Are there any goals from the original EQ? I personally don't feel that SOE is going after the EQ1 and EQ2 playerbase. They want to keep the money from those games, and add new subs with EQN; they don't want to transfer money from EQ1/EQ2 to EQN.
The timing is right for a large company to actually build a game from the bottom up with the goal being PvP. All of the past failures have been PvE games with PvP as an afterthought. The only game gaining ground besides WoW is EvE. EvE will never be anything than a niche market; but at least it's a game making a profit.
Yeah, but even in EVE, the goal is not PvP. And I don't think any (good) EVE player will ever tell you that. The goal in EVE is to do whatever you want to do.
This means having a world where PvP is meaningful and important, and where PvE is meaningful and important (EVE actually doesn't do a great job at this, and I think it's the reason SoE is bringing in Storybricks).
A sandbox is not a PvP vs PvE argument. It's creating a system where both can exist in the same space, and in doing so creates an emergent environment. It requires consequences. It requires risk vs reward. It requires a huge open space that can be effected by the player base.
No EVE player is arguing for a gankfest. EVE is not a gankfest (unless you're in enemy territory, but why are you there... unless you're stealth bombing, then... good job).
But it also means that people who want nothing but PvE, and never want to be effected by other players, and want to have their own solo adventure in an MMO, will have to find another game. You can't have an emergent environment if you can't effect the world around you, and like it or not, other players are part of the world around you.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.
All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.
Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.
Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see.
This is one of those things I will concede as a PvP player; allow decorating houses to be available to anyone in the game, in instances. Housing that serves a purpose for crafting or bartering (i.e. the market) needs to be player built and available to be destroyed. Tweak EQ2 housing so only decorations may be placed inside the home. Decorations would serve no purpose in combat mechanics. You would have to place that limitation on homes so players wouldn't store combat articles (weapons, armor, siege equipment etc.)
My issue with a PvE answer to every problem is it so narrow. People do realize that PvE answers are only answers from a few individuals that hard code solutions into the game. Allowing players to come up with solutions on the fly is a much better immersion experience.
EQN is not going to be the PvP sandbox mmo you hope it will be, without SoE taking a gigantic risk and alienating their current client base. It essentially, by a degree smaller, would be like Blizzard making World of Warcraft 2 and turning it into a PvP sandbox. The wouldn't take the risk ... why, because primarily their client base isn't PvP focused.
The issue I take with pvpers, narrow minded pvpers, is they think PvP is the end all answer. Being a niche pvper myself, I atleast understand that not only is PvP not the easy answer, the final answer, or even the best answer in most cases it is absolutely the hardest to implement, hardest to maintain, hardest to support ( customers wise) and at time the worst choice for this genre's problems.
Without labeling anything as PvP or PvE we can still see some good game mechanics from EvE that make sense. EvE gives the players tools to build and create. Let's focus on the tools; giving players tools to do something is the right thing to do. At this point it doesn't matter if the direction is PvP or PvE. However what happens most in PvE games is that no tools are given to the players to build things, the items are given to the players and told to go have fun; but the only fun you can have is if you stay on this path and only this path, do not deviate from this path for whatever reason even if you see something exciting in the distance.
I think that SOE is in a perfect position to buck the system. For the record PvP in my definition is any time one player pits their mind against another player and not the AI. Playing the market in EvE is by my definition PvP. Gathering shinies to sell on the market in EQ2 is PvP. PvP is not just about tab target or action combat, griefing and ganking. PvP is experiencing non-repetitive gameplay by going against a human opponent and not a scripted AI.
Let's focus on the tools; giving players tools to do something is the right thing to do. At this point it doesn't matter if the direction is PvP or PvE. However what happens most in PvE games is that no tools are given to the players to build things, the items are given to the players and told to go have fun; but the only fun you can have is if you stay on this path and only this path, do not deviate from this path for whatever reason even if you see something exciting in the distance.
What you just described is the difference between Sandbox games and Themepark games ..... not PvP and PvE games.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.
All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.
Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.
Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see.
This is one of those things I will concede as a PvP player; allow decorating houses to be available to anyone in the game, in instances. Housing that serves a purpose for crafting or bartering (i.e. the market) needs to be player built and available to be destroyed. Tweak EQ2 housing so only decorations may be placed inside the home. Decorations would serve no purpose in combat mechanics. You would have to place that limitation on homes so players wouldn't store combat articles (weapons, armor, siege equipment etc.)
My issue with a PvE answer to every problem is it so narrow. People do realize that PvE answers are only answers from a few individuals that hard code solutions into the game. Allowing players to come up with solutions on the fly is a much better immersion experience.
EQN is not going to be the PvP sandbox mmo you hope it will be, without SoE taking a gigantic risk and alienating their current client base. It essentially, by a degree smaller, would be like Blizzard making World of Warcraft 2 and turning it into a PvP sandbox. The wouldn't take the risk ... why, because primarily their client base isn't PvP focused.
The issue I take with pvpers, narrow minded pvpers, is they think PvP is the end all answer. Being a niche pvper myself, I atleast understand that not only is PvP not the easy answer, the final answer, or even the best answer in most cases it is absolutely the hardest to implement, hardest to maintain, hardest to support ( customers wise) and at time the worst choice for this genre's problems.
The problem I have with those pve who are against any pvp is the same. They are narrow minded and think pve is the end answer. See it works both ways. Best is a mix.
Are there any goals from the original EQ? I personally don't feel that SOE is going after the EQ1 and EQ2 playerbase. They want to keep the money from those games, and add new subs with EQN; they don't want to transfer money from EQ1/EQ2 to EQN.
