Landmark: Impacting Others' Gameplay (Question Inside)

Smells like server types? - I like small havoc which is easy to fix. Don't wanna do a masterpiece for ages and coming back next day to find it ruins *shivers*
Reminds me of old muds <3 - There were insanely strong NPCs but it was possible to breach guilds fortress but it took lots of coordination and skill (and was fun, well at least if you weren't the one being raided).
Perhaps there would be option to have Limited amount of safe build sites? Like you can have one you do now and then at safe and perhaps another but rest would be free for damaging? Could approve death and destruction then .

Cheers

since this is landmark they are talking about... minimal is what i would like.. dont really need to see other's creations. i dont want much interaction with them, if they are good i will see those in NEXT.. i dont want to have found this great rare ore while tunneling through a mountain.. then stop 3' in cuz it runs under someones plot. the ground heals in like 20 mins.. why cant i tunnel through someones plot? unless they are there watching me it will be healed by the time they get back.

as landmark is part of the "production chain testing" we will most naturally be needing to check if and how our weapons work - even in pvp - so yes, we will have to do a little of that as well. Like it or not but this is where "Balancing" comes into "creative process" so either test now in eqnl or live with heavy alterations to our "creation" later on in eqn. Ok, will probably have to be done anyways due to balancing but you will want to work out a little more than just the optics of your gear, don't you?

That's one of the more interesting things about the split between Landmark and EQNext.
The combat animations might be the same, but with the open world of creatures and dynamic AI, some things built in Landmark might not make sense in EQNext.
I personally see them as two, completely separate games.
Landmark is a building tool which enables players to make things for EQNext, just as a Lego set allows you to mock up a scale model of your home. Yet Legos can do SO MUCH more than merely building a scale model of your home.

I think that the similarities between the two worlds will allow for analogs, but that everything going into Next will still need to be tested and checked within the EQNext environment.

Do you want to give all NPCs a time out too or only the PCs? Your whining about PvP is griefing my game experience and the game isn't finished yet. There aren't as many game that encourage PvP as you think! Please leave EQ and play The Sims instead!

I don't think you should be able to negatively affect anyone's game play unless permission is granted or they choose to place themselves in specific locations dedicated for that kind of content.

If players want a certain amount of land to generate cities to siege wars, conflicts, or some kind of RP game play, sure go ahead and let them. However, when people want to just build and experiment without griefers coming in to wreck their stuff (since there are and will be plenty of them), I don't see why it would be unreasonable to not allow those scenarios to happen.

From what the devs have started though, it doesn't seem like that will happen much to any degree anyways, unless they have different servers that allow that kind of game play. But then this entire conversation is pretty much moot at that point regardless *shrug*, it's pretty much a win win for everyone and I don't think many would care a great deal.

I completely agree with Elleon. I heard of a feature where land and structures can heal themselves with the passage of time, if this was included in player structures that would be great - but I'm most definitely hoping that by default, player built structures are indestructible unless specifically willingly flagged by the creator themselves to be used in such a manner. The idea is also appealing to have a zone of pvp and non pvp that you would be forewarned about if it was a zone allowing damage to created structures.

I don't know one of my favorite things about ultima online was the freedom to do anything and the players usually united as one to situate the problems, I rather players create their rules in game, players protecting players from reds - it adds excitement because you never know what will happen.

It's personal preference really. The problem I have with it is the fact that the majority of players that do enjoy this kind of thing, from my experience, have no other objective to do so than grief players. I don't spend much time on RP servers so they are still a mystery to me, but when it comes to others that include this kind of mechanic, it's is extremely rare, so rare I can't even really remember a single scenario, in which these players have acted with any other purpose that to just annoy the other player. Most of it's just completely nonsensical, useless griefing just for that sake of doing so.

There isn't anything exciting about that to me. The entire concept is fairly boring in my opinion. *shrug* if they deem it necessary to create another server to cater to this crowd though, than go ahead. I'm not really against that.

I think there could be content made where players can totally affect others game play, but also where players who do not want to be contentious have the ability not to partake in it.

We have the Arena right? just expand on that- Maybe zones where if your not careful players that are Kos to you can attack you , and you them. This could also add to the survival part of the game...and weather even, See Broon East Karana running in the dark a noob while its raining - that terrified me and I have nightmares still. Then looking for corpse.

Instead of just a broon type and other mobs with extremely good AI, have real players, including yourself able to be in zone.

These types of zones could lets say have a higher reward system, maybe a safe village or market in the middle.. or not.
Either or these types of creative zones add so much to the role playing experience. EQ nilla was able in some ways capture this , but they did not expand on it enough, or with a greater vision then could have been.

The hard part is getting to the prize my friends - That's Adventure!

