Ok look. Take either of the 3 sandbox mmos out there right now DF, MO and EvE and ask yourself this. Is the game built around FFA PvP or is FFA PvP an option in the game? Because all I here from all there games is the lack of more players to make the worlds seem livelier. Well that's becasue the main focus is on balancing things around PvP and not around anything else from the Bartle's view.
One of my all time joys in UO was finding treasure maps and sailing out to locate them and saving enough gold to afford a stone keep. I decorated my home with crafted items and veteran items. Yes I PvPed with 2 of my buddies, but it was only because we role played ninjas (black clothes and all). That type of freedom to get lost in the world cannot be found in today's assortment of mmos. Becasue it's all about some type of forced something. Force grouping, forced to watch your back or forced to fight or be farmed.
[/b][/quote]
EvE is not built around FFA PvP, it only allows for FFA PvP... but I guess that's very hard to understand for people who never played it.
In EvE Online 80% of the gameplay is all about PvE... gathering ressources, crafting items, exploration and shooting NPCs.
In EvE Online 50% of the players never leave high-sec-space, but only run missions in total safety, doing industry-tasks (crafting, selling, transporting). Another 25% of players do nothing else then PvE-stuff in wormholes, low- ornull-sec.
You really need to understand, that EvE is not all about PvP, it let's players choose to play the game 100% as a PvE-game without ever facing PvP, if they don't want to.
And that's exactly what a sandbox is all about tbh. A sandbox let's the players decide what to do, and this includes FFA PvP and doesn't rule it out.
I agree with you.
I believe if CCP took away safe areas, and made the entire gaming area FFA, EVE sub numbers would dry up. PVE gamers, and Traders, dont spend 15 a month to be griefed.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Only reading the OPs stance, I actually tend to agree with you. I am a HUGE fan of Sandbox PvP games: Shadowbane, Darkfall, EVE, etc.
I believe properly implementing PvE into a game like that would see a larger sub base and possibly a future with more sandbox games of that same ilk.
A suggestion I have is to make a "Peaceful" faction that plays a large role in Economy, Territory, and directly influences the PvPers. They would basically be small villages that PvE, Farm, and craft. They would be unable to be ganked themselves, but would act as strategic points for people to capture. These neutral villages would be like resourcing points for warring clans and what not.
Awesome idea imo, but who knows...
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
My soul wept a little when I read these two statements. It is now more than obvious to me that you and I are definitely on different wavelengths. Fair enough. I will continue my senseless driveling with some of the other posters that seem to be more in tune with the discussion at hand.
What? During the time that I played UO, you basically would grind skills to get a tank mage - you would take up crafting to make something for friends and to sell - you would decorate a house - basically camping spawns for money.
There really was not much to do in the game. You either slaughtered NPCs or you slaughtered PCs.
It was a 2D chatroom with little to do. It became a 3D chatroom with little to do.
"Hey, what are you doing?"
"Letting a gargoyle whack on me so I can use bandages."
"Cool! I should do that too."
Um...yeah.
"Hey, what are you doing?"
"Trying to get this chair placed just right."
"Cool! You're house is really coming along great!"
Um...yeah.
"Hey, what are you doing?"
"There are some Reds whacking some new players. We're getting a group together to go hunt them down."
"Oh baby!"
So... yeah... like I said, I only played from T2A through before Blackthorn was released.
Most of us left for other games - some went to EQ where they had stuff to do. The girlfriend and I left for Anarchy Online. I could not get her to play Asheron's Call which I had been enjoying. Both of us tried and hated EQ initially. Eventually I went to Shadowbane while she went to EQ. Then came WoW...
I HAD to comment on this as I just couldn't take it anymore reading some of your posts here!!!! Did you REALLY just say UO was a game with nothing to do and EQ was a game with lots more to do? I love both games to death....but EQ generally had 1 thing to do only: Kill and camp mobs for loot.
Sorry, your argument is so backwards to me it's mind boggling. In fact, even your scenario illustrates there are lots of things to do in UO lol.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
I was not going to reply further in the thread, but yeah - the inclusion of EVE with DF and MO threw me on a few points.
DF is not a sandbox. It is an Action MMO - designed from the start to be a PvP game. It was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
Likewise, MO is not a sandbox. It is a MMOFPS - once again designed from the start to be a PvP game. It too was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
They are both PvP games. They do not belong in sandbox discussions.
EVE Online on the other hand is a sandbox. The PvP in EVE is more complex - it is not simply about combat, territory control, or the like. It is not an Action MMO. It is not a MMOFPS. Many people call it a game of internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS. As already noted in this thread and in various other threads, the most cutthroat PvP in EVE generally takes place on the Market.
Trading. Mining. R&D. Industry. Courier. Missions. Sovereignty. Null Sec. Pirating. Factional Warfare. Player-Owned Stations. Planetary Interaction. Politics. So many paths...acknowledging the PvP nature of the universe.
The general goal of most players is power in some form.
