Originally posted by Vorthanion

Originally posted by BizkitNL

Originally posted by SavageHorizon

Originally posted by BizkitNL

Originally posted by SavageHorizon

Originally posted by Malcanis

It's on record that Mr Smedly is a big fan of EVE; is this a tangential hint that he's planning to make EQNext the long-awaited "EVE with Elves" - translating EVE's player driven narratives, complex supply chains, economy, full-loss PvP, and maybe even PLEX into a fantasy gameplay setting?

Because I would play the hell out of that.

That might be for a certain server but make no mistake that EQNext will have a strong PVE baseline. Yeah it will have a grest PVP system but anyone thinking that EQNext is going to be some pro PVP game is delusional. EQ has always been about PVE and that stance wont change.

PVP servers will be great but i would bet my yearly income that EQNext will be a PVE sandbox hybrid first and foremost.

 

Their will be no permadeath in EQNext which has now been confirmed.

I don't see "sandbox" working without a solid PVP base. Though that depends on the definition of sandbox.

EQNext will have PVP servers just like EQ had but if you are thinking that the whole game is going to be PVP before PVE then you might as well give up now. Yes we will have a great PVP system but EQ has always been about PVE and most of their fanbase expect that.

Smed knows his fanbase and he knows that adding a PVP system will bring in more. And who says that "sandbox" needs PVP to actually work, that's your take on it.

When Smed says sandbox then you should think hybrid, anyone taking his words literally is setting themselves up for fail.

So.....themepark plus?

And yeah, a sandbox MMO needs PVP. There's no question about that.

Sorry, that simply isn't true.  It is purely a matter of preference and not a necessity for a sandbox game.

Actually, it is. Since Sandboxes are all about freedom, and restricting freedom goes against the very definition of sandbox.

Originally posted by mymmo
guys, breath. The permadeath will probably be on a spcecial server.  You will find me playing there. Its so much more fun when playing with risk/rewards.

I'm with you there. After growing up from my teen age years. I no longer look for progression, I look for those small adrenaline rushes I used to have when I was a kiddo. These days, over half of the games are boring, boring and boring. 

One way they could implement is perma-death in a way where your character dies, he dies. But you can create a new toon that has the same skills as the previous toon. This way a death would have a "permanent" effect, but it wouldn't punish players too much.

Originally posted by Czanrei
Really odd that the Zenimax devs were quoted as saying beta invites would be going out "extremely soon." That was over a month ago...

Well, 2 months is pretty much a damn accurate description of "extremely soon." When we know the typical timeline of "soon". 

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Neherun

Why hasn't anyone mentioned EQ next yet? ITs claimed to be an AAA sandbox, and amusingly, few of you guys have already made accurate statements.

 

The Studio:

- "We're leaning towards sandbox"

Answers from MMORPG.com forum:

- "That carebear piece of shit hasn't even seen a sandbox"

- "It won't be sandbox"

- "Lol how is PvE sandbox?"

-"Vaporware!"

- "I hope it isn't sandbox but focuses on PvP"

- "I hope it isn't a sandbox but a PvE game"

 

Another day on the nonstop carousel that is mmorpg.com.

But we've seen cynical skeptic upthread already, many times.

Anyone want to do a positive spin, just to be different? One that isn't a clever advertisement for a specific title?

Well, I wrote about EQN on the rumor room when they hadn't announced the Sandbox twist yet, that thread burnt.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned EQ next yet? ITs claimed to be an AAA sandbox, and amusingly, few of you guys have already made accurate statements.

The Studio:

- "We're leaning towards sandbox"

Answers from MMORPG.com forum:

- "That carebear piece of shit hasn't even seen a sandbox"

- "It won't be sandbox"

- "Lol how is PvE sandbox?"

-"Vaporware!"