If these zones were separate and players weren't forced into going through them, I wouldn't be against it. However this increased reward system and just the zones themselves screams griefing/camping grounds. They would undoubtedly have to place limitations on what's in there, otherwise it will just be the same old story of this guild or group camping the place. I'm not sure how it adds to the whole to creative incentives for that kind of game play.

This thread is specific to Landmark, so no arena. In fact, Landmark won't have combat at launch at all (maybe later).

Seriously????

Why in hell would I ever want to play a game where other players could negatively affect my game experience????

PvP or other conflict models ONLY ever work when all the players agree to the conflict, and in such a case, the actions of other players, however boorish or griefing, are part of the game that is bargained for, and thus cannot be said to negatively affect one's gameplay.

Some posters have commented that "node stealing" or "mob stealing" would be acceptable levels of conflict. Ideally, this MAY be so. However, there is often the case where more advanced players frequent lower level areas for the sole purpose of interfering with others' harvesting or hunting. Having advanced harvesting skill/equipment or faster speed to get to a node already targeted by another player is griefing to an unacceptable state. Thus, EQ2 early on had to devise ways to enable a "first-come first-served" model for harvest nodes and mobs, as well as an encounter locking mode to keep others from interfering with a mob that one had already engaged.

If it is not controlled carefully, there are a large variety of player interactions that can negatively affect one's gaming experience. The trick is to determine which are minor and not worth the programming effort to prevent, and which are major and will ultimately cause people to leave the game.

For example, the game Pirates of the Burning Sea is essentially a PvP sailing ship game, with full-out loss of very expensive game resources. There are ways for players to avoid the PvP aspects of the game (other than accidental or inadvertent entry into PvP areas), but often the choice to strictly avoid the PvP areas will lead to players not being able to enter certain areas or complete quests for days and weeks at a time. Over the years that the game has been in existence, it has struggled with how to entice neophyte players into PvP. However, with so many veteran players who are more or less automatic victors at PvP, and with the expense of securing a decent ship to engage in PvP (not to mention practice until one is proficient), most players choose to not engage in the PvP aspect of the game. Since most of the end-game content requires PvP play in order to participate, many players spend time advancing their characters to the end level, only to quit soon thereafter when it becomes obvious that they are unable or unwilling to spend the time and effort to either support continually losing at PvP or become good enough to win consistently. Most players do not find enough enjoyment in the limited roles they can play outside of the PvP model. Thus, the game has languished and is currently trying to be resurrected by a small group of programmers formerly employed by the original designers. Unfortunately, they seem to be locked into the "must PvP" idea of the original designers, and have no real plan to expand gameplay to attract a more diverse and remunerative player base.

Sorry for the digression. Bottom line -- allowing random players to negatively affect my gameplay makes me a former player of the game.

In landmark I honestly do not care one way or the other, but in EQN I would hope there is an abundance of PvP. Taking part in Guild castle building should open you to GvG sieges. Rewards feel so much better when there is risk involved to those goals. Having a hugely destructable world without PvP would be a huge waste.

I chose Never/Not At All

If there is a specific PvP area for say... land wars O.O Cool. But otherwise this should be a PvP server type of deal. Some people don't want to be exposed to this type of experience and should be respected.

I'd be ok with the option for destruction as long as there is some sort of optional thing for you to enter into it.

Like a PvP server, flagging your area, etc.

I hate to hijack this thread, but is there somewhere to find out basic information like chat commands ect? I see there is no where on the forums to ask questions. Thank you

hello

we can change commands in games ? don't want q,w,z, etc .... Thx : )

I would have to vote for: Flagged, Friends list in any way -- Why? Because this is an escape world for many people who want to get away from harrassment, death, bullying, etc... Let them run the world without care and let who wants the mayham have it.

Maybe EQNL can give players multiple plots next to each other. One can be for building their own plot which no one can deface.

Then they could have another plot, that actually rewards them for building content for others to be challenged by. These people would have to fight defenses, npc's mobs, weather, traps designed by the player to be challenges to other players. People who participate in it, and conquer it can obviously destroy the building. Getting their kicks by destroying another's hard work. But if they fall to the defenses, the defacer loses out. Allowing the builder the last laugh. Maybe he could see the body of the player who died. Obviously many bodies equals much enjoyment for the builder. Either way the builder of the player challengeable plot would get mats, money and resources for each person who faces their challenge content.

With such a system those who chose to build on their plot designed to challenge other players would be rewarded for their time and effort with mats, money etc so they can continue building. They could chose these resources to buy items offered by other players. Or to build more stuff.

It probably won't be implemented, but it is an idea to hopefully keep the builders happy, and the defacers happy.