Yet you have people that have never been to Null Sec. You have people that have never been to Low Sec. You have people that have never even targeted another player. But yes, you have people at the opposite end of the spectrum.
It is a sandbox.
If the OP is basing the title of the thread on games such as DF and MO, then the OP's part in this thread has been meaningless. Neither game is a sandbox. They are two examples of PvP games.
As to whether PvP needs to be a design focus (not the solitary focus, but a definite focus) of a sandbox, there can be no arguing that. Will there be more? One need only look at a game such as EVE to see that to be the case.
Hrmm, I'm being too positive about EVE here...lol. Oh yeah, Incarna is useless fluff that will lead to people being disappointed, will not change the underlying fact that EVE is internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS, and the developer time could have been better spent working on EVE itself instead of what is obviously a thinly veiled attempt to beta the avatar system for World of Darkness...
...lol, there - better. Still, EVE is one of the best games if not the best game on the market.
edit: I should offer the disclaimer that I am not currently subscribed to EVE (waiting for Incarna to be finished so they can return to working on EVE) and am currently only subscribed to City of Heroes. Sometimes you just need to make a skimpy dressed female toon that punches things and knocks them across the room...lol. WHAM! POW!
Darkfall and MO designed from the start not to be sandboxes ey? What games were you following? Both Darkfall and MO were advertised to be sandboxes "just like good old UO" before they came out and for a good deal of time after they were out. I fully believe that the developers INTENDED them to be sandboxes. I actually followed both of these game before release, and I was excited for the next coming of UO.
However, a while after the games were released it became clear that neither of them lived up to the developers' intentions. They both had too much of a focus on FFA PvP, and not enough restrictions/penalties on it. This attracted the "I play UO like an FPS" community, and the games started to devolve into as you say MMOFPS action games.
Now, at least Darkfall is advertised as a PvP action game and not a sandbox. The developers realized this is where the game was going and (correctly) shifted the marketing that way.
So...with that information, can't you see how someone who wanted the UO experience that both DF and MO claimed they would have would be disappointed when the games came out? That is basically the crux of the OP. Both DF and MO failed to become sandboxes ala UO because they focused so much on unrestricted FFA PvP.
I hope you're not trying to argue that EVE is lacking in player-base? Which other game pretty much always has over 20,000 concurrent users, and can often push the 30 to 40,000 player mark?
Building your game "around" PvP is exactly how a sandbox game should work. However in saying that I'm not saying that you should force everyone to participate, or make it the only viable option or pursuit in the game, instead the developers need to consider PvP as an important and central aspect of the game, rather than 'tacking it on" later as an afterthought.
I was not going to reply further in the thread, but yeah - the inclusion of EVE with DF and MO threw me on a few points.
DF is not a sandbox. It is an Action MMO - designed from the start to be a PvP game. It was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
Likewise, MO is not a sandbox. It is a MMOFPS - once again designed from the start to be a PvP game. It too was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
They are both PvP games. They do not belong in sandbox discussions.
EVE Online on the other hand is a sandbox. The PvP in EVE is more complex - it is not simply about combat, territory control, or the like. It is not an Action MMO. It is not a MMOFPS. Many people call it a game of internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS. As already noted in this thread and in various other threads, the most cutthroat PvP in EVE generally takes place on the Market.
Trading. Mining. R&D. Industry. Courier. Missions. Sovereignty. Null Sec. Pirating. Factional Warfare. Player-Owned Stations. Planetary Interaction. Politics. So many paths...acknowledging the PvP nature of the universe.
The general goal of most players is power in some form.
Yet you have people that have never been to Null Sec. You have people that have never been to Low Sec. You have people that have never even targeted another player. But yes, you have people at the opposite end of the spectrum.
It is a sandbox.
If the OP is basing the title of the thread on games such as DF and MO, then the OP's part in this thread has been meaningless. Neither game is a sandbox. They are two examples of PvP games.
As to whether PvP needs to be a design focus (not the solitary focus, but a definite focus) of a sandbox, there can be no arguing that. Will there be more? One need only look at a game such as EVE to see that to be the case.
Hrmm, I'm being too positive about EVE here...lol. Oh yeah, Incarna is useless fluff that will lead to people being disappointed, will not change the underlying fact that EVE is internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS, and the developer time could have been better spent working on EVE itself instead of what is obviously a thinly veiled attempt to beta the avatar system for World of Darkness...
...lol, there - better. Still, EVE is one of the best games if not the best game on the market.
edit: I should offer the disclaimer that I am not currently subscribed to EVE (waiting for Incarna to be finished so they can return to working on EVE) and am currently only subscribed to City of Heroes. Sometimes you just need to make a skimpy dressed female toon that punches things and knocks them across the room...lol. WHAM! POW!
In my opinion, DF and MO are certainly PvP heavy games and sandboxes. I think you are alone in your separation of PvP games and sandbox games. You are entitled to state your opinion but don't state it as a fact.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I HAD to comment on this as I just couldn't take it anymore reading some of your posts here!!!! Did you REALLY just say UO was a game with nothing to do and EQ was a game with lots more to do? I love both games to death....but EQ generally had 1 thing to do only: Kill and camp mobs for loot.
