Everquest Next

[Floradine]

re sandbox and trolls: I can't imagine that stuff you can build can be destroyed by others. It would be insanely stupid to make it so. The reason is very simple: They are making EQN Landmark too where people can build stuff and *sell* it for real money. If this would be destructible no-one would ever buy this stuff.

So... I don't think that will happen.

I also can't see trolls having too much fun digging pits for you where you can't get out of again in time before some mob is unearthed that will kill you. The reason is again simple: It takes too much time to dig anything deep enough for that - at least if the digging takes that long to get deep enough to cause trouble as shown in the videos. Let the trolls rotate like idiots while you just walk away.

[Andeon]

Floradine wrote:

re sandbox and trolls: I can't imagine that stuff you can build can be destroyed by others. It would be insanely stupid to make it so. The reason is very simple: They are making EQN Landmark too where people can build stuff and *sell* it for real money. If this would be destructible no-one would ever buy this stuff. So... I don't think that will happen. I also can't see trolls having too much fun digging pits for you where you can't get out of again in time before some mob is unearthed that will kill you. The reason is again simple: It takes too much time to dig anything deep enough for that - at least if the digging takes that long to get deep enough to cause trouble as shown in the videos. Let the trolls rotate like idiots while you just walk away.

unfortunately, everything you've just said only applies if logic applies, and sadly, ESPECIALLY when it comes to games, and DOUBLE ESPECIALLY (if that's a thing) when it comes to MMO's, logic rarely applies to the extreme ends of gamer behavior.

Trolls already spend far more time and effort then I think any sane person would, trying to be douchebags. I currently have no expectations about limits to how far they would go, how much time, or even money, they would spend, just to be pricks.

By the same token, the amounts of money I've seen *some* people spend on various in-game items, regardless of their actual worth or value or utility, has destroyed any expectations about what people *would* spend money on, regardless of how destructible it might be.

now, none of this bother me *particularly*, because *I* only spend the money I feel comfortable on on a a game, and I'm reasonably sure that destructible terrain will probably be built with an eye to griefers in mind, so that it doesn't become *absurdly* abuseable, so, I'm reasonably confident that if I wanted to play EQnext, I could, regardless of which way they go with in-sale items and destructability.

I'm just saying, if your expectations about what sony will/won't do are based on players behaving logically, I'd ditch that idea - you're far less likely to be unpleasantly surprised, assuming I'm correct.

I've only played a very little bit of EQ2, and while vaguely intriguing, never got into it - EQNext looks interesting for different reasons, so I'll keep an eye on it, but of all the MMO's I've ever played, LOTRO is the ONLY one that has held me for longer than a year at a time, and I don't expect that trend to change. The ONLY reason I keep coming back to LOTRO is the people - the game mechanically would have lost me ages ago - and most MMO's, while currently innovating along certain lines, are still primarily built around several primary draws, most of which aren't enough to keep me coming back. It's the community, or nothing, I expect, that will lock me into a new MMO, and so far, no MMO I know if seems to be so perfectly, custom designed to attract a particular *mindset* of player, like LOTRO did.

For whatever reason, LOTRO attracted an uncommonly large number of people that *think* along certain lines, lines I find very appealing - No other MMO has ever, to my knowledge, built itself around a thematic, community mindset - all the others seem to be appealing to a larger player base appeal (for example, Star Trek Online *would* *should* have been my favorite MMO of all time - Trekkies, all gathering in one place - it's astonishing how many people I've found that I *detest* on that MMO)

for whatever reason, I got astonishingly lucky with LOTRO (and probably to a certain degree with the Landroval server) and found a huge number of people that I'm quite comfortable being around, and I think a lot of it has to do with the theme of LOTRO - being built around the lord of the rings franchise, spending (relatively) so much time and effort developing the community tools, and the huge world of exploration more or less built on the lore of the franchise

I dunno - maybe LOTRO is just a fluke - Star Wars *could* have had the same appeal for me (might still - I haven't actually tried it out, but nothing I've heard so far really draws me in), Star Trek could have had the same appeal (but doesn't), but yes, the *people* that LOTRO attracted are what attracts me to the game - I dunno how you design that, but I think you can, and I don't know how many other game companies I trust to get that right.

anyway, I've gotten distracted - those are my thoughts.

