Interesting Video on an Apparent MMO in Development

Greetings: I still hang around (in-game) EQ2 from time to time waiting for Alpha. Supported EQ Next in the day as well. Now this scoop (below). Posted because this seems to have some similarities to Ashes such as an evolving world responding to player actions. Enjoy and post any cheerful responses. Be safe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoDnlhxSZcQ

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Nagash

Meh. after the F*** up that was Everquest Next I don't have much to say

Noaani

Nagash wrote: »

Meh. after the F*** up that was Everquest Next I don't have much to say

Until there is something to get my hands on, neither do I.

If there is an alpha of the actual game though (rather than of some offshoot of the game, which is something I refuse to participate in - looking at you, Apoc), then I'll start looking in to it.

Hartwell

If there are more Western MMOs being developed, that increases the chances of another hit among the misses for me. An Everquest 3 would be interesting to me if there was enough world PvP. A Planetside 3 could be more interesting if Rogue Planet goes that route. I still play Planetside 2 from time to time.

Noaani

hartwell wrote: »

If there are more Western MMOs being developed, that increases the chances of another hit among the misses for me. An Everquest 3 would be interesting to me if there was enough world PvP. A Planetside 3 could be more interesting if Rogue Planet goes that route. I still play Planetside 2 from time to time.

EverQuest as a franchise is known for its cooperative play, not its PvP.

That is something that is sorely missing in the MMO scene - I don't remember the last time a western MMO was released without open PvP - I wouldn't be surprised if ESO was the most recent.

The bright side to this for PvP players is that if an EQ game were released as we would all expect it to be, it would take a massive portion of the PvE focused MMO player base, meaning other MMO's could focus development (or additional content - for those already released) more towards PvP.

Hartwell

It would be nice for a new PvE MMO to be developed to distract the nomadic players. There isn't much that can keep their attention when all they have to go on is content that takes awhile to develop by today's standards. A PvE game for them would be for the best.

I just want to play some PvP MMO content, not Instanced content that has a smaller player count than that of a Battlefield match. They tipped off that they want a Planetside 3 in a recent news letter, so that will probably attract my attention over Everquest.

Noaani

hartwell wrote: »

It would be nice for a new PvE MMO to be developed to distract the nomadic players. There isn't much that can keep their attention when all they have to go on is content that takes awhile to develop by today's standards. A PvE game for them would be for the best.

I just want to play some PvP MMO content, not Instanced content that has a smaller player count than that of a Battlefield match. They tipped off that they want a Planetside 3 in a recent news letter, so that will probably attract my attention over Everquest.

Getting off topic with this post now, but that's never stopped me.

I personally think the reason there always seem to be a good number of players wanting a more PvP focused MMO, yet developers don't seem too keen to make one is that in such an MMO, you'll never please more than half of your players.

While it's easy to say that those that are not happy should just go, the above would then apply to the now smaller player total.

PvP is fun while you're winning, not so much the rest of the time. Since one guild of 50 players can make it so the entire rest of their server isn't winning, this means more people will be not winning than winning.

The number of times I've seen a top dog guild collapse because a rival guild moved to "their" server and started beating them - even people professingto want PvP only want it as long as they are winning.

Basically, any game that makes paying players feel as if they are someone elses content is bound to fail. Things like the corruption system in Ashes and the justice system in Archeage are designed primarily to reduce the amount of PvP that happens so that players don't feel like content too often.

Edit; I do hope a developer comes up with something to address this one day, as PvP players absolutely should have the game they are after if it is possible to make and sustain it. I just don't see how a persistent MMO that is focused more on PvP over PvE could exist for an extended duration.

Crowfall is attempting something - but they are essentially removing the persistent aspect of MMO's in order to do that.

Hartwell

I agree that PvP where a large faction of players have zero chance is bound to fail. It's not about not winning, it's more about not being able to put up a fight. The reward and scoreboard mentality has made something toxic in many games. I actually prefer to play non-ranked matches in games because of it. That's a completely different subject though.