Sorry, your argument is so backwards to me it's mind boggling. In fact, even your scenario illustrates there are lots of things to do in UO lol.
UO before Blackthorn...
...EQ surpassed UO subs within around 6 months.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Darkfall and MO designed from the start not to be sandboxes ey? What games were you following? Both Darkfall and MO were advertised to be sandboxes "just like good old UO" before they came out and for a good deal of time after they were out. I fully believe that the developers INTENDED them to be sandboxes. I actually followed both of these game before release, and I was excited for the next coming of UO.
However, a while after the games were released it became clear that neither of them lived up to the developers' intentions. They both had too much of a focus on FFA PvP, and not enough restrictions/penalties on it. This attracted the "I play UO like an FPS" community, and the games started to devolve into as you say MMOFPS action games.
Now, at least Darkfall is advertised as a PvP action game and not a sandbox. The developers realized this is where the game was going and (correctly) shifted the marketing that way.
So...with that information, can't you see how someone who wanted the UO experience that both DF and MO claimed they would have would be disappointed when the games came out? That is basically the crux of the OP. Both DF and MO failed to become sandboxes ala UO because they focused so much on unrestricted FFA PvP.
From what I have read about both games, they were designed as PvP games from the start - whatever else was in the game was designed to go around that PvP. They were designed as PvP games with a little more than just your typical FPS mechanics.
Yes, there was marketing hype trying to draw in the UO crowds by saying the games were sandboxes... but they were nothing like UO in that element. It was false advertising - plain and simple.
To base a dislike of FFA PvP off of marketing... is not logical.
Think most people could agree that BS marketing has ruined the good name of MMOs in general, no?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
In my opinion, DF and MO are certainly PvP heavy games and sandboxes. I think you are alone in your separation of PvP games and sandbox games. You are entitled to state your opinion but don't state it as a fact.
How can you say I am alone in my opinion when it is supported by everybody that has agreed with the OP, including the OP, in this thread?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Depends a lot on the community I think. There were many times (UO) where I wouldn't get PKd. A lot of people if they saw you were newer or didn't have much of value wouldn't bother for the most part. If they did, a lot of times they would leave stuff for you to get back home (recall regs, etc). Hell, sometimes you would strike up conversations with some of em. People don't like sandbox games because they're too challenging for the most part. They want to be told where to go, when to do it, and how to do it. FFA PvP wouldn't be an issue if MMOs wouldn't put such a huge emphasis on items I think. It was more about skill/skill placement and less about items before.
Depends a lot on the community I think. There were many times (UO) where I wouldn't get PKd. A lot of people if they saw you were newer or didn't have much of value wouldn't bother for the most part. If they did, a lot of times they would leave stuff for you to get back home (recall regs, etc). Hell, sometimes you would strike up conversations with some of em. People don't like sandbox games because they're too challenging for the most part. They want to be told where to go, when to do it, and how to do it. FFA PvP wouldn't be an issue if MMOs wouldn't put such a huge emphasis on items I think. It was more about skill/skill placement and less about items before.
Now that is a definite true sad statement about MMOs in general. They have become more about gear than character. It is one of the hopes of SWTOR for many - that return to character development. It SHOULD also be a key selling point of WoD.
The community change is quite evident as well. Of course, that gets into the discussion of combat mechanics and the like - with one side usually calling the other old farts while the other calls them twitch kiddies. We saw Counter-Strike used as an insult in this thread. There tends to be a difference in the playerbase for those games that have a more FPS-like FFA PvP versus those that do not. FPS games are about fragging, and those games that market toward those players - are going to have games that are about fragging...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
If it wasn't for harsh penalties in FFA PvP sandboxes, and limited PvE options that also could spawn more PvP then maybe FFA PvP sandboxes would be populated by more players and not feel so ruined.
I think we are at the crossroads where developers should be able to program highly intelligent AI for NPC mobs to create real challenges to the player base. Alot of PvPers call PvEers "carebears" because of the assumed ease it is to defeat NPC mobs as opposed to defeated other players.
But since PvP is in all cases owned by those who exploit the games core to kill others the victims of the PvP base will in most cases be bitter about the ease in which they have been disposed of. Inevitably, they blame the developers for this perceived imbalance and decide later to leave the game.
Most of the PvPers that I know refuse to "waste their time" in epic dungeon crawls and the like. Dismissing it as "carebear" though it turns out they lack the skills to beat these NPC bosses. Skill is relative, it would seem.
Limiting PvP to a mini-game or sub-goal of a sandbox-type game in my opinion would be much satisfying to for the whole population. But no more than that.
Developers should be creating next-generation AI where NPC's not only spawn and attack players, but work together as a growing population in its area and simlar to players, building up their villages, hunting for food, raiding player camps and other NPC camps for loot and whatever other goals that can be programmed into them. A little bit of RTS flavor in these MMOs so to speak.