[Floradine]

Very interesting discussion, Andeon, and you have some really good points there.

The reason why Lotro draws a specific kind of people to it is quite simple: It is based on Tolkien's lore which itself is very mature by nature. This dictates certain things that are possible and that are not possible. The dances are a very good example for that. Fun dances like those in WoW? Simply not possible. Or flying mounts? Simply not possible due to the lore.
The music system with all it's limitations is another example. And also the storytelling in many quests is done much better than average. And the graphic style is supporting all that very well too.
All these factors make for a mature game and that's the most important reason why the community is what it is.

That said, I want to get back to the main topic and to some of your points:

If things are going to be like what you described then the game is not for me. One thing I learned from Lotro is about design flaws: Make it stupid and you lose me as a player. If the makers of a game think it's fun for someone to spend 10 bucks on an item and then an idiot comes by and can destroy it then this is a clear design flaw. I am not going to constantly repair stuff that idiots destroyed in the game. Well, I think I will keep an eye on that point and see how they will design it. If a game maker thinks it's a good idea to have player fighting each other over such stuff then... byebye...

[Beorbrand]

OH man. Basically, if they make adult legos within an MMO, I'm going to be hooked. They have to be legitimate legos though, and bullies are not allowed to bust them unless I can fix them with one single click of my mouse.

I had once built this insanely elaborate waterfall cave house in Morrowind I was just so very proud of. I would love to have it still and to have been able to share it with others.

[Andeon]

Floradine wrote:

Very interesting discussion, Andeon, and you have some really good points there. The reason why Lotro draws a specific kind of people to it is quite simple: It is based on Tolkien's lore which itself is very mature by nature. This dictates certain things that are possible and that are not possible. The dances are a very good example for that. Fun dances like those in WoW? Simply not possible. Or flying mounts? Simply not possible due to the lore. The music system with all it's limitations is another example. And also the storytelling in many quests is done much better than average. And the graphic style is supporting all that very well too. All these factors make for a mature game and that's the most important reason why the community is what it is. That said, I want to get back to the main topic and to some of your points: If things are going to be like what you described then the game is not for me. One thing I learned from Lotro is about design flaws: Make it stupid and you lose me as a player. If the makers of a game think it's fun for someone to spend 10 bucks on an item and then an idiot comes by and can destroy it then this is a clear design flaw. I am not going to constantly repair stuff that idiots destroyed in the game. Well, I think I will keep an eye on that point and see how they will design it. If a game maker thinks it's a good idea to have player fighting each other over such stuff then... byebye...

you bring up an interesting point, but don't discount the value of competitively destructible terrain and items, even player owned - although spending real money on it *does* somewhat increase it's value

point in case - City of Heroes (still in many ways an example of the best MMO game mechanics I've ever played - horribly outdated, and sadly, not very gripping story-wise, but oh how I loved *playing* City of Heroes.) City of Heroes had "guilds" known as supergroups, and your supergroup could "build" a base, using several different kinds of in-game currency. BUT...you *could* also set your "hideout" to be attackable by other supergroups and villians - the items inside were damageable/destructible, and repairable (iirc? maybe you just had to replace ones that had been destroyed, I honestly can't remember) - now this setting was "voluntary", so if you wanted your super-base to be sacrosanct it could be, but there was definitely a community interest in making them accessible to other people, even dangerously, so that you could "raid" another super-group's base and so forth.