I hope that an EQ3 will come out and succeed. I hope that they can come out with something similar to what EQ Next tried to achieve in terms of player content if possible, which would help with the issue of slowly developed content.

Atama

I think a PvP-centric MMORPG is an oxymoron. Once your enemies are other players forget role-playing. You can’t have a real structured game when you’re relying on the actions of another person to provide gameplay. It’s like trying to produce King Lear by dressing up a bunch of cats in Elizabethan outfits and tossing them on stage. They’ll just run around and act like cats, ripping up their little doublets and corsets in the process.

Hence why PvP-focused games usually involve just putting people into some kind of arena and then letting them go at it, maybe tossing in an objective as well aside from “kill the other team”.

The best way I could imagine a real PvP-focused MMORPG really working is taking something like Alterac Valley from WoW and expanding the concept into a game. Two sets of players that are competing to accomplish opposing PvE objectives while also being able to kill each other when they encounter one another. I think that kind of game would be awesome. Otherwise you end up with a PvE game that has optional PvP content (which is what AoC is honestly).

Hartwell

AoC has a PvX centric design itself. That is what an MMORPG game with open world PvP in it should be, in my opinion. It's why I'm not too interested in games like Camelot Unchained at this moment.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

The best way I could imagine a real PvP-focused MMORPG really working is taking something like Alterac Valley from WoW and expanding the concept into a game. Two sets of players that are competing to accomplish opposing PvE objectives while also being able to kill each other when they encounter one another.

This general idea needs to still have the persistent aspect of MMO's removed in order to really work, imo, otherwise one side will get so far ahead of the other that they are able to spend more time disrupting the others than working towards their own goal.

This is similar in concept to both Crowfall and the now defunct Civilization Online.

GrinningJack

If its an everquest game i will play it.

Flamerule

I tried Everquest back in the day and loved it but that only lasted momentarily. Hopefully Ashes lasts a little longer than that. They had a good crafting system though.

Rabbit

BCG l LordofSalt wrote: »

If its an everquest game i will play it.

I used to think that way. I have very fond memories of specific games/series that sucked me in, and turned me into a Gamer. But those days are past. First, the "Everquest" crew isn't together, anymore, so we'll never see another "Everquest". Second, I tried to have faith with EQ Next, and got screwed.

Then, there's the people behind the games. I had so very much faith in Lord British because Ultima, and Ultima Online, were freakin awesome. So, I bought into, and helped promote, Shroud of the Avatar. Oops.

Atama

Tabula Rasa was another Lord British flop. An MMO that lasted barely more than a year after release. It even had his name (Richard Garriot) in the title. But Lord British either left the project or was fired (accounts differ) and it was shut down 3 months after that.

Tanerlorn

Unless there is a drastic change in direction, the Node system WILL necessitate PvP. You will end up in a situation where a neighbouring city is in danger of consuming or vassalising the city you worked so hard on. So you need to put up or shut up. There are so many good player driven stories that can evolve from this. The scrappy underdog manages to drive away the larger node. Or the scrappy underdog fights valiantly but ultimately falls to the superior node. Mounting a last, doomed defence that will be remembered by players.

Why are so many of you opposed to loss? Or risk? Risk makes EvE Online compelling. That there are real consequences for your actions should be celebrated as immersive. If some asshole is a constant PKer, assemble a lynch mob and sort it out. Then ostracize the offender from the community till he learns his lesson. We did that all the time in UO. And people realised "griefing" had consequences. So it was reduced drastically. Communities can police themselves far better than a heavy handed restriction to PvP ever could.

The problem is, people have become used to survival games with no real persistence like an MMO. People grief using bugged mechanics of the game, and the players affected can just move to any one of hundreds of other servers instead. So there's no reason to step up and protect your own stuff.

Child Item