I think we are at the crossroads where developers should be able to program highly intelligent AI for NPC mobs to create real challenges to the player base. Alot of PvPers call PvEers "carebears" because of the assumed ease it is to defeat NPC mobs as opposed to defeated other players.
But since PvP is in all cases owned by those who exploit the games core to kill others the victims of the PvP base will in most cases be bitter about the ease in which they have been disposed of. Inevitably, they blame the developers for this perceived imbalance and decide later to leave the game.
Most of the PvPers that I know refuse to "waste their time" in epic dungeon crawls and the like. Dismissing it as "carebear" though it turns out they lack the skills to beat these NPC bosses. Skill is relative, it would seem.
Limiting PvP to a mini-game or sub-goal of a sandbox-type game in my opinion would be much satisfying to for the whole population. But no more than that.
Developers should be creating next-generation AI where NPC's not only spawn and attack players, but work together as a growing population in its area and simlar to players, building up their villages, hunting for food, raiding player camps and other NPC camps for loot and whatever other goals that can be programmed into them. A little bit of RTS flavor in these MMOs so to speak.
I do not understand why there is the need to attack PvPers like this. You touch upon the valid points regarding NPC AI, yet you distract from that fact with the tirade against those that PvP.
Nobody is denying that there are griefers out there. They feed their epeens with daily dosages of what they consider carebear tears. Yet that is not the entire PvPer playerbase, and deriding one stereotype while using another is kind of off, you know?
NPC AI is a major issue. Mobs that stand around waiting to be farmed. Mobs guarding dungeons that stand less than a stone's throw away watching as you hack down their fellows. Scripted bosses that you could set your watch by. Bosses are gear checks - not skill checks. NPC AI does not play the mobs to their potential in the manner which a DM or GM would play them.
As we mentioned earlier in this thread though, generally speaking - the casual audience of MMORPGs does not want harder mobs. Some even believe that the scripted encounters where all you need to do is read a walkthrough, follow the directions that pop up on your screen from your add-ons, and click the requisite buttons like following a cupcake recipe are too hard.
In another thread I mentioned watching the episode of King of the Hill where Hank takes Bobby hunting at a resort. That is what has become of MMOs.
I would have to disagree with limiting PvP to a mini-game though, even if just discussing combat PvP. I think that what people need is a CCP version of WoW perhaps...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
If you look at attempts in the past to create a sandbox mmo, you can always find that the key that binds them all is the mentality that sandbox mmos need to be PvP or worst yet FFA PvP. And each time they release these mmos with that key mindset of what sandbox mmos are about, they all seem to find themselves doing far less than stellar.
This is due to one over looking fact. Sandbox mmos were never meant to be created around this one parasitic feature. I say parasitic because the true lifeline to keeping sandbox mmos from obtaining a real grasp on the mmo crowd, namely social PvE gamers, are constantly driven out of these types of sandbox games and often with insults following closely behind. Take a look at it this way. Say your social gamers are your PvE crowd, not in the sense of dungeons and raids, but in a sense of player vs. environment. Someone who is looking to carve out a name for him or herself in the wild against nature itself. Maybe with a few friends to make a small village, maybe by themselves. They enjoys havesting, crafting and collecting. Gatherers if you will.
Then you have players who enjoy a more organic challenge from mmos. PvPers. Players that enjoy conflict over cultivation. Thrillseekers that feed on the need to either be the hunted or the hunter. You can call them the hunters of the hunter-gatherer analogy I'm using. But where developers have made their mistakes are in two places:
The first being that all hunters (PvPers) operate on the same wavelength. I can tell you that this is not true. Some PvPers are natural defenders, some are natural leaders and some are impeccable role-players. But developers have made the mistake of thinking they are all gladaitorial in nature. Gladiatorial in the sense that they eat, breathe and live only to find the next fight. So they cater their game world to reflect these views and they create their gameplay that is bound not by proactive choice but reactive.
The other mistake is that they often heavily favor the hunter nature of things in a sandbox mmo but the gatherer side is often shortchanged and often the players themselves feel letdown by the one-sided development of things. So they are left to either adapt a more hunter-like attitude or find something a little less frustrating. Both ways always lead to a breakdown of what the developers really invisioned when they set out to make a sandbox mmo.
What needs to happen is that developers have to put in place incentives to keep gatherers coming back for more. Housing, player economies driven by the backbone of builders, crafters and socializers. And when I say housing, I mean houses that can be seen by all, not these instance zones. And when I say player economies I mean the only items that drop off mobs are raw materials, not epics or better than crafted gear. Make raid bosses drop resources that benefit the entire village, not just the raiders.
We need the scales to tip back to the other side a little bit to balance things out once more for gatherers in sandbox mmos. Enough of this hunter only mentality that has been bringing down the word sandbox year after year.
But I challenge you to name one other sandbox mmo (besides UO and Second Life) that neither the devs or the players brag about the key feature being PvP or FFA PvP.
