I was referring to the spell particles when I said effects. I wasn't intending to come across like adding new spell focii and such. Sorry 'boot that.
EQ Never
- Thread starter Convo
- Start date
the problem is, as a company like SOE, once you see people are willing to spend thousands of dollars on insignificant bullshit, it's not that difficult to realize that they'll spend even more money on game breaking, pay to win bullshit. this is were the problem lies. it may start out innocuous enough initially, just different colored armor or some group potions or other cosmetic stuff, but when they realize little johnny has his mom's credit card and will pay $50 for sword of exploit, or for locked out special class, then the game is as good as dead, and that's exactly how it will happen. it's a slippery slope and i'd rather not even have the option of an in game store at all because of this. this is why i'd much rather just pay a monthly sub fee and be done with it. everything is available to everyone and everyone is on an equal playing field.
Rezz
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 4,486
- 3,531
I hope you are wrong on your prognostication of what could happen. I instead hope that developers see my ideas and go "Hey there's another way instead of raping the f2p playerbase wholesale." and invest in that methodology.
I would like to believe that developers want a real game, not a facsimile thereof. Here's for hope!
Rezz
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 4,486
- 3,531
No-no, I like your idea of spell focii et al. I am just elaborating on the idea of what a playerbase would purchase. No idea is a bad idea, it just needs refinement at the absolute worst.
edit- goddamnit. I thought I hit enter after changing existing nonsense regarding the current topic =| Sorry folks.
I totally get the whole 'slippery slope' mentality at this point. From everything I've read about the development of EQN, though, Smedley seems like he's really, unusually excited and proud of this game. I'm not sure how much of that will actually translate to release (which might be less than a year away, what the hell?), but for now, it's somewhat promising. Somewhat. I dunno, maybe he'll actually give the game a chance to thrive? I mean, from an FPS standpoint, people are pretty happy with both PS2's gameplay itself and how the cash shop works in conjunction with the game (where guns are buyable from the get-go, which scares me, but we can't really compare FPS weapons to RPG itemization).
Here I go, wanting to believe Smedley again. Dammit all.
PS - I totally agree that a baseline subscription fee (and then not having to worry about all this cash shop nonsense) would be the preferred method; it's just not looking like it's going to happen at this point, though.
shabushabu
Molten Core Raider
- 1,408
- 185
You know, I don't care if F2P funds the game I want to play as long as there is a subscription option. In my mind, I would look at DDO for a great f2p model for a new game. Have obstacles in game ( traps, locked doors etc ) where you can buy ways around them and sell the game content in pieces. You can even do this with an open world if you wanted and thought it through up front.. for a pretty dated game DDO has done very well with its model.
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,927
- 9,578
Flipmode
EQOA Refugee
- 2,091
- 312
Right but the hardcore PVE players won't stay in a game like that. You still need PVE content.
Psst. We've had this argument before in this thread. The tl;dr version is that SOE is making the game to make money so they're going to aim it at the widest market possible so you lose, good day sir.
I'm glad you've cleared all this up with such detailed information about the state of development. You do realize SOE can aim the game at a wide market by offering a slew of in-game options to play the way you want to play (gee, that sounds anawfullot like a sandbox, doesn't it?) without trivializing the difficulty of the game, right? Or is the concept of the combat and the constant danger element in Demon's Souls and Dark Souls (not to mention the gaming community's reverence of both titles) totally lost on you?
Just as a counter point, DAOC probably had more hardcore ex-EQ PVE players then they did PVP ones. If you make the PVP content accessible by your normals with a minimal of griefing, and part of the overall PVE world then you can kill two birds with one stone.
I have yet to see a fantasy MMO do PVE and PVP overlap as well as DAOC to appeal to both sides, and there certainly is a ton of room for improvement. Guild Wars 2 is a step in the right direction, but their PVE is pretty minimal.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,035
Create a hybrid system where you limit the amount of "magical" or PvE dropped items someone can wear. PvE items would be stronger than crafted (Depending on factors like smith skill, rarity of materials ect), they wouldn't be lootable in PvP and they would be indestructible. However, only about half of your gear load out could be from PvE. And since "gear needs" would vary greatly depending on "horizontal leveling" (Skills/talents) as well as access to your current gear (IE what you need might change depending on the rest of your equipment) AND even dependent on role within the group--the "churn" should always remain for a good crafted economy and a need for more PvE gear. And because the game will be balanced based upon the current crafted gear as the "base suit", PvE gear could be used as "treasure", rather than base equipping needs.
However, all the above is predicated on a "boss" system that favors social difficulties, rather than more skill based ones. So killing bosses would be more about leadership/organization (For pure PvE) or controlling territory (For people that do PvE/PvP hybrid), rather than the boss being ball busting hard. AND it would also require fully traded items. This creates a secondary market in which returning players can easily gear up with older "tier" items that have been farmed and are now common. (Combined with a suit of crafted.)
