Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

To all the pvp threads

2»

Comments

  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,094
    Originally posted by ShavaKa

    Indeed, it's mostly part of every game and usually generic as any pvp system goes. Player kills Player, gets stuff, is motivated by stuff and competition aspects, gets silly achievements - no recognition otherwise because of cross-server with random players that never remember you unless you're in a 500 player guild or you role play the politics.

    What if you didn't have to keep grinding the carrot on a stick and instead were given a chance to really affect the environment and its people by expanding what's already there with new responsibilities as an option.

    Within the sovereign reign, your decisions change the way NPCs and Players interact with the environment.

    If the AI is already in place, why not a political AI system that players can be a part of? Or even be capable of changing the dynamics through a government and see its changes - new NPCs show up, new types of trade, new quests, new structures/government, new threats emerge etc. Everything politically economic changes for that province. NPCs/players can rise up and rebel etc. War does much more than pvp, it can affect PVE as well.

    I can see this kind of component completely replacing x-pacs, but not like WoWs dramatic change after cataclysm. Something more smooth that doesn't kill the vanilla flavor.

    What you want sound nice, I just see it as highly impractical in most cases. I'd love some complex political, economical, social, yadda yadda game, but to do so, players have to be on board. Unless every player signs up and agrees to play along, much like a Roleplay Server, it can't work too well. Some games do it decently (EVE), others try (Wushu, ArcheAge?), but overall I think it is a hard system to put in place and have work.

    The devs have said they would like something like this to happen, but wants and reality aren't always the same. Camelot Unchained and Pathfinder Online are also trying to go down this path I believe, but they seem much more upfront with their plans and not holding things like PVP back (I have zero faith that EQN will be seriously tied to PVP).

    From what I've seen, EQN is being hyped as a "fun" experience. Another fantasy mmorpg where you can do what you want (within limits) and have a lot of fun things to do. New AI, voxels, world comprised of several tiers/layers to explore instead of instances everywhere, multi-classing, Rally Calls, etc. Some crazy complex "realistic" system doesn't really fit to me. Would be awesome, but isn't the game they are making.

    I really hope they do not go the route of WoW with cross-server match making, instances, faceroll combat, etc but even without those things, doesn't mean that EQN is a good fit for a system you want.

    A "fun" game made for everyone would be tough to pull off with a system in place where people can control or strongly influence anything due to numbers or whatever. Like EVE, I doubt a huge guild could take over Freeport or Lavastorm. Just doesn't fit. Systems like this are much more suited for games with a lot less story driven aspects. I think these games are on the horizon, but EQN isn't one of them.

    EQ games have never had a strong PVP side. Be it direct killing of one another, land control, arenas, economical, whatever. Obviously they could change that, but doesn't make a lot of sense. Looking at gaming in general, doesn't seem to be a huge want for it. "PVP" in most games comes in nice safe packages amounts. Arenas, battlegrounds, dueling, lobby games, etc let players decide when and where they PVP and it is over quickly. Having to think and plan weeks/months in advance with backstabbing, plotting, spies, etc takes a lot.

    I'd like to see it happen in a quality game, but have yet to and would rather EQN itself (this forum's subject) be a great experience for what it is, not for what I want.

  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,094
    Originally posted by Archlyte

    And I have to wonder why PvP is the big emphasis when you have this amazing AI system. Will there really be that much Player control of zones based on PvP? I kind of doubt it considering the theme park attitude they are increasingly adopting for EQNext (now that they have landmark to be the actual sandbox).

    I don't see the "themepark" aspects you are, but I do not see an emphasis on PVP. Landmark's "PVP" is simply player made arenas. That's all we've seen so far from either game. They've said PVP in any form will be consensual in Landmark as well. How EQN turns out is another story, but regardless of what Smed has said, PVP doesn't fit in EQN from almost everything else they've shown/said about their vision.

    PVP keeps coming up as people want a "good" PVP game, but I think the same people suggesting it have probably done so for multiple games. Just hoping one will be the one. Games like Camelot Unchained and Albion Online seem much more suited for these players and I'm betting that regardless of what EQN does, once more games get closer to beta, they will be focusing on them instead. Just like every game in the past.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.