There are more PVE sandbox games that have come out than FFA PVP sandbox games . .. and I wouldn't ever consider playing one. Have fun with that . .. risky PVE and FFA PVP is where the real fun is.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
In my opinion, DF and MO are certainly PvP heavy games and sandboxes. I think you are alone in your separation of PvP games and sandbox games. You are entitled to state your opinion but don't state it as a fact.
How can you say I am alone in my opinion when it is supported by everybody that has agreed with the OP, including the OP, in this thread?
OP does not separate these games into another category altogether. He only talks about sandboxes with FFA PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
As to whether PvP needs to be a design focus (not the solitary focus, but a definite focus) of a sandbox, there can be no arguing that.
well i will argue that.
I think the sandbox should be about cooperative progression of the world, not about PvP. it should be something like the horizons was at the start - work together to open new options, open new parts of the world, build cities, roads, ....
It is a matter of flavor if one likes a PvP heavy game or a PvE heavy game, but I think it's good to design the game with PvP in mind - even if the the game has its focus in PvE. PvP suffers more at the expense of PvE than the other way around. I don't expect much from a PvE game that has PvP as an add-on. For one thing, PvE is not so fragile balance-wise than PvP is. I believe a game with good PvP can still have a good PvE. -Atleast the sum is greater. PvE should be always better in a game that was specifically designed for it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I HAD to comment on this as I just couldn't take it anymore reading some of your posts here!!!! Did you REALLY just say UO was a game with nothing to do and EQ was a game with lots more to do? I love both games to death....but EQ generally had 1 thing to do only: Kill and camp mobs for loot.
Sorry, your argument is so backwards to me it's mind boggling. In fact, even your scenario illustrates there are lots of things to do in UO lol.
UO before Blackthorn...
...EQ surpassed UO subs within around 6 months.
Yes, I read you said before Blackthorn. I was fortunate enough to play UO since beta. At beta launch, there was still plenty to do.
Wait what? What does EQ vs. UO subs have to do with anything? Ahhhh someone tell me what this guy is talking about!! I get more confused each post!
My only point is that I find it crazy anyone can say UO has less "stuff to do" than EQ did. Meaning: variety! I'm not even talking about which game is better.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
Depends a lot on the community I think. There were many times (UO) where I wouldn't get PKd. A lot of people if they saw you were newer or didn't have much of value wouldn't bother for the most part. If they did, a lot of times they would leave stuff for you to get back home (recall regs, etc). Hell, sometimes you would strike up conversations with some of em. People don't like sandbox games because they're too challenging for the most part. They want to be told where to go, when to do it, and how to do it. FFA PvP wouldn't be an issue if MMOs wouldn't put such a huge emphasis on items I think. It was more about skill/skill placement and less about items before.
They have become more about gear than character. It is one of the hopes of SWTOR for many - that return to character development.
Gear is character. Players desire meaningful things.
Give them a hat and they're a little happy.
Give them a hat which improves their character in meaningful ways and they're happier.
Gameplay function adds meaning. And it defines character.
Clearly there are good and bad ways of implementing this. For example one of the nice traits of EQ2 was something I suggested for WOW at one point: you have your "stats" gear and your "looks" gear, and they're separate so you can get the stats you need while having the look you want. It creates a little disconnect between which item you're technically "wearing" (making it more game-y) but the benefits outweigh that mild confusion imo.
And whatever "character" means to you, that element still exists with or without gear. Or at least it exists to whatever extent it's ever existed in non-PnP gaming.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In my opinion, DF and MO are certainly PvP heavy games and sandboxes. I think you are alone in your separation of PvP games and sandbox games. You are entitled to state your opinion but don't state it as a fact.
How can you say I am alone in my opinion when it is supported by everybody that has agreed with the OP, including the OP, in this thread?
OP does not separate these games into another category altogether. He only talks about sandboxes with FFA PvP.
The OP states that games such as these have ruined the good name of sandbox MMOs. That these games, with their focus on PvP above all else is not what a sandbox MMO is about.
That it did not click that is because they are not sandbox games is beyond me...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
As to whether PvP needs to be a design focus (not the solitary focus, but a definite focus) of a sandbox, there can be no arguing that.
well i will argue that.
I think the sandbox should be about cooperative progression of the world, not about PvP. it should be something like the horizons was at the start - work together to open new options, open new parts of the world, build cities, roads, ....
So you want a SimFantasy? You are describing a co-op version of SimCity, SimEarth, SimETC...
You are describing a job in essence.
Imagine that same world, where there are groups cooperating for their common goals - yet there are people with differeing goals or desires. That is closer to a sandbox than the sociology simulation that you describe.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
It is a matter of flavor if one likes a PvP heavy game or a PvE heavy game, but I think it's good to design the game with PvP in mind - even if the the game has its focus in PvE. PvP suffers more at the expense of PvE than the other way around. I don't expect much from a PvE game that has PvP as an add-on. For one thing, PvE is not so fragile balance-wise than PvP is. I believe a game with good PvP can still have a good PvE. -Atleast the sum is greater. PvE should be always better in a game that was specifically designed for it.