The timing is right for a large company to actually build a game from the bottom up with the goal being PvP. All of the past failures have been PvE games with PvP as an afterthought. The only game gaining ground besides WoW is EvE. EvE will never be anything than a niche market; but at least it's a game making a profit.
Yeah, but even in EVE, the goal is not PvP. And I don't think any (good) EVE player will ever tell you that. The goal in EVE is to do whatever you want to do.
This means having a world where PvP is meaningful and important, and where PvE is meaningful and important (EVE actually doesn't do a great job at this, and I think it's the reason SoE is bringing in Storybricks).
A sandbox is not a PvP vs PvE argument. It's creating a system where both can exist in the same space, and in doing so creates an emergent environment. It requires consequences. It requires risk vs reward. It requires a huge open space that can be effected by the player base.
No EVE player is arguing for a gankfest. EVE is not a gankfest (unless you're in enemy territory, but why are you there... unless you're stealth bombing, then... good job).
But it also means that people who want nothing but PvE, and never want to be effected by other players, and want to have their own solo adventure in an MMO, will have to find another game. You can't have an emergent environment if you can't effect the world around you, and like it or not, other players are part of the world around you.
True EvE has various goals that one can accomplish; but the game was built on the foundation of PvP, or at least allowing PvP as the first thought and not an afterthought. Many of the systems in EvE would not work if it were a PvE centric game.
To state it in black and white, a lot of people will have a problem if they get killed while minding their own business. People are "me" centric, and Smedley knows this, which is why he said they wanted to move away from the "me too" attitude.
People that want to have no competition in a game don't like PvP. Some people enjoy competition on their terms (battlegrounds or consensual PvP) while others enjoy the thrill of not knowing when they will get attacked next.
Your last statement strikes to the heart of the issue. Emergent gameplay can only be achieved when other players are affected; and some people will hate that they can't control every outcome because there is no scripted AI to control.
The problem I have with those pve who are against any pvp is the same. They are narrow minded and think pve is the end answer. See it works both ways. Best is a mix.
No it doesn't work both ways, I'm a PvPer and I'm fine with pvp in EQ as long as it's segregated. I'll happily let you pvp in a PvE game .... as long as I don't have to.
How about this: Dave Georgeson has consistently said EQN will be "unfamiliar" to EQ1 and EQ2 but that there are so many cool features that people will love it. He isnt afraid of EQN killing EQ1 and EQ2 because the EQN is going to be very different from those two.
Again i'll call you out and counter.
Embrace change, take off the 2001 nostalgia red-rosed glasses.
How about this:
SOE Live October 2012
Smed.
You mentioned last night that EQ Next will look like nothing we've ever seen. Will EQNext still have the familiar feel to it that EQ fans are used to? How do you strike the balance between innovation and still staying true to the franchise?
I also said in there that it will still be very familiar to you, but what I meant by that statement is that we're changing what an MMO is. MMO means something now, and it means the same thing to everybody because it's the same game. EverQuest, WoW, SWTOR all use the same core loot gameplay, which is kill stuff, get reward, get loot, level up. Very few games have broken out of that mold. One or two have.EVE Online is a great example; it's not standard level-based gameplay, although I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system.You're still going to recognize the roleplaying game heritage in it.
InEverQuest Next, the world itself is a part of the game. What is the world in these other games? It's a simple backdrop. It's nothing. We are changing that greatly. We're changing what AI is in these games to a degree that we're going to bring life to the world. That to us is the essence of the change that we're making.
At GDC last week, you also talked about how quickly traditional MMO content is consumed and how that plays into your decision to adopt a philosophy toward emergent gameplay. The question comes up about how that affects the future of raid content -- something that takes a lot of time to design and is usually played by only a portion of the community. What are your thoughts on that?
This is a very interesting question. I think it's at the core of why what we're doing is sustainable. I'll go right to the heart of the matter. You get to the point where we make an expansion, and when I say we, I mean the entire MMO community. You make your expansion, the real hardcore players consume it in a month, and they're doing the raids over and over and over until the next round of live content that we put in. Typically, three or four times a year, we as MMO companies put new endgame in there to keep the raiders happy.
We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make because players want that.We're not talking about the end of raids, the end of this incredibly high-level content. We're talking about changing the nature of the world around it so that there's a lot more to do "in between" expansions. A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction. Imagine seasons changing.Imagine if you're a Druid andyou need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness,but you don't know where. Or image forests growing back after they're burned to the ground by invading forces. What we want is a dynamic world that gives all those other possibilities and doesn't just say OK, go to raid X with group composition of X, Y, Z, and kill the dragon for the 52nd time to get the tier 800 gear. It's this rinse-and-repeat gameplay that's got to change, and so we're changing it.
So it seems that the main take on Smed's EQN is not to actually chance the main essence of what EQ is but to make the world more interactive, i living breathing world. All of the key elements are still there, classes, raids and all the other things you would expect from this epic IP.
Again, EQN will be very familiar to EQ players.
"But is it a risk to make an MMO that's so different from what players are familiar with? Georgeson acknowledges that it's a risk, but he's very confident that his team is on the right track. He said that the unfamiliar is going to be OK because the ideas are so cool that players will want to stick around to find out about them
When we spoke about the franchise as a whole, Georgeson reminded me that both EQ and EQII have been around for 14 and nine years respectively, and as far as he's concerned, there's no reason to ever turn the games off. He's not worried about EQ Next cannibalizing the two titles because it's such a different game from its siblings and because the fans are so loyal to their respective games. Both communities have developed deep, familial relationships with SOE over the years, and he expects that to continue for many years to come."