I don't know how popular the effort ever really became, but making a very community oriented PVP mechanic seemed like a fantastic idea to me, one that even had me considering going into pvp, which I don't really do (sadly, COH pvp was *not* reliably balanced in my experience, so I never really did get into it - but it *seemed* like a series of really good ideas that just needed tweaking here and there to really take off)

so, all I'm saying, is that the possibility that player built material being "destructible" by other players may not *necessarily* be a bad thing. I will admit, if player-housing is real money based AND destructible, there are going to be problems, but assuming (as with many of the more responsible f2p store designs) that player constructs are buildable free over time, or payable now, and destructible BY CHOICE, then I think it could become a very powerful community tool for competitive play, as well as being a reasonably exciting tool for those people that don't want to make their constructs destructibly accessible, but would still like to build

and the other possibility that occurred to me, that could really create a sense of immersion, albeit being somewhat alarming, is what if your free built constructs were destructible TO NATURAL DISASTERS? OR SERVER EVENTS?...what if, for example, a tornado blew through your home, but your kinnies could all come to the rescue some day and help you "rebuild"

sure, it would be disheartening to watch the destruction, but at least in a game, it's a reversible condition that can become a very powerful and entertaining community event.

in short, I don't think that making player built constructs destructible *needs* to be terrible - I think it can be very valuable, provided there are...safeguards...put in place for those people that don't want to have to face the issue of having to rebuild over this, that or the other thing

although...I wouldn't discount the value of destructibility. As much as I loved each and every lego creation I made, even the best ones I only kept for a period of time - then chunk chunk drop drop back into the box they went so I could build better and better things

I'm constantly reminded of one of the more profound ideas of art - the native american sand paintings (and some other cultures) - they build these elaborate (and frequently gorgeous) designs by pouring crushed colors of sand through their fingers - they can take hours or days to build them - and they're all INTENDED TO BE TEMPORARY - they're *meant* to be destroyed, cast back out into the sands, once the ceremony is complete.

I don't know why, but I find that particular idea quite...inspiring. art intended to be appreciated for it's existence and it's effort, not it's permanency. I'm not saying that building lego castles in Everquest next is the same thing, but you *could* arguably take some solace from the sense that perhaps the great and beautiful things you build can have the greatest value of their artistry in the effort of building them, and not in their permanency. Just a thought...

[Kiralynn]

Here's how I look at it. We only have so many hours in our lives. We must choose to spend them wisely. If I spend hour upon hour building something in the game, I want to spend even more hours enjoying it. Otherwise, I'll feel cheated. If I was creating structures in some kind of competitive fort-building game, then I would derive fun from seeing how well my structures survived attacks. If I was creating structures for roleplay, I'd be really upset if it was knocked down. As long as the building system matches the game's intent, and the game is respectful of our time, it should work out fine.

[Byrcha]

I've often thought of a model much as described above: destructable-by-choice, but with some level of balance (e.g., if it takes X hours to build, it should take X hours to destroy, or maybe even X+n hours to destroy). A dynamic world where players are defending or attacking buildable/destroyable structures would be fantastic -- if there is a balance. Sadly, it means there has to be a balance not only of PvP factions/sides, and not just overall #s, but in #players online involved in an incursion at a given moment. There might be 10X as many "good" players as "evil" players overall, but if the evil players outnumber at a particular time (say 3:00am servertime) or in total-hours-played then the good-works will be ruined. Many players log in for a couple hours and don't want to constantly rebuild, they just want to have fun (hence the PvP zones being set aside from non-PvP zones). But I think it could be made to work even if there are relatively few safe zones (e.g. the four LOTRO starter areas).