- "I hope it isn't sandbox but focuses on PvP"

- "I hope it isn't a sandbox but a PvE game"

Originally posted by Margulis
I can understand wanting to have PvP to some degree to appeal to all potential players, but it seems the biggest focus point from the devs, and their hype push, is all on the 3 faction system and PvP.  Why? This series was built on PvE, and any fan of the series would be a big fan of PvE also or they wouldnt even have even enjoyed the series.  So why would that not be the main focus?  Sure you want to draw in mmo players also who may not have been fans of the series because of the single player experience - but make that the biggest focus over what the series has become famous for? The hardcore PvP crowd isn't even that large of a percentage of the mmo community.  So again, why opt for this route?

How is TES series built on PvE? Its a single-player game, there's no chance for PvP. (Don't you go split-creen on me, as the series is originally a PC exclusive.)

Originally posted by h0urg1ass

It should be different for each MMO.  Obviously, 9.5 million people enjoy not having a death penalty in WoW, while some hardcore players enjoy a game where everything is on the line in every fight, such as in EVE.

The harsher the death pentalty, typically the fewer players.

 

This is bullshit, if WoW was launched with player loot, it would still have the same amount of players. The WoW's success was  not related to "casual masses". It was simplified MMORPG with proper animations and smooth gameplay, which tangibled the popular features and somewhat improved them. However the main and the primary reason for WoW's success was that it was a Warcraft  and Blizzard brand game, and millions and million of dollars spent in marketing. Nowadays its pretty much a pop culture thing, making its features non-important altogether.

Marketing 101 people.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by TwoThreeFour

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Neherun

The most solution that actually works? No currencies! Good example of that is Path of Exile. The game has no currencies, but items players can use as currencies (no one told them to do that, actually): But players have actually made their own economy, and the "orbs" (items that can alter stats of items) have become the standard currency in the game, with well, elusive values. The game is now a massive field of bartering and trading, and it flourishes.

Basically, you said the game lacks a desired feature. Players created a currency because they needed it and the game doesn't support it.

Creating a situation where the players have to work against the design of the game to achieve basic goals isn't what most people would define as a solution.

An important difference is that a regular currency is in itself useless, it is only when the regular currency is exchanged for items that they indirectly have an use. Orbs are useful per se, on the other hand.

Futhermore, the community working together to create a community tool, is very much an achievement.

My post wasn't to diminish their achievement, as it's a great one. We've seen the same awesome collaborative efforts in AC and EVE Online when the existing exchange system lacked features the players needed. It was to point out that they were doing so to compensate for a missing or inadequate feature of the game. The example is one of how lack of currency doesn't work.

 

You're missing the point. Instead of having "gold" (or copper / silver / gold). You have no currency, so instead of using such a worthless currency that becomes inflated and essentially unvaluable at later date will be replaced by "Two wolf pelts for your sword!" "Three wolf pelts!". The orbs are pretty much a subtle hint from the developers "Don't have anything to bargain with, well, there are these orbs.."

Its not lack of a feature or that currencies aren't supported. What is a currency anyways? Mass produced item that has pretty much imaginary value: Why would gold coins from wolf pelts be any different? This time around, players themselves decide whats valuable and what's not.  Ten times better system in comparison to flat out gold / money currency system. It suffers from no economical downfalls, and certainly won't reach recession at the end of  the launch year.

Originally posted by Scot
I have always thought that having crafted items simply better than any drops apart from raids would be enough to solve ecomomy issues. But if its the only way I have no problem with item decay.

This leads to other issues. It forces people into crafting. Take Ultima Online, take Mortal online. If you wanted the best gear, you made an alt. To be precise, a crafter alt. And you had to grind all the crafting skills you wanted to maximum to get the gear. And oh lord was that time consuming piece of annoyance.

Not commenting at you anymore Scot. But item decay alone does not suffice. Player's would see items as expendable consumables they can use for a limited amount of time until they are restricted from using them anymore. This does not increase the value of items, but it actually decreases them. So now instead of having a inflated economy, we have extremely deflated economy. 