This brings up what I believe to be a cardinal sin of many developers - the attempt at balance for PvP. I do not believe that games should be balanced for PvP. Then again, I have issues with how PvE balance is handled as well.
I do not want my accountant doing my heart surgery. I do not want the surgeon doing my taxes. I do not want to hear football players singing opera. I do not want to watch opera singers playing football.
There is too much focus on trying to balance the specialties instead of balancing the common items that everybody can do and giving enhanced meaning to those specialties.
This thread starts off with a discussion of Hunters vs. Gatherers. Yet, did not the Hunter-Gatherers win out in the end until we ended up switching over to a modern industrial world?
There is too much focus on balancing the wrong thing in my opinion. Games can have equal parts of PvE and PvP, but there is no reason that a single player should expect to be good at everything...
...part of the reason why I believe I said it either in this thread or another, that I would not treat crafting as a secondary profession.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I HAD to comment on this as I just couldn't take it anymore reading some of your posts here!!!! Did you REALLY just say UO was a game with nothing to do and EQ was a game with lots more to do? I love both games to death....but EQ generally had 1 thing to do only: Kill and camp mobs for loot.
Sorry, your argument is so backwards to me it's mind boggling. In fact, even your scenario illustrates there are lots of things to do in UO lol.
UO before Blackthorn...
...EQ surpassed UO subs within around 6 months.
Yes, I read you said before Blackthorn. I was fortunate enough to play UO since beta. At beta launch, there was still plenty to do.
Wait what? What does EQ vs. UO subs have to do with anything? Ahhhh someone tell me what this guy is talking about!! I get more confused each post!
My only point is that I find it crazy anyone can say UO has less "stuff to do" than EQ did. Meaning: variety! I'm not even talking about which game is better.
EQ offered more to the player. Thus EQ had more players.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Depends a lot on the community I think. There were many times (UO) where I wouldn't get PKd. A lot of people if they saw you were newer or didn't have much of value wouldn't bother for the most part. If they did, a lot of times they would leave stuff for you to get back home (recall regs, etc). Hell, sometimes you would strike up conversations with some of em. People don't like sandbox games because they're too challenging for the most part. They want to be told where to go, when to do it, and how to do it. FFA PvP wouldn't be an issue if MMOs wouldn't put such a huge emphasis on items I think. It was more about skill/skill placement and less about items before.
They have become more about gear than character. It is one of the hopes of SWTOR for many - that return to character development.
Gear is character. Players desire meaningful things.
Give them a hat and they're a little happy.
Give them a hat which improves their character in meaningful ways and they're happier.
Gameplay function adds meaning. And it defines character.
Clearly there are good and bad ways of implementing this. For example one of the nice traits of EQ2 was something I suggested for WOW at one point: you have your "stats" gear and your "looks" gear, and they're separate so you can get the stats you need while having the look you want. It creates a little disconnect between which item you're technically "wearing" (making it more game-y) but the benefits outweigh that mild confusion imo.
And whatever "character" means to you, that element still exists with or without gear. Or at least it exists to whatever extent it's ever existed in non-PnP gaming.
I disagree on this.
Look at a geared level 20 character in DDO. Look at a geared level 80 character in WoW.
Strip away the gear.
I am typing this on a keyboard. I am not the keyboard nor is the keyboard me. Gear is a tool. A tool for what I am trying to accomplish.
In too many games, the character becomes meaningless as the game is about a gear check. Often that gear check itself is meaningless because of the player behind the character.
Take two people: a sunday driver and a NASCAR driver.
Put the sunday driver in the stock car and put the NASCAR driver in a family sedan. Have them race.
Players desire reward. An endless grind of disposable gear leads to an empty feeling. It goes back to simple platformers and early RPGs. You can only play them for so long before you move on to the next game.
WoW added accomplishments, because even their players desired more than just gear.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Comments
You are excused. Asheron Call, in its peek time(2000-2003), only have around 6% of its players in the pvp server.I agree with you.
I believe if CCP took away safe areas, and made the entire gaming area FFA, EVE sub numbers would dry up. PVE gamers, and Traders, dont spend 15 a month to be griefed.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Only reading the OPs stance, I actually tend to agree with you. I am a HUGE fan of Sandbox PvP games: Shadowbane, Darkfall, EVE, etc.
I believe properly implementing PvE into a game like that would see a larger sub base and possibly a future with more sandbox games of that same ilk.
A suggestion I have is to make a "Peaceful" faction that plays a large role in Economy, Territory, and directly influences the PvPers. They would basically be small villages that PvE, Farm, and craft. They would be unable to be ganked themselves, but would act as strategic points for people to capture. These neutral villages would be like resourcing points for warring clans and what not.
Awesome idea imo, but who knows...
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
I HAD to comment on this as I just couldn't take it anymore reading some of your posts here!!!! Did you REALLY just say UO was a game with nothing to do and EQ was a game with lots more to do? I love both games to death....but EQ generally had 1 thing to do only: Kill and camp mobs for loot.
