The environment destruction of EQ Next doesn't really add to my interest. Chopping down trees is cool but it worked in Vanguard without Voxels.
I agree with your point as far as it goes. Vanguard, however, doesn't let you knock down castles... and there is an in game video of a giant iron golem doing just that. It doesn't let you blow up a bridge with enemies on it, dropping them into the area below - again, another in game example shown at SOE Live.
You're certainly allowed to not be excited about this. Maybe it's just not a big deal to you. It is a pretty big deal to many gamers, though. To me, too. :) The only real question is how much instancing will it require and how long will the damage persist. If the world fixes itself every 2 minutes, that's going to break immersion pretty quickly. To me, that's going to be that hard part to get right. Keeping the world from being, as several others put it, a blasted moonscape without having it autorepair itself every couple minutes. If they can strike a decent balance or figure a way to allow the cool factor to still be in there while limiting griefing jerks from ruining things for everyone else... because there will ALWAYS be people in any online game that just want to do whatever they can to take enjoyment away from others. Internet anonymity has many advantages and our privacy rights are amazing, but this is an unfortunate side effect of it.
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm fairly sure they're trying to make a game that can repeat their success with the original EQ. A company doesn't take the kinds of risks SOE is with this game by integrating so much new tech and going against accepted tropes in the genre without expecting big success. Certainly they want to appeal to a younger audience, but let's face it, I'm no spring chicken anymore and I've been a fan of anime for over 25 years now. This anime-esque art style doesn't just appeal to kids and teens...
Most assuredly. The reason I think there could be a significant push by SOE to tap younger market, is:
1) It's growing
2) WoW was the magical 1st mmo for a lot of players and that's good for retention as well as those players forming a sticky community around a persistent game.
3) The graphics shown.
4) Minecraft was already v popular and EQ:N could be the next logical leap for these players?
That's not to say other demographics are not also targeted: Including EQ1,2 players and tbh any mmorpg players out there.
It seems like I read that the persistent damage would last based on how many people are in the area. So if its just your group around maybe the castle stays broken the whole time you're there. If a bunch of groups are around it repairs in 5 min...or so.
I watched all of the official stuff and the panels AND a bunch of interviews and didn't see anything about that... but it sounds awesome. :) It makes sense that if they have an instanced dungeon, they wouldn't need to repair the damage as quickly.
The environment destruction of EQ Next doesn't really add to my interest. Chopping down trees is cool but it worked in Vanguard without Voxels.I agree with your point as far as it goes. Vanguard, however, doesn't let you knock down castles... and there is an in game video of a giant iron golem doing just that. It doesn't let you blow up a bridge with enemies on it, dropping them into the area below - again, another in game example shown at SOE Live.
And castles are destroyable structures in Pathfinder Online as currently described, no Voxels needed.
If PFO has buildable bridges (which I hope), those should be destroyable, and Voxels aren't needed for falling.Voxels is just a way to have a consistent visual result of partial damage that doesn't require hand-tuning per object.
A non-Voxel approach very well may allow a partially destroyed castle wall to develop holes/cracks that allow passage thru them.
It doesn't require Voxels to allow modifying the terrain surface or even for digging tunnels,
and a specific object-tuned, non-Voxel approach to progressive damage may very well look much better than a Voxel approach anyways.
Implementing Voxels doesn't seem likely to make it any easier to achieve the desired gameplay or a better quality version of that gameplay,
and it seems to require specific compensatory mechanism in order to prevent that desired gameplay from being sabotaged and made impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exciting times again for MMOs (finally), and I'm equally excited by both EQN and of course PFO's approach to the game type.
Seems as though EQN is gambling that an action MMO will catch on. While I'm enthused as I'm far more a console gamer than anything else (and this is sure to be announced for Playstation 4), there will be a major MMO/pc gamer backlash I'm sure.
Interesting days ahead!
The environment destruction of EQ Next doesn't really add to my interest. Chopping down trees is cool but it worked in Vanguard without Voxels.I agree with your point as far as it goes. Vanguard, however, doesn't let you knock down castles... and there is an in game video of a giant iron golem doing just that. It doesn't let you blow up a bridge with enemies on it, dropping them into the area below - again, another in game example shown at SOE Live.And castles are destroyable structures in Pathfinder Online as currently described, no Voxels needed.
If PFO has buildable bridges (which I hope), those should be destroyable, and Voxels aren't needed for falling.
Voxels is just a way to have a consistent visual result of partial damage that doesn't require hand-tuning per object.
A non-Voxel approach very well may allow a partially destroyed castle wall to develop holes/cracks that allow passage thru them.
It doesn't require Voxels to allow modifying the terrain surface or even for digging tunnels,
and a specific object-tuned, non-Voxel approach to progressive damage may very well look much better than a Voxel approach anyways.
Implementing Voxels doesn't seem likely to make it any easier to achieve the desired gameplay or a better quality version of that gameplay,
and it seems to require specific compensatory mechanism in order to prevent that desired gameplay from being sabotaged and made impossible.
Hmmm... have you read the responses from the two Devs that posted in this very thread? From their responses, it sure doesn't sound like their world is destructible. The only way to have destructible castles/bridges in a game without voxels is to have some prescripted event that causes this.
In most modern MMO's(including, it sounds like, PFO) you need to do one single specific thing(usually part of a quest or event) to blow something up. In EQN, anyone with an ability that can blow up a patch of ground can blow up a bridge. That is an enormous difference. You may not be interested or excited about this, but I am. The idea of using terrain as part of tactical combat seems both epic and awesome!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we can't figure out is how much instancing is going to be a part of EQ Next. With destructible terrain, if it's not highly instanced, then the higher the character density the more destruction the world will be subjected to. From where we're sitting, we think the game has to be very highly instanced, or it will just be a ruined moonscape. That seems to argue against the first "M".
If it is as easily built as destroyed it would not remain a moonscape. Druids could grow forests. Stonemasons could excavate quarries and build walls. Engineers could build aqueducts and roads. Farmers could raise fields of corn. Houses could be built and razed.
There is considerable potential, given not every soul is an Attila.