The most solution that actually works? No currencies! Good example of that is Path of Exile. The game has no currencies, but items players can use as currencies (no one told them to do that, actually): But players have actually made their own economy, and the "orbs" (items that can alter stats of items) have become the standard currency in the game, with well, elusive values. The game is now a massive field of bartering and trading, and it flourishes.

Well, I cracked the code.

The supposed newest "insider's friend information" reveals Battle.net changes with subscriptions. Now, Blizzard has stated that the game will not compete with World of Warcraft. So they have basically taken the SOE's model. "Pay monthly fee, play all our monthly subbed games." This way, the game won't in anyway compete with World of Warcraft. The best part about it is, it would business strategy wise be the smartest move. (Any MMO vs. WoW is still considered a subsidiary product, therefore it would compete with it.)

Another game to be ruined by Korean betatesters. The carebearism is strong in that culture.

A lot of people  just question the legitemacy of the PvP encounter, and are attached to their virtual characters. There's this one insult to describe them.

Originally posted by karter64

"People that weren’t good at it weren’t invited into the guild."

 

And with this comment we now see why so many games have gone solo friendly.

People can't stand being less than above average in virtual worlds?

Originally posted by ZigZags
I dont think it will have very good longevity since they think that adding "MMO required features" like instances, battlegrounds, zone lockouts and more are a requirement....it is clear they are only after box sales and hope to make back their investment plus profit in the first 3 months and could probably care less about the game doing well past their initial release.

This kind of rumor mongering and  spread of ill information is the plague of these forums.  Let's begin with the fact that the game doesn't have battlegrounds, only the FvFvF area.

Originally posted by GN-003

-snip-

I don't believe that was his point at all. In a competitive environment, there will always be a bigger fish. Be it sandbox, themepark, blah, blah, blah, there will always be a select few at the top. Whether it's because they're more organized, efficient, exploitative, have more time or are just overall better, they'll always be there. I understand the concern, but do you honestly believe this is exclusive to games that have sandbox-esque mechanics? Take a good luck at Guild Wars 2.

During the first few weeks, a lot of players made a lot of money from exploiting the game. ANet eventually patched these issues and those missed out, missed out. Though, to be fair, there were a decent amount of temporary bans. I believe some of the first few players to craft their legendary weapons happened to be alpha testers. They knew well in advance what they needed in order to craft them. Then there's the players who would glitch CoF and do speed runs, people who manipulate the Trading Post, etc. The list goes on and on. Hell, there was even a post on reddit by someone claiming to have found a new recipe for a precursor weapon. The recipe turned out to be bogus. He bought up a massive amount of a certain item, claimed you needed said item for the recipe, then sold the item in bulk for a huge profit. Needless to say, people "lost," a lot of gold.

This sort of behavior is seen in practically every game that involves humans. It's a bummer, but it's a human nature. I'm sure there are ways to alleviate these issues, but at what cost? How much freedom do you have to sacrifice in order to achieve equality for all? Is it even possible in an MMORPG?

"Sandbox can be fun, its just so much of it tends to be quite flawed. Theres a reason why sandboxes haven't taken off. Its not that they haven't been created, they simply lose interest quickly as people who call for certain things quickly leave when its not 100% what they wanted or they realize they won't ever hit the top."

I'm not so sure about that. I'd imagine most people who have checked out sandbox MMORPGs and left have done so because they're either underfunded, unpolished, lack exposure/support, littered with bugs, or all of the above. Can you name me a recent, AAA sandbox MMO?

Yup, that wasn't my point at all. In all MMORPG's theres the bigger fish, and I don't understand those who really quit the game because "I cannot be #1".

Also, you are one hundred percent correct on Sandboxes these days, they are all small scale A only titles, and they obviously cannot compete with AAA titles.