That was in late March. Check mate bud. "Unfamiliar" "such a different game from its siblings"
Again, I will tell you to hooooollllddddd that, and to take off the nostalgia red rosed glasses.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
easy, have the houses degrade over time if someone decides to quit or someone doesn't pay their "upkeep".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.
All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.
Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.
Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see.
This is one of those things I will concede as a PvP player; allow decorating houses to be available to anyone in the game, in instances. Housing that serves a purpose for crafting or bartering (i.e. the market) needs to be player built and available to be destroyed. Tweak EQ2 housing so only decorations may be placed inside the home. Decorations would serve no purpose in combat mechanics. You would have to place that limitation on homes so players wouldn't store combat articles (weapons, armor, siege equipment etc.)
My issue with a PvE answer to every problem is it so narrow. People do realize that PvE answers are only answers from a few individuals that hard code solutions into the game. Allowing players to come up with solutions on the fly is a much better immersion experience.
EQN is not going to be the PvP sandbox mmo you hope it will be, without SoE taking a gigantic risk and alienating their current client base. It essentially, by a degree smaller, would be like Blizzard making World of Warcraft 2 and turning it into a PvP sandbox. The wouldn't take the risk ... why, because primarily their client base isn't PvP focused.
The issue I take with pvpers, narrow minded pvpers, is they think PvP is the end all answer. Being a niche pvper myself, I atleast understand that not only is PvP not the easy answer, the final answer, or even the best answer in most cases it is absolutely the hardest to implement, hardest to maintain, hardest to support ( customers wise) and at time the worst choice for this genre's problems.
Well.. but nevertheless i did not see any pve answer in your reply.
Btw. it is not just housing, or gear like a few post above with implying ingame economy. The core of a sandbox is change, a cycle of building and destroying. Without destroying one way or another(and there are ways without pvp) you can't build forever... either the market is saturated or the buildable land is full or whatever. PvP is just one way to solve this problem, and withit generate more ways of playing the game... and not just PvP in the sense of player fighting against player.
As i said above.. you have to find a way where player houses can be destroyed.. if not from the player the environment have to do it one or the other way. The same is true for your gear/weapons/armor.. either with some pvp methods, or plain old item decay, where items break after some time. Sandbox playstyle and raiding gear progression do not work good togehter, because of the overly increased value of gear.
And after all.. it was Smedly, who said EQN will be the greatest sandbox ever.. i am just curious how he will realize it without any pvp, without destroying stuff. As i said already above.. in games like Minecraft the solution is server reset.. everything will be destroyed so it is new space, new demand for creating and building stuff.. and after all that is the core element of every single sandbox.
So again.. how is your pve answer for that problem?
PS: And as FaarmMercy said in a sandbox it is not about PvE against PvP it is much more how to create a system where both can coexist and both profit from each other. And as you said, it is not a problem in such an environment that a pve player don't have to bother with pvp. There are a lot of ways around pvp in any good sandbox game, and especially in EvE.
So.. you don't have to pvp. But you have to accept that some stuff have to be destroyed, one way or the other.#
""easy, have the houses degrade over time if someone decides to quit or someone doesn't pay their "upkeep".""
Well.. that one worked incredible well in UO.
This way will only work if you have either enough space, so that any player can have a house in the open world. (the world will be overly full with houses and houses all over the world. UO style.) Given a very large world it could work.. but the world would stagnate at one point. Almost no new buildings, not a lot of change in the landscape. An architect would most probably quit after some time of underemployment.
But somehow i prefer monster invasion with house destruction a lot more.. or house destruction through some form of pvp. (and by the way i don't talk about destruction every day, but after a few weeks or month it is just time) And as i said already some sort of assurance could mitigate the loss/costs.
However.. we can discuss as long as we want.. we will see in around a month whatever SoE and EQN will bring to the table. I am curious, but not overly optimistic.
"Imagine if you're a Druid andyou need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness,but you don't know where"
Love the concept!
Not knowing where to go, it's been a long time... I pray it's true!
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Honestly, and i could be wrong on this, but being an EQ veteran and more importantly a fan of the IP means ive watched just about every eq1 and eq2 related interviews, news article, interviews with smed, etc etc.
What all of you seem to forget is the main interview where Smed talks about being a huge fan of EVE was in an interview for Planetside 2. Smed has stated in past interviews that he is a fan of emergent gameplay mechanics and sites EVE as an example. He also points out that he intended those to be in Planetside 2.
If you watch the 10 year reunion video of the history of EverQuest, smed and the rest of the development team stress for several minutes in the video how they took PVP out of EQ1 specifically BECAUSE they went and played UO and didnt want that type of player in their game. They saw first hand what FFA PVP does to a community and wanted no part of it in their game.
Does that mean that EQ:N won't have PVP? Not neccesarily. But I really really doubt that Sony/Smed is going to essentially piss in the face of the vast majority of the existing EverQuest fanbase by making the game anything even remotely resembling EVE, or PVP focused at all.
I think the best you can hope for is that it will have open PVP areas, and things like instanced battlegrounds.
Personally im guessing they will keep it similar to EQ1 and EQ2 and have PVP servers and PVE servers. IMO this is the right way to do it. It lets you run different data sets, so if you want to have abilities have different qualities on the PVP vs PVE you can and not screw with the balance of either. It also makes it clear from the start so you dont get people whining about getting killed because they should know by joining a PVP server it means you will get attacked. Its just better for both parties. Keep em seperate.
All this Smed being a fan of EVE stuff has to do with planetside 2, not EQ Next.
Again, could be wrong, but highly doubt it.
Unfortunately it's not about the original EQ fanbase. Sorry to say but the potential pool for new customers completely out weigh the potential pool for EQ fans.