Sorry, your argument is so backwards to me it's mind boggling. In fact, even your scenario illustrates there are lots of things to do in UO lol.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
Darkfall and MO designed from the start not to be sandboxes ey? What games were you following? Both Darkfall and MO were advertised to be sandboxes "just like good old UO" before they came out and for a good deal of time after they were out. I fully believe that the developers INTENDED them to be sandboxes. I actually followed both of these game before release, and I was excited for the next coming of UO.
However, a while after the games were released it became clear that neither of them lived up to the developers' intentions. They both had too much of a focus on FFA PvP, and not enough restrictions/penalties on it. This attracted the "I play UO like an FPS" community, and the games started to devolve into as you say MMOFPS action games.
Now, at least Darkfall is advertised as a PvP action game and not a sandbox. The developers realized this is where the game was going and (correctly) shifted the marketing that way.
So...with that information, can't you see how someone who wanted the UO experience that both DF and MO claimed they would have would be disappointed when the games came out? That is basically the crux of the OP. Both DF and MO failed to become sandboxes ala UO because they focused so much on unrestricted FFA PvP.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
In my opinion, DF and MO are certainly PvP heavy games and sandboxes. I think you are alone in your separation of PvP games and sandbox games. You are entitled to state your opinion but don't state it as a fact.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
UO before Blackthorn...
...EQ surpassed UO subs within around 6 months.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
From what I have read about both games, they were designed as PvP games from the start - whatever else was in the game was designed to go around that PvP. They were designed as PvP games with a little more than just your typical FPS mechanics.
Yes, there was marketing hype trying to draw in the UO crowds by saying the games were sandboxes... but they were nothing like UO in that element. It was false advertising - plain and simple.
To base a dislike of FFA PvP off of marketing... is not logical.
Think most people could agree that BS marketing has ruined the good name of MMOs in general, no?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
How can you say I am alone in my opinion when it is supported by everybody that has agreed with the OP, including the OP, in this thread?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Depends a lot on the community I think. There were many times (UO) where I wouldn't get PKd. A lot of people if they saw you were newer or didn't have much of value wouldn't bother for the most part. If they did, a lot of times they would leave stuff for you to get back home (recall regs, etc). Hell, sometimes you would strike up conversations with some of em. People don't like sandbox games because they're too challenging for the most part. They want to be told where to go, when to do it, and how to do it. FFA PvP wouldn't be an issue if MMOs wouldn't put such a huge emphasis on items I think. It was more about skill/skill placement and less about items before.
Now that is a definite true sad statement about MMOs in general. They have become more about gear than character. It is one of the hopes of SWTOR for many - that return to character development. It SHOULD also be a key selling point of WoD.
The community change is quite evident as well. Of course, that gets into the discussion of combat mechanics and the like - with one side usually calling the other old farts while the other calls them twitch kiddies. We saw Counter-Strike used as an insult in this thread. There tends to be a difference in the playerbase for those games that have a more FPS-like FFA PvP versus those that do not. FPS games are about fragging, and those games that market toward those players - are going to have games that are about fragging...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
{[(IMHO)]}
If it wasn't for harsh penalties in FFA PvP sandboxes, and limited PvE options that also could spawn more PvP then maybe FFA PvP sandboxes would be populated by more players and not feel so ruined.
I think we are at the crossroads where developers should be able to program highly intelligent AI for NPC mobs to create real challenges to the player base. Alot of PvPers call PvEers "carebears" because of the assumed ease it is to defeat NPC mobs as opposed to defeated other players.
But since PvP is in all cases owned by those who exploit the games core to kill others the victims of the PvP base will in most cases be bitter about the ease in which they have been disposed of. Inevitably, they blame the developers for this perceived imbalance and decide later to leave the game.
Most of the PvPers that I know refuse to "waste their time" in epic dungeon crawls and the like. Dismissing it as "carebear" though it turns out they lack the skills to beat these NPC bosses. Skill is relative, it would seem.
Limiting PvP to a mini-game or sub-goal of a sandbox-type game in my opinion would be much satisfying to for the whole population. But no more than that.
Developers should be creating next-generation AI where NPC's not only spawn and attack players, but work together as a growing population in its area and simlar to players, building up their villages, hunting for food, raiding player camps and other NPC camps for loot and whatever other goals that can be programmed into them. A little bit of RTS flavor in these MMOs so to speak.
I do not understand why there is the need to attack PvPers like this. You touch upon the valid points regarding NPC AI, yet you distract from that fact with the tirade against those that PvP.
Nobody is denying that there are griefers out there. They feed their epeens with daily dosages of what they consider carebear tears. Yet that is not the entire PvPer playerbase, and deriding one stereotype while using another is kind of off, you know?
NPC AI is a major issue. Mobs that stand around waiting to be farmed. Mobs guarding dungeons that stand less than a stone's throw away watching as you hack down their fellows. Scripted bosses that you could set your watch by. Bosses are gear checks - not skill checks. NPC AI does not play the mobs to their potential in the manner which a DM or GM would play them.