I still meet people who say "Shadowbane had the best MMORPG concept ever, but the game itself sucked balls". And I agree to them, the game was about building cities, constructing nations, warring with other nations, politics and everything small scale between. It had a revolutionary class system, but the game was only good on paper. It was a buggy piece of troll garbage you just had to keep playing because the concept was so awesome. And that game wasn't a sandbox, it just offered something else than rince and repeat gameplay.

I still believe that small scale instanced PvP is a tumor to MMORPG genre, and it will slowly dump the features down even further.

Originally posted by madazz
MMO's are trying to hard to make you do one thing or another. In UO, I soloed a ton. You could solo nearly everything if you worked at it. Yet, for some reason I grouped up and met more people in that game than any other. 

Nope, its only logical. In MMO's where grouping is forced, people do not do it of their own free will, which may give them a negative mindset. In UO however, people grouped up of their own free will, and there were no "artificial incentives" to force you into groups, due to this, you grouped with likeminded people. Thus the community was much more healthy.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Looked up whol was leading EQNext, it's Dave Georgeson and Terry michaels, I know both, Dave is the guy working for EQ2 now, and Terry michaels worked for EQ1.

 

Now for some drama.....

there was a hack once where some people managed to take down the zones in Everquest, they were able to crash any zone in the world, it often brought the whole server down. Might not seem like a big deal but because each time after the zone comes back online "mob placeholders" have a chance to respawn as a named, as anyone who played EQ knows. So people used this non-stop.

Now, one day, someone noticed a ranger in the game that had raid gear, but there was no way he could have gotten it legitimately, there were no guilds on that server that progressed to those raids yet. When people asked he wouldn't respond how he got it, but eventually he said "a developer gave me all the stuff because I gave them hack code".

So that became a huge ridiculous thread on the EQ forums, and people asked at Fan Faire from SoE to developers what was going on, apparently some developers thought giving this hacker free gear in return for his hacking code so they could fix it was a good idea, and according to people at fan faire, that guy was Terry Michaels who made that call.

That hacker was afterwards banned I believe, but that was a serious mistake on the developer's part, you never negociate with hackers.

 

EQ is far away from being the only game where this has happened. Handing in an dub bug post-release usually leads to somekind of ingame reward, and a signing of someform of NDA.

Originally posted by Kenze

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.

---

 

I am sorry to inform you but that is not what freedom is.

Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.

That is not what freedom is?

Here's something from dictionary about freedom:

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat? If this kind of carebearism starts, that people start to twist the actual words and their terms to defend their ways, mods will soon have a lot of stuff to edit.

The freedom to oppress is not freedom. Freedom is exactly what Gdemami says: Those who want to fight are able to and those who don't, don't have to. In this case, freedom is consensual PvP.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat?

---

 

If I cannot refuse to fight and you force me into PVP against my will, my power to determine actions is met with a restraint.

 

 

If something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining.

 

Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

 

 

 

 

 

"Freedom cannot exist in the absence of law. People living in a state of anarchy are not free. They live under the random tyranny of any warlord, gang, or predator who can overpower them. They also live within the prison of their own distrust for their fellow men. A code of clear, fairly administered laws enhances our ability to trust, and cooperate with, people we don’t know personally. Of course, laws restrict our actions, by punishing us for engaging in illegal activities… but they also enhance our freedom, by allowing us to work more easily with each other, and trade with confidence. "

I ain't sure if you're being serious anymore. Troll or not, I'll reply out of boredom.

First, laws in any form do not restrict us from doing anything, they give us incentives not to do something. So your concept of "Law = freedom" doesn't make sense at all. Also, the whole concept of anarchy is freedom, and arguably, the problem with anarchy is that there are zero incentives not to do something, thus "everything is in the state of anarchy". 

Laws do not enhance our freedom in anyway, they give us consequences for doing something, we still have the freedom of choice whether we decide to engage in action considered illegial. Next time you walk through red traffic lights, see if some artificial barrier suddenly tells you "no, you cannot do that". And you'll wait for the green light. I seriously wish to see such a higher force invetervention.