Yes, but the 'new' pool of gamers seem to have game ADD, and do not stick with anything, so if you are going to make games for the masses, then they really are just making WoW 1.5, that they said they were not doing....Where as the EQ fans, many have stuck with EQ for 5-10 years and EQ2 for many years. So this argument has pros and cons.
It could be argued that 500k to 1 million loyal customers would generate more profit than say 4-5 million game jumpers that people say 10% are the whales. I know I would rather play the game with the former either way, easier to have a community when you have those stable players, verse a huge rotation of game jumpers, with a smaller core of people that are staying imo.
Well.. but nevertheless i did not see any pve answer in your reply.
Btw. it is not just housing, or gear like a few post above with implying ingame economy. The core of a sandbox is change, a cycle of building and destroying. Without destroying one way or another(and there are ways without pvp) you can't build forever... either the market is saturated or the buildable land is full or whatever. PvP is just one way to solve this problem, and withit generate more ways of playing the game... and not just PvP in the sense of player fighting against player.
As i said above.. you have to find a way where player houses can be destroyed.. if not from the player the environment have to do it one or the other way. The same is true for your gear/weapons/armor.. either with some pvp methods, or plain old item decay, where items break after some time. Sandbox playstyle and raiding gear progression do not work good togehter, because of the overly increased value of gear.
And after all.. it was Smedly, who said EQN will be the greatest sandbox ever.. i am just curious how he will realize it without any pvp, without destroying stuff. As i said already above.. in games like Minecraft the solution is server reset.. everything will be destroyed so it is new space, new demand for creating and building stuff.. and after all that is the core element of every single sandbox.
So again.. how is your pve answer for that problem?
PS: And as FaarmMercy said in a sandbox it is not about PvE against PvP it is much more how to create a system where both can coexist and both profit from each other. And as you said, it is not a problem in such an environment that a pve player don't have to bother with pvp. There are a lot of ways around pvp in any good sandbox game, and especially in EvE.
So.. you don't have to pvp. But you have to accept that some stuff have to be destroyed, one way or the other.#
""easy, have the houses degrade over time if someone decides to quit or someone doesn't pay their "upkeep".""
Well.. that one worked incredible well in UO.
This way will only work if you have either enough space, so that any player can have a house in the open world. (the world will be overly full with houses and houses all over the world. UO style.) Given a very large world it could work.. but the world would stagnate at one point. Almost no new buildings, not a lot of change in the landscape. An architect would most probably quit after some time of underemployment.
But somehow i prefer monster invasion with house destruction a lot more.. or house destruction through some form of pvp. (and by the way i don't talk about destruction every day, but after a few weeks or month it is just time) And as i said already some sort of assurance could mitigate the loss/costs.
However.. we can discuss as long as we want.. we will see in around a month whatever SoE and EQN will bring to the table. I am curious, but not overly optimistic.
Sorry , I didn't think you actually wanted me to vomit an answer for something you yourself answered in the same paragraph. Off the top of my head, plots are rented with monthly auctions, escrow payments required once a week without being able to pay in advance, roving bands of mobs which destroy player assets, random spawn world bosses, cataclysmic events which completely change the shape of the land, weather systems ( flooding ) , shifting resource management which require a players house to be near a mine/stream/forest/ etc etc.
Should I continue to come up with alternatives for asset destruction in sandbox, which don't include PvP as the basis? The reason I refrained from this in my previous posts is because it doesn't matter if I can come up with unique mechanics for pve based rules , it matters what the Developers introduce. I do not see SoE building a game based on PvP with the Everquest name.
Unfortunately it's not about the original EQ fanbase. Sorry to say but the potential pool for new customers completely out weigh the potential pool for EQ fans.
Do you really think SoE is going to ignore the millions of EQ customers, which primarily enjoy PvE for a PvP game which would alienate that same customer base? If you do ... well then that's something, I only bet the long shot's for $2.00 at the track myself.
I agree with XTHOS and his comments about monetization.. this game will easily draw in loads of people but depending on just how they implement their FTP will determine how many people stay...I'm optimistic since SOE has just watched a bunch of games (Neverwinter, AoW, amongst others) release so hopefully the payment system is fair.. That is my biggest concern about this game because if SOE was greedy enough they could make you pay for ALOT on a monthly basis to enjoy "regular" content this way..figuring they'll go a hybrid model like most of the other ftp games (fingers crossed) with a sub that unlocks all the content for that month. Seamless world sounds pretty nice, cautious but optimistic about this one; but the seasons changing, environments getting thrashed, all of that is making my mouth water..nom nom next gen games :P
My favorite part of this argumentative thread so far has been :
Changing what an MMO is and means and breaking out of the mold = Eve with swords and sorcery.
Because that's truly innovative and thinking outside the box!!!!
No, you missed the point entirely...
Innovation = remaking old games with better graphics (UO/EVE)
Least that's what I see as a repeated theme here.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Unfortunately it's not about the original EQ fanbase. Sorry to say but the potential pool for new customers completely out weigh the potential pool for EQ fans.
You continually underestimate the potential players that a new 'classic Everquest' could generate in 2013. I say this knowing that "EQ Next will be different", but also knowing that there has been nothing even close to classic Everquest since 2001. (before anyone says it, yes, Vanguard could have been, but died at birth)
EQ came out at the dawn of online gaming, and prior to the boom of the internet itself. There wasn't even Google back then, and most people did not even have internet when EQ launched, so the fact that it grew to half a million subs at such a period of time is nothing short of phenomenal. A game, mind you, geared towards older audiences and comprised primarily of adults (one of the things that made it so enjoyable), very much unlike modern games which try to appeal to all audiences, but ultimately must cater to the lowest common denominator, children.