Now, what if there was a model where it is something like an instance and you fill in with NPCs whenever there is some kind of invasion ... maybe it would work. (Aside: there could be a high price of some kind to even start such an invasion, either money or time, or other checks such that you couldn't just bypass high-level frontline targets to go rampage in the newbie area for example; e.g., you'd have to spend game-time to build a warband, not just 5min on GLFF.) Say there is an invasion of 100 evil players into a zone which only has 50 good players marked as ready/able/willing to defend that area -- well, just generate an additional 50 good NPCs who can even things up (or 5 very-high-level NPCs, or whatever). It would be a much more realistic/dynamic model, if they could get the balance right. It would give players something much more meaningful to fight over/for; imagine actually having to consider defending your housing neighborhood. What if Bree was attacked or Rivendell was besieged, ala the skirmishes ... and they could actually fall? What if you could really take down GoblinTown or raze Angmar once and for all? Stakes are suddenly a little different, aren't they? If they fell they could be rebuilt later (ala Hytbold, but everyone combines to rebuild *one* Hytbold, not one for each player) and defend them again, lest they be destroyed again. It couldn't work in LOTRO, given the linear structure and the adherence to lore, except maybe in the Moors. But it could work in a sandbox world where there is only the history which is made by the players going forward. It would be neat to play that history, where you can see the ruins of earlier wars (maybe you were there, maybe you helped rebuild, maybe you helped destroy, maybe you changed allegiences). It could actually be a community-building scenario, not just a massive raid mechanic, if done correctly. You could actually become a leader, rallying other players, building/destroying great works, maybe even actual/final victory (and a server reset, with non-combatants just copied over as if nothing had happened to them). It would be quite a gamble for a developer to try it, but imagine the $$$ if they actually got it right ...

[Galenhir]

Hey All! I'm glad someone else started an EverQuest thread already because I had just come here to do so.

I definitely will be taking part in EverQuest Landmark. EverQuest Next RGP will be a separate game from Landmark. Landmark is the crafting/building world... one of the most amazing things is that you will be able to import templates you make on Landmark and sell them to other players etc...

I am really excited about creativity, social aspect and exploration that will make Landmark unique. Also the potential for awesome Machinima videos and emergent storytelling is limitless. I have a feeling Harperella and some others I know in the kin would love this.

Anyway there are loads of great Landmark articles and videos now on the internets, but I suggest you watch this livestream with the devs that just came out today.

http://www.twitch.tv/everquestnext/b/479480042 - (skip to about 3 minute mark in video as its dead air before that)

How awesome would it be to able to start a LMB guild in Landmark & EQN?!

[Floradine]

Beorbrand wrote:

OH man. Basically, if they make adult legos within an MMO, I'm going to be hooked. They have to be legitimate legos though, and bullies are not allowed to bust them unless I can fix them with one single click of my mouse. I had once built this insanely elaborate waterfall cave house in Morrowind I was just so very proud of. I would love to have it still and to have been able to share it with others.

I got the Trailblazer Pack for EQ Landmark the other day and also watched some videos. In this video they explain a bit how it all will work:

(edit: Just saw that's actually the same video Galenhir linked to)

You can build alone or together with friends and your creations are protected from destruction by others. And if you don't like your neighborhood (because you want fantasy and they are all science fiction or contemporary stuff (which is all allowed) you can just move elsewhere. It looks like a dream is coming true.

[Floradine]

Now we must convince them that they totally need a General Midi music system....

[Dannigan]

Floradine wrote:

Now we must convince them that they totally need a General Midi music system....

Flo, sometimes you really hit the nail perfectly on the head. I couldn't agree more. =)

Honor and fun,
Dannigan a.k.a. Gori

[Floradine]

EverStock

Sounds good to me :D

[Galenhir]

Floradine wrote:

Now we must convince them that they totally need a General Midi music system....

Hi Flora! Might you be Inuri on the Alpha forums?! :)

[Byrcha]

Floradine wrote:

EverStock

Quick! Slap a trademark/copyright/thing on that name right away!

[Floradine]

Galenhir wrote:

Floradine wrote: Now we must convince them that they totally need a General Midi music system.... Hi Flora! Might you be Inuri on the Alpha forums?! :)

Yes, TheMinstrel ;D