watching this video I am not worried about an open world forced PvP situation. Not saying their wont be a server for that as SoE seems to be looking to make servers to cover many play styles. If there isnt a PvE server I will be shocked lol. I personally hope for a server that has an area where you can go to PvP like DAoC but where player/guilds build it themselves.
Originally posted by Bidwood Yes... my theory has been confirmed by Smedley. I still don't see where the trolling comes into it. But then again with all of the rhetoric about "forced" PVP, I wonder if some people feel like they've been forced to participate in this thread.
Is this the same kind of "confirmed" where there aren't any actual links and where the "proof" lies in reading between the lines of some very plain statements made by a developer? Because that's the best kind of proof, I think.
EQN will have PvE, PvP and RP servers. They aren't going to focus on a single world PvP system like Eve. Even if they have "one server", there will be PvE, PvP and RP phases or instances.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Bidwood Yes... my theory has been confirmed by Smedley. I still don't see where the trolling comes into it. But then again with all of the rhetoric about "forced" PVP, I wonder if some people feel like they've been forced to participate in this thread.
I'm not so sure that will be the case with EQN. The are making a sandbox. Emergent game play. Systems like commerce, the transporting of goods. Polotics, territory control and the like.
On top of that SOE's biggest grossing game is 100% PvP. Planetside 2 has 6 million players. I do not look for them to cater to the "I wont do it" crowd. You can't build a social sanbox built around "I wont do it.!" it's like a conflict of interest...
EQN:L is a different story there will most certainly be all types of servers. "Build your own mmo."
In that video they ask gamers to say what type of server would you like. Here is what I want =-)
1. 3 PvP factions you can choose to join
2. All factions can team together for PvE content outside contested map
3. No PvP in PvE areas
4. PvP map that you become flagged when you enter, much like DAoC or GW2 RvR/WvW maps
5. Contested PvP map has Keeps and Castles to take over and defend that effect your faction in a positive way
6. Guild Wars: Contested map has an area that guilds can make fortifications that can be take out by other factions and defended. Must be maintained by the guild.
7. Taking out enough keeps and guild fortifications grant you access to special dungeon
8. Contested map has towns that are quest hubs (dailies) each faction can take over and control to earn special rewards.
Originally posted by bcbully Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by Bidwood Yes... my theory has been confirmed by Smedley. I still don't see where the trolling comes into it. But then again with all of the rhetoric about "forced" PVP, I wonder if some people feel like they've been forced to participate in this thread.
Sandbox does not equal PvP. Star Wars Galaxies was a sandbox, or very sandboxy, but it wasn't an always on, PvP everywhere PvP game.
However, if we're going to look at clues in SOE's statements, let's look at the poll, where one of the specialty server options is "PvP".
If "PvP" is a "specialty" option, what is the normal, not specialty option? Not PvP. PvE.
SOE is not going to restrict player choice. They are going to have multiple servers. Allowing player choice means having PvP servers, certainly. But it doesn't mean forcing all players into a single rule set.
Of course, as is typical with developers, they aren't really explaining anything in great detail yet. Maybe all the servers will be "specialty" servers. Maybe they'll have specialty continents, but one server. Who knows.
Originally posted by Bidwood Read it and weep. I've been a broken record on this, but the writing on the wall says there's going to be open world PVP in a brilliantly executed system like Eve Online. Smedley's blog post covers a lot, but here are some of the highlights: "A lot has been made about how much we’re pushing this concept of “Sandbox” mmos being the future. Not a lot has been said about what that means." "In my opinion the solution is focusing a lot more on letting players make and be content for each other. Battlegrounds are an excellent example of an Evergreen style of content where it’s the players themselves that actually create the content. ... Building systems into the games that let the players interact with each other in new and unique ways gives us the ability to watch as the players do stuff we never anticipated. We’ll see a lot more creativity in action if the players are at the center of it. Imagine an MMORPG of a massive city.. and the Rogue’s guild is entirely run by players. Where the city has an entire political system that is populated by players who were elected by the playerbase." "There’s a great example of this today with Eve Online. It’s a brilliantly executed system where the players are pretty much in charge of the entire game. Sure there is a lot of content for players to do, but anything that’s important in the game is done by the players. This is a shining example of how this kind of system can thrive. Our belief at SOE is that it’s smarter to head in this direction now rather than waiting." Is anyone from the other side of the fence ready to admit this is happening? Edit: Sorry, that was bad form. Here is the blog post: http://smedsblog.com/2014/02/11/the-sandbox-mmo/ Edit: Me: @j_smedley love the blog. is SOE heading in that direction for PVP too? When will we learn more about that? Fingers crossed. https://twitter.com/sir_bidwood/status/433731419118915584 Smedley: @sir_bidwood yes https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status/433747908907651072
I'd love that and would die for a large company to make a game like this, however, my guess is they will have pve and pvp servers.
Incognitowww.incognito-gaming.us"You're either with us or against us"
While this is for Landmark, I think they are pretty much talking about the same thing as Smedly.
Let players decide what they want to do. If people want to PVP, land and tools will be provided to create something. If people want to avoid PVP, they easily can. Players that want to attack others that don't want to play that way are out of luck.
They've already said they don't want to make "grieferquest." Without really limiting and punishing those that participate, there isn't an easy way to have OW PVP without some degree of "griefing." People will find a way. This seems to go against everything they've said so far.
They want people to have fun, their way, not how the devs want or how other players want.
Its possible to make the world open pvp and be a pver that does not get involved.
1)players must be worth something to the territory owner and worth protecting. Owners will usually be the more hardcore guilds and alliances. Also they must not be worth killing indiscriminately as in if they die they still contribute to the wealth of the owners but start off producing less if the territory they are on is conquered. In short you need to make killing as few citizens as possible during a conquest of territory the best strategy with both sides leaving average players that happen to be living on the land alone. If a player decides to join the fight they should stop producing wealth for the territory at all.
2)There needs to be a npc police that defend players or at least help them escape bandits who wish to grief within a range of a police post.
Anyways there is more to it but I will not waste my time writing it out for no one to read. I will write more if someone is interested.