Pretending to have some hidden knowledge of what will attract new customers at such an abysmal point in the MMO genre is laughable to those of us who actually played those old games, those of us who understand that what made them great can scarcely be found in any new titles. Immersion, challenge, competition and community are MIA in modern MMORPGs, but we'd like to hope SOE can restore them to the genre.
So yes, we hope EQ Next will not perpetuate this horrible cycle of mistakes, but will bring some of those features back to online gaming. Yes, we hope the things that made Everquest great will have some bearing over how they develop EQ Next.
Sorry , I didn't think you actually wanted me to vomit an answer for something you yourself answered in the same paragraph. Off the top of my head, plots are rented with monthly auctions, escrow payments required once a week without being able to pay in advance, roving bands of mobs which destroy player assets, random spawn world bosses, cataclysmic events which completely change the shape of the land, weather systems ( flooding ) , shifting resource management which require a players house to be near a mine/stream/forest/ etc etc.
Should I continue to come up with alternatives for asset destruction in sandbox, which don't include PvP as the basis? The reason I refrained from this in my previous posts is because it doesn't matter if I can come up with unique mechanics for pve based rules , it matters what the Developers introduce. I do not see SoE building a game based on PvP with the Everquest name.
At least you are one of those to accept, that destruction have to be part of the equation. And of course you are right.. it matters what the developers introduce. But my point was, that whatever you do, you have to accept some sort of destruction within a sandbox. And the difference between PvP or PvE isnt that far off.
And about SoE building a game based on PVP with the Everquest name.. i also never thought about a sandbox game with EQ name tag. Because you are right EQ and PvP don't fit together.. but as much as Sandbox and EQ don't fit together.. at least to my mind.
So i am very curious what EQN really will be. And i guess a lot of people will be surprised and disappointed one way or the other... because a lot of different expectations are around.. and not all of them can be fullfilled not even most of them.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
easy, have the houses degrade over time if someone decides to quit or someone doesn't pay their "upkeep".
Worked in UO - No pay? House go *poof*
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by Apraxis Originally posted by RedempThere are PvE answer's for every problem.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.
All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.
Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.
Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see.
These are pretty easy actually. For housing you have housing decay and rent that requires upkeep. You also allow people to sell housing to each other. Monster invasions are one way to do it, but it wouldn't make sense to not have PvP messing up players' PvE games only to have the server mess up players' PvE games.
PvP doesn't change the static landscape. Not sure why you brought that up in relation to PvE vs PvP solutions to various things. For the most part though, the landscape wouldn't change. Why would it? Now, adding new lands or new worlds is a solution, but again, that's applicable to either PvP or PvE based games.
Whether a game is primarily PvE or PvP is down to the preferences of the developer. Neither mechanic is required in any particular quantity.
We will have to wait for EQN to actually release, since Smed & Co. aren't really saying anything in particular about the game. A lot of what they've said about PS2 is being applied to EQN and a lot of what Smedley is talking about when he's talking about his own personal preferences for games he plays is being applied to EQN as well. We really don't know how much or how little those things are going to influence the development of EQN at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
easy, have the houses degrade over time if someone decides to quit or someone doesn't pay their "upkeep".
Worked in UO - No pay? House go *poof*
I love it "that's a wrap!"
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"A good example, but a very narrow example, is battlegrounds in WoW or EQII, where players get bored doing it over and over again. But imagine the entire world as part of the interaction."
if this is what Smedley actually said, then the game will be great.
Originally posted by RedempThere are PvE answer's for every problem.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.
All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.
Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.
Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see.
These are pretty easy actually. For housing you have housing decay and rent that requires upkeep. You also allow people to sell housing to each other. Monster invasions are one way to do it, but it wouldn't make sense to not have PvP messing up players' PvE games only to have the server mess up players' PvE games.
PvP doesn't change the static landscape. Not sure why you brought that up in relation to PvE vs PvP solutions to various things. For the most part though, the landscape wouldn't change. Why would it? Now, adding new lands or new worlds is a solution, but again, that's applicable to either PvP or PvE based games.
Whether a game is primarily PvE or PvP is down to the preferences of the developer. Neither mechanic is required in any particular quantity.
We will have to wait for EQN to actually release, since Smed & Co. aren't really saying anything in particular about the game. A lot of what they've said about PS2 is being applied to EQN and a lot of what Smedley is talking about when he's talking about his own personal preferences for games he plays is being applied to EQN as well. We really don't know how much or how little those things are going to influence the development of EQN at all.
I for one view PvP on a guild vs guild basis. So if I want to destroy an enemies fields (similar to burning a forest) or siege their keep then I would be changing the landscape. If we could change the landscape to funnel troops to a central area before attacking, then I could see guilds using burms and trees to blocks routes etc.
PvP may not smash a mountain but it can definitely change the political landscape that allows players to freely or not so freely roam through contested areas.
Originally posted by RedempThere are PvE answer's for every problem.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.
How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.
All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.
Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.
Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see.
These are pretty easy actually. For housing you have housing decay and rent that requires upkeep. You also allow people to sell housing to each other. Monster invasions are one way to do it, but it wouldn't make sense to not have PvP messing up players' PvE games only to have the server mess up players' PvE games.
PvP doesn't change the static landscape. Not sure why you brought that up in relation to PvE vs PvP solutions to various things. For the most part though, the landscape wouldn't change. Why would it? Now, adding new lands or new worlds is a solution, but again, that's applicable to either PvP or PvE based games.
Whether a game is primarily PvE or PvP is down to the preferences of the developer. Neither mechanic is required in any particular quantity.