As we mentioned earlier in this thread though, generally speaking - the casual audience of MMORPGs does not want harder mobs. Some even believe that the scripted encounters where all you need to do is read a walkthrough, follow the directions that pop up on your screen from your add-ons, and click the requisite buttons like following a cupcake recipe are too hard.
In another thread I mentioned watching the episode of King of the Hill where Hank takes Bobby hunting at a resort. That is what has become of MMOs.
I would have to disagree with limiting PvP to a mini-game though, even if just discussing combat PvP. I think that what people need is a CCP version of WoW perhaps...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
There are more PVE sandbox games that have come out than FFA PVP sandbox games . .. and I wouldn't ever consider playing one. Have fun with that . .. risky PVE and FFA PVP is where the real fun is.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
OP does not separate these games into another category altogether. He only talks about sandboxes with FFA PvP.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
virusdancer:
As to whether PvP needs to be a design focus (not the solitary focus, but a definite focus) of a sandbox, there can be no arguing that.
well i will argue that.
I think the sandbox should be about cooperative progression of the world, not about PvP. it should be something like the horizons was at the start - work together to open new options, open new parts of the world, build cities, roads, ....
It is a matter of flavor if one likes a PvP heavy game or a PvE heavy game, but I think it's good to design the game with PvP in mind - even if the the game has its focus in PvE. PvP suffers more at the expense of PvE than the other way around. I don't expect much from a PvE game that has PvP as an add-on. For one thing, PvE is not so fragile balance-wise than PvP is. I believe a game with good PvP can still have a good PvE. -Atleast the sum is greater. PvE should be always better in a game that was specifically designed for it.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Yes, I read you said before Blackthorn. I was fortunate enough to play UO since beta. At beta launch, there was still plenty to do.
Wait what? What does EQ vs. UO subs have to do with anything? Ahhhh someone tell me what this guy is talking about!! I get more confused each post!
My only point is that I find it crazy anyone can say UO has less "stuff to do" than EQ did. Meaning: variety! I'm not even talking about which game is better.
Disclaimer: This is not a troll post and is not here to promote any negative energy. Although this may be a criticism, it is not meant to offend anyone. If a moderator feels the post is inappropriate, please remove it immediately before it is subject to consideration for a warning. Thank you.
Gear is character. Players desire meaningful things.
Give them a hat and they're a little happy.
Give them a hat which improves their character in meaningful ways and they're happier.
Gameplay function adds meaning. And it defines character.
Clearly there are good and bad ways of implementing this. For example one of the nice traits of EQ2 was something I suggested for WOW at one point: you have your "stats" gear and your "looks" gear, and they're separate so you can get the stats you need while having the look you want. It creates a little disconnect between which item you're technically "wearing" (making it more game-y) but the benefits outweigh that mild confusion imo.
And whatever "character" means to you, that element still exists with or without gear. Or at least it exists to whatever extent it's ever existed in non-PnP gaming.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The OP states that games such as these have ruined the good name of sandbox MMOs. That these games, with their focus on PvP above all else is not what a sandbox MMO is about.
That it did not click that is because they are not sandbox games is beyond me...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
So you want a SimFantasy? You are describing a co-op version of SimCity, SimEarth, SimETC...
You are describing a job in essence.
Imagine that same world, where there are groups cooperating for their common goals - yet there are people with differeing goals or desires. That is closer to a sandbox than the sociology simulation that you describe.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
This brings up what I believe to be a cardinal sin of many developers - the attempt at balance for PvP. I do not believe that games should be balanced for PvP. Then again, I have issues with how PvE balance is handled as well.
I do not want my accountant doing my heart surgery. I do not want the surgeon doing my taxes. I do not want to hear football players singing opera. I do not want to watch opera singers playing football.
There is too much focus on trying to balance the specialties instead of balancing the common items that everybody can do and giving enhanced meaning to those specialties.
This thread starts off with a discussion of Hunters vs. Gatherers. Yet, did not the Hunter-Gatherers win out in the end until we ended up switching over to a modern industrial world?
There is too much focus on balancing the wrong thing in my opinion. Games can have equal parts of PvE and PvP, but there is no reason that a single player should expect to be good at everything...
...part of the reason why I believe I said it either in this thread or another, that I would not treat crafting as a secondary profession.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
EQ offered more to the player. Thus EQ had more players.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I disagree on this.
Look at a geared level 20 character in DDO. Look at a geared level 80 character in WoW.
Strip away the gear.
I am typing this on a keyboard. I am not the keyboard nor is the keyboard me. Gear is a tool. A tool for what I am trying to accomplish.
In too many games, the character becomes meaningless as the game is about a gear check. Often that gear check itself is meaningless because of the player behind the character.
Take two people: a sunday driver and a NASCAR driver.
Put the sunday driver in the stock car and put the NASCAR driver in a family sedan. Have them race.
Players desire reward. An endless grind of disposable gear leads to an empty feeling. It goes back to simple platformers and early RPGs. You can only play them for so long before you move on to the next game.
WoW added accomplishments, because even their players desired more than just gear.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%