EverQuest Sequel Shows Complexity, Ditches PvP

Thanks to GameSpy for its hands-on preview of Sony Online's forthcoming PC MMO EverQuest II, as the author discusses the graphics ("EverQuest II is one of the most beautiful games in development... Every square inch begs to be explored"), the play style ("EQ2 has a smaller, more intimate feel, more like tabletop roleplaying games centered on small parties"), and the complexity ("Everyone starts on the same island, then has to choose allegiance to one of two main cities (and belief systems!) From there, more and more options open up, sort of like an inverted gameplay pyramid.") Elsewhere, over at EQ2 Stratics there's further confirmation from devs that: "There are no plans for a PvP [Player vs. Player] server at release. There is no ETA on when or if we will ever have one."

Comments

So?

[obeythefist]

It's still going to be a levelling treadmill. People will still farm loot.

But it will look prettier and so it will garner more subscriptions for Sony.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Golias]

There is nothing more challenging than playing vs another human being

Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being. There is no skill involved in the combat system of these games, apart from the group tactics of fighting large armies of NPC mobs. If you win a PVP match-up in Everquest, AC, or whatever, you have accomplished pretty much nothing. You won because you went into the fight with the more powerful PVP character.

If you want be "challenged" by other people, go outside and play golf, tennis, basketball, or at the very least play an FPS game on your computer. MMORPG PvP is a joke.

Re:No PvP = no subscription for me

[Psychochild]

Correction: There are few things less challenging than playing an MMORPG dual against another human being.

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased since I run my own PvP-focused game, Meridian 59, but I'm going to have to disagree with this assertion. While it may feel ultimately hollow in many games, there are some games out there that focus on providing an interesting experience when fighting against other players; it depends on the game.

Fighting against another player can be a lot of fun because other players can come up with creative strategies and use their abilities in interesting ways in order to fool their opponent. In Meridian 59, you can take over an opponent's guild hall if you can sneak in behind another player. So, one player used a polymorph spell to change himself into a small monster (a dreaded giant rat of all things!) and used the size difference to hide easier.

In another example, there's a spell called "Mark of Dishonor" which reduces the target's vigor if they are evil. Since vigor is important in regeneration, this can be a crippling blow to an opponent. However the spell is an enchantment that prevents you from recasting the spell. However, you can cast a spell that is normally helpful that removes negative enchantments to remove Mark of Dishonor and cast it on an opponent again. This strategy has the disadvantage that if an ally is trying to cast a harmful spell, like Hold, on the target, you could remove that as well. We simply can't program an A.I. to come up with strategies like that on the fly and realize the consequences of the strategy.

So, in M59 you have challenge, skill, and the accomplishment of vanquishing a worthy opponent. A bit contrary to your assertion.

Of course, there are games where this isn't true. Many games are dominated by character level and equipment. A weak opponent has no chance to fight against a much more powerful opponent. When your only strategy is to have a higher level and use your most powerful damage abilities repeatedly, then the game becomes shallow and superficial. Victory means nothing since it was mathematically guaranteed before the first blow was even landed.

Have fun,

Not immature, just different.

[Mongoose Disciple]

PvP attracts the immature set..

That's not entirely true.

Here's a paper written a long time ago about different player types in MUDs. It holds for other games as well. If you dig around, you can also probably find a test to tell you what type you are.

Granted, I think the author's own biases show. He describes the "killer" type, which would be the type drawn to PvP, as about griefing. I don't think that's true, though it might certainly seem so from an achiever standpoint. More, I think it's about competition, about an ideal that you're the best because you can and do go out and beat other people, not because you log more hours.

Players of the current crop of MMORPGs are almost universally achievers by Bartle's model. If you wonder why these games turn into super levelling treadmills, the answer is fairly simple: It's because that's what their core audience genuinely wants. They might bitch about the timesink that it is, but their choice to continue playing demonstrates more clearly than words that they anything but despise it.