We will have to wait for EQN to actually release, since Smed & Co. aren't really saying anything in particular about the game. A lot of what they've said about PS2 is being applied to EQN and a lot of what Smedley is talking about when he's talking about his own personal preferences for games he plays is being applied to EQN as well. We really don't know how much or how little those things are going to influence the development of EQN at all.
There is a mod in Minecraft called towny and part of the mechanic is that if you don't have the money to pay your taxes you lose your plot, but the house or whatever you built doesn't actually go away. It becomes destructible and lootable by other players. I think this could be the way of bringing pvp into housing, without actually bringing it into housing if you get my drift.
Originally posted by wsmar Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by ApraxisOriginally posted by RedempThere are PvE answer's for every problem.
Really? How should look the pve solution to get rid of established housing in the open world, to open up new space for new buildings? Monster invasion destroying player houses? Because housing all over the world with no fresh building land for newcomer sucks. And instanced housing zones sucks exactly the same. Or seperated housing zones added per request.How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see. These are pretty easy actually. For housing you have housing decay and rent that requires upkeep. You also allow people to sell housing to each other. Monster invasions are one way to do it, but it wouldn't make sense to not have PvP messing up players' PvE games only to have the server mess up players' PvE games. PvP doesn't change the static landscape. Not sure why you brought that up in relation to PvE vs PvP solutions to various things. For the most part though, the landscape wouldn't change. Why would it? Now, adding new lands or new worlds is a solution, but again, that's applicable to either PvP or PvE based games. Whether a game is primarily PvE or PvP is down to the preferences of the developer. Neither mechanic is required in any particular quantity. We will have to wait for EQN to actually release, since Smed & Co. aren't really saying anything in particular about the game. A lot of what they've said about PS2 is being applied to EQN and a lot of what Smedley is talking about when he's talking about his own personal preferences for games he plays is being applied to EQN as well. We really don't know how much or how little those things are going to influence the development of EQN at all. There is a mod in Minecraft called towny and part of the mechanic is that if you don't have the money to pay your taxes you lose your plot, but the house or whatever you built doesn't actually go away. It becomes destructible and lootable by other players. I think this could be the way of bringing pvp into housing, without actually bringing it into housing if you get my drift.
I actually have used that type of thing on the MassiveCraft Minecraft server, and I like it. It gives the player incentive to keep playing, but also to actually produce something so the property can be kept up. It straddles the line between PvE and PvP, giving the person who doesn't want PvP an option. This would be fine for me, but I'm not sure sure it would be great for all the other people who want to build a house. They might not be cool with having their house lootable because they went on vacation or something like that.
Again, we have no real idea what Smedley actually thinks about these things, or what their market research tells them will work. We have no idea what Smedley is going to put in the game. We have some screenshots, and some non-committal news blurbs and that's it. EQN could be Farmville in an open world and nothing Smedley has directly said about the game would be a lie.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Yeah, but even in EVE, the goal is not PvP. And I don't think any (good) EVE player will ever tell you that. The goal in EVE is to do whatever you want to do.
This means having a world where PvP is meaningful and important, and where PvE is meaningful and important (EVE actually doesn't do a great job at this, and I think it's the reason SoE is bringing in Storybricks).
A sandbox is not a PvP vs PvE argument. It's creating a system where both can exist in the same space, and in doing so creates an emergent environment. It requires consequences. It requires risk vs reward. It requires a huge open space that can be effected by the player base.
No EVE player is arguing for a gankfest. EVE is not a gankfest (unless you're in enemy territory, but why are you there... unless you're stealth bombing, then... good job).
But it also means that people who want nothing but PvE, and never want to be effected by other players, and want to have their own solo adventure in an MMO, will have to find another game. You can't have an emergent environment if you can't effect the world around you, and like it or not, other players are part of the world around you.
Without labeling anything as PvP or PvE we can still see some good game mechanics from EvE that make sense. EvE gives the players tools to build and create. Let's focus on the tools; giving players tools to do something is the right thing to do. At this point it doesn't matter if the direction is PvP or PvE. However what happens most in PvE games is that no tools are given to the players to build things, the items are given to the players and told to go have fun; but the only fun you can have is if you stay on this path and only this path, do not deviate from this path for whatever reason even if you see something exciting in the distance.
I think that SOE is in a perfect position to buck the system. For the record PvP in my definition is any time one player pits their mind against another player and not the AI. Playing the market in EvE is by my definition PvP. Gathering shinies to sell on the market in EQ2 is PvP. PvP is not just about tab target or action combat, griefing and ganking. PvP is experiencing non-repetitive gameplay by going against a human opponent and not a scripted AI.
What you just described is the difference between Sandbox games and Themepark games ..... not PvP and PvE games.
The problem I have with those pve who are against any pvp is the same. They are narrow minded and think pve is the end answer. See it works both ways. Best is a mix.
Currently bored with MMO's.
True EvE has various goals that one can accomplish; but the game was built on the foundation of PvP, or at least allowing PvP as the first thought and not an afterthought. Many of the systems in EvE would not work if it were a PvE centric game.
To state it in black and white, a lot of people will have a problem if they get killed while minding their own business. People are "me" centric, and Smedley knows this, which is why he said they wanted to move away from the "me too" attitude.
People that want to have no competition in a game don't like PvP. Some people enjoy competition on their terms (battlegrounds or consensual PvP) while others enjoy the thrill of not knowing when they will get attacked next.
Your last statement strikes to the heart of the issue. Emergent gameplay can only be achieved when other players are affected; and some people will hate that they can't control every outcome because there is no scripted AI to control.
No it doesn't work both ways, I'm a PvPer and I'm fine with pvp in EQ as long as it's segregated. I'll happily let you pvp in a PvE game .... as long as I don't have to.