The goal would be to make selecting your "PvE dropped gear more like selecting a finite amount of skills. Which gear you choose should be a difficult choice, that changes based on access to skills and depending on the other gear you have. It should also be about weighing gear selection between PvE pieces and crafted pieces--like for example, if a smith obtains enough rare ore to make a super-breast plate, and you buy it, it might open up your load out so that instead of your PvE breast plate, you can now select another magical piece and wear the crafted breast plate instead. (Because I have this uber smith breast plate, I can now use dragon helm of awesome.)
So both systems, between rare resources and rare drops, combined with variable effectiveness depending on skills, and other gear, should constantly keep demand fresh intra-expansion. And when mudflation has stopped this demand, you release a new tier. This allows for both PvP objectives (For rare materials, as well as unmolested access to some PvE dungeons) as well as deep PvE objectives (For players to grind experience AND have a chance at obtaining rare/powerful magical pieces from monsters.)
The above is a brief summary...Like I was saying earlier in the thread. For it to work, every system--from how trade works, to dungeons (Like bosses being balanced to be difficult in terms of organization rather than reaction)-would all need to be designed with the hybridized PvE/Crafted gear set in mind. This kind of system in any modern game would be shit, and I don't think anyone has done it before, but the whole game would need to be designed around it.
TLDR PvE items should be powerful, expressive (Glowing, cool looking) items that are rare and only a few can be used at a time. While the bulk of what's "needed" and designed around is made by crafters.
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,761
- 613
Convo
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,761
- 613
Mr Creed
Too old for this shit
- 2,380
- 276
Obviously any game that is designed as F2P has to carefully balance in-game advancement/loot with what they sell. PS2 has a very clear split of cash-only, ingame-only, and things you get for both. Cosmetic changes for $ only makes sense, they have no in-game advantage. In a shooter like PS2 thats an easy choice, but for an MMORPG how you look is actually pretty important to many players, and some want the uberleetdagger to be rare drop only. Now in PS2 enhancements for your equipment are only gotten through playing and gaining certs, makes sense again. To any non-PS2 players, think of AA points. The middle ground for PS2 are the weapons, they can be bought with $ or with time (certs). I find for PS2 that makes sense. I can play any infantry role and use all vehicles from the start, but I can spend money or time on alternate weapons for my favorite playstyle. In an MMORPG items are going to work differently (obviously... hopefully?).
So the question is what can they use as the middle ground that you buy for money OR time?
Thats a reply from Smed in the interview linked above, talking about the time they took to make PS2. Assuming they have been working at EQN for soon to be a year since they burned the previous version, that might reasonably put EQN into 2014. Alot of those 2 years on PS2 went into the engine and they can re-use that, but a MMORPG is also going to need more work then a shooter. Since we have no info at all nobody would know, but I guess their vision for EQN doesnt involve as much handcrafted and scripted content as the average zones between 2003 and 20013 in MMOs had. Plus, if theres one thing SOE did ok back during the EQ time it was churning out expansions (inaccessable/buggy content but still they usually delivered 6+ zones in the time Blizzard takes for one content patch with just a raid and dailies).
Ukerric
Bearded Ape
- 7,927
- 9,578
Stop right there. Why?
I know, you don't want to lose your precious raid gear, but reasonably, why? If we go back a very successful model (again, EVE), then there are PVE drops, they're generally a bit better than their crafted equivalents... and they blow up and are looted exactly the same as crafted modules. And guess what? People tend not to use too many of them in PVP, not because there's a rule against that, but due to that exact reason. Because they're likely to lose them if things go south.
If you have a game like EVE where the economy is a great driving force for the game dynamics, generating demand for materials, hence territorial control for those materials, then having half of your equipment indestructible and unlootable means that you've just cut the economy in half, and weakened suddenly the driver for conflict that makes your game dynamic. And if you don't use the economy as a driver for your game, then you don't need a strong one, so why have half of your equipment crafted and lootable? Why not none of it?
The idea of "half of your equipment comes from PVE and obeys different rules" means essentially that you've just weakened both sides: your pvp is weaker (less incentives), and your pve is weaker (why try to loot more pve stuff, since I can't use it anyway).
Rezz
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 4,486
- 3,531
Gear loot is an interesting mechanic but should be regulated to specific servers. It is possible to have a "sandbox" without being able to steal shit from everyone you kill. As to driving the game, all you need to do is add durability in a smart way. Not "You died, lose 10% durability lawlz!" WoW method. That stuff is dumb. Instead, add in "Time and use decrepifies equipment. You need someone of the right crafting discipline to fix it" and then it requires materials on par with what you are repairing. Raid gear should not be easy to hammer out at the forge for an amateur and a piece of metal. Raid quality content should drop specific materials that are used to repair raid quality gear. That same material? Should be also what crafts raid quality gear. Make the choice. Wear your best and use the best materials to keep it in shape, or wear your second best while you create the best slowly.
Options!
Options!