Good god, same argument ad nauseum
"But is it a risk to make an MMO that's so different from what players are familiar with? Georgeson acknowledges that it's a risk, but he's very confident that his team is on the right track. He said that the unfamiliar is going to be OK because the ideas are so cool that players will want to stick around to find out about them
When we spoke about the franchise as a whole, Georgeson reminded me that both EQ and EQII have been around for 14 and nine years respectively, and as far as he's concerned, there's no reason to ever turn the games off. He's not worried about EQ Next cannibalizing the two titles because it's such a different game from its siblings and because the fans are so loyal to their respective games. Both communities have developed deep, familial relationships with SOE over the years, and he expects that to continue for many years to come."
That was in late March. Check mate bud. "Unfamiliar" "such a different game from its siblings"
Again, I will tell you to hooooollllddddd that, and to take off the nostalgia red rosed glasses.
easy, have the houses degrade over time if someone decides to quit or someone doesn't pay their "upkeep".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Well.. but nevertheless i did not see any pve answer in your reply.
Btw. it is not just housing, or gear like a few post above with implying ingame economy. The core of a sandbox is change, a cycle of building and destroying. Without destroying one way or another(and there are ways without pvp) you can't build forever... either the market is saturated or the buildable land is full or whatever. PvP is just one way to solve this problem, and withit generate more ways of playing the game... and not just PvP in the sense of player fighting against player.
As i said above.. you have to find a way where player houses can be destroyed.. if not from the player the environment have to do it one or the other way. The same is true for your gear/weapons/armor.. either with some pvp methods, or plain old item decay, where items break after some time. Sandbox playstyle and raiding gear progression do not work good togehter, because of the overly increased value of gear.
And after all.. it was Smedly, who said EQN will be the greatest sandbox ever.. i am just curious how he will realize it without any pvp, without destroying stuff. As i said already above.. in games like Minecraft the solution is server reset.. everything will be destroyed so it is new space, new demand for creating and building stuff.. and after all that is the core element of every single sandbox.
So again.. how is your pve answer for that problem?
PS: And as FaarmMercy said in a sandbox it is not about PvE against PvP it is much more how to create a system where both can coexist and both profit from each other. And as you said, it is not a problem in such an environment that a pve player don't have to bother with pvp. There are a lot of ways around pvp in any good sandbox game, and especially in EvE.
So.. you don't have to pvp. But you have to accept that some stuff have to be destroyed, one way or the other.#
@Sovrath:
""easy, have the houses degrade over time if someone decides to quit or someone doesn't pay their "upkeep".""
Well.. that one worked incredible well in UO.
This way will only work if you have either enough space, so that any player can have a house in the open world. (the world will be overly full with houses and houses all over the world. UO style.) Given a very large world it could work.. but the world would stagnate at one point. Almost no new buildings, not a lot of change in the landscape. An architect would most probably quit after some time of underemployment.
But somehow i prefer monster invasion with house destruction a lot more.. or house destruction through some form of pvp. (and by the way i don't talk about destruction every day, but after a few weeks or month it is just time) And as i said already some sort of assurance could mitigate the loss/costs.
However.. we can discuss as long as we want.. we will see in around a month whatever SoE and EQN will bring to the table. I am curious, but not overly optimistic.
"Imagine if you're a Druid and you need to literally seek out reagents for your spells or worship your deity in a glade somewhere off in the wilderness, but you don't know where"
Love the concept!
Not knowing where to go, it's been a long time... I pray it's true!
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Yes, but the 'new' pool of gamers seem to have game ADD, and do not stick with anything, so if you are going to make games for the masses, then they really are just making WoW 1.5, that they said they were not doing....Where as the EQ fans, many have stuck with EQ for 5-10 years and EQ2 for many years. So this argument has pros and cons.
It could be argued that 500k to 1 million loyal customers would generate more profit than say 4-5 million game jumpers that people say 10% are the whales. I know I would rather play the game with the former either way, easier to have a community when you have those stable players, verse a huge rotation of game jumpers, with a smaller core of people that are staying imo.
Sorry , I didn't think you actually wanted me to vomit an answer for something you yourself answered in the same paragraph. Off the top of my head, plots are rented with monthly auctions, escrow payments required once a week without being able to pay in advance, roving bands of mobs which destroy player assets, random spawn world bosses, cataclysmic events which completely change the shape of the land, weather systems ( flooding ) , shifting resource management which require a players house to be near a mine/stream/forest/ etc etc.
Should I continue to come up with alternatives for asset destruction in sandbox, which don't include PvP as the basis? The reason I refrained from this in my previous posts is because it doesn't matter if I can come up with unique mechanics for pve based rules , it matters what the Developers introduce. I do not see SoE building a game based on PvP with the Everquest name.
Do you really think SoE is going to ignore the millions of EQ customers, which primarily enjoy PvE for a PvP game which would alienate that same customer base? If you do ... well then that's something, I only bet the long shot's for $2.00 at the track myself.
No, you missed the point entirely...
Innovation = remaking old games with better graphics (UO/EVE)
Least that's what I see as a repeated theme here.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
You continually underestimate the potential players that a new 'classic Everquest' could generate in 2013. I say this knowing that "EQ Next will be different", but also knowing that there has been nothing even close to classic Everquest since 2001. (before anyone says it, yes, Vanguard could have been, but died at birth)
EQ came out at the dawn of online gaming, and prior to the boom of the internet itself. There wasn't even Google back then, and most people did not even have internet when EQ launched, so the fact that it grew to half a million subs at such a period of time is nothing short of phenomenal. A game, mind you, geared towards older audiences and comprised primarily of adults (one of the things that made it so enjoyable), very much unlike modern games which try to appeal to all audiences, but ultimately must cater to the lowest common denominator, children.
Pretending to have some hidden knowledge of what will attract new customers at such an abysmal point in the MMO genre is laughable to those of us who actually played those old games, those of us who understand that what made them great can scarcely be found in any new titles. Immersion, challenge, competition and community are MIA in modern MMORPGs, but we'd like to hope SOE can restore them to the genre.
So yes, we hope EQ Next will not perpetuate this horrible cycle of mistakes, but will bring some of those features back to online gaming. Yes, we hope the things that made Everquest great will have some bearing over how they develop EQ Next.
At least you are one of those to accept, that destruction have to be part of the equation. And of course you are right.. it matters what the developers introduce. But my point was, that whatever you do, you have to accept some sort of destruction within a sandbox. And the difference between PvP or PvE isnt that far off.
And about SoE building a game based on PVP with the Everquest name.. i also never thought about a sandbox game with EQ name tag. Because you are right EQ and PvP don't fit together.. but as much as Sandbox and EQ don't fit together.. at least to my mind.
So i am very curious what EQN really will be. And i guess a lot of people will be surprised and disappointed one way or the other... because a lot of different expectations are around.. and not all of them can be fullfilled not even most of them.
Worked in UO - No pay? House go *poof*
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
How to mix up the static landscape? How to bring in dynamic and shape the world after it is initially created. Those are some hard sandbox problems. If you don't allow destruction through pvp, you have to do it some other way. Minecraft solution is server reset every now and then.. but that is not working in a MMORPG.
All those questions could be solved with some Monster factions, which indeed act like players and conquer zones and destroy everything on their way. (Monster invasion) But as much as most pve player don't like to lose their stuff through pvp, they do also don't like to lose their stuff through pve.
Would be interested, how you would solve it.. or how EQN will actually solve it. Or will they just ignore it and accept the inherent fault? And solve it like UO with adding new land with every expansion pack.
Maybe we will know it in month. Maybe EQN will not be the greatest sandbox Smedley proclaimed. Maybe it is. We will see.
These are pretty easy actually. For housing you have housing decay and rent that requires upkeep. You also allow people to sell housing to each other. Monster invasions are one way to do it, but it wouldn't make sense to not have PvP messing up players' PvE games only to have the server mess up players' PvE games.
PvP doesn't change the static landscape. Not sure why you brought that up in relation to PvE vs PvP solutions to various things. For the most part though, the landscape wouldn't change. Why would it? Now, adding new lands or new worlds is a solution, but again, that's applicable to either PvP or PvE based games.
Whether a game is primarily PvE or PvP is down to the preferences of the developer. Neither mechanic is required in any particular quantity.
We will have to wait for EQN to actually release, since Smed & Co. aren't really saying anything in particular about the game. A lot of what they've said about PS2 is being applied to EQN and a lot of what Smedley is talking about when he's talking about his own personal preferences for games he plays is being applied to EQN as well. We really don't know how much or how little those things are going to influence the development of EQN at all.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I love it "that's a wrap!"
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
if this is what Smedley actually said, then the game will be great.
I for one view PvP on a guild vs guild basis. So if I want to destroy an enemies fields (similar to burning a forest) or siege their keep then I would be changing the landscape. If we could change the landscape to funnel troops to a central area before attacking, then I could see guilds using burms and trees to blocks routes etc.
PvP may not smash a mountain but it can definitely change the political landscape that allows players to freely or not so freely roam through contested areas.
There is a mod in Minecraft called towny and part of the mechanic is that if you don't have the money to pay your taxes you lose your plot, but the house or whatever you built doesn't actually go away. It becomes destructible and lootable by other players. I think this could be the way of bringing pvp into housing, without actually bringing it into housing if you get my drift.
These are pretty easy actually. For housing you have housing decay and rent that requires upkeep. You also allow people to sell housing to each other. Monster invasions are one way to do it, but it wouldn't make sense to not have PvP messing up players' PvE games only to have the server mess up players' PvE games. PvP doesn't change the static landscape. Not sure why you brought that up in relation to PvE vs PvP solutions to various things. For the most part though, the landscape wouldn't change. Why would it? Now, adding new lands or new worlds is a solution, but again, that's applicable to either PvP or PvE based games. Whether a game is primarily PvE or PvP is down to the preferences of the developer. Neither mechanic is required in any particular quantity. We will have to wait for EQN to actually release, since Smed & Co. aren't really saying anything in particular about the game. A lot of what they've said about PS2 is being applied to EQN and a lot of what Smedley is talking about when he's talking about his own personal preferences for games he plays is being applied to EQN as well. We really don't know how much or how little those things are going to influence the development of EQN at all.
There is a mod in Minecraft called towny and part of the mechanic is that if you don't have the money to pay your taxes you lose your plot, but the house or whatever you built doesn't actually go away. It becomes destructible and lootable by other players. I think this could be the way of bringing pvp into housing, without actually bringing it into housing if you get my drift.
I actually have used that type of thing on the MassiveCraft Minecraft server, and I like it. It gives the player incentive to keep playing, but also to actually produce something so the property can be kept up. It straddles the line between PvE and PvP, giving the person who doesn't want PvP an option. This would be fine for me, but I'm not sure sure it would be great for all the other people who want to build a house. They might not be cool with having their house lootable because they went on vacation or something like that.
Again, we have no real idea what Smedley actually thinks about these things, or what their market research tells them will work. We have no idea what Smedley is going to put in the game. We have some screenshots, and some non-committal news blurbs and that's it. EQN could be Farmville in an open world and nothing Smedley has directly said about the game would be a lie.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.