You are saying that Darkfall is not a sandbox MMORPG because it puts a priority on PvP, whereas UO IS a sandbox MMORPG because it is more about exploring the world of UO, correct?
Now, weren't you the same person who posted a few pages that the only decent thing to do in UO was PvP, and everything else was just in the game to support PvP? I can dig up the quote if you like, but I think you know what you posted...
So to summarize, you have made the following statements:
1. Darkfall is not a sandbox because it puts a priority on PvP. Anything other than PvP in the game is just to support the PvP.
2. UO is a sandbox because it is about world exploration.
3. There is nothing worthwhile to do in UO other than PvP, all other activies in the game are meant to support PvP.
So it looks like fact 2 and fact 3 are in direct conflict. In fact, if fact 3 is correct, it looks like you have basically equated UO to Darkfall in terms of PvP priority. Therefore, if UO is a sandbox, then Darkfall must be a sandbox.
A person that trains to run a marathon is a runner.
A person being chased by a dog is not a runner.
Both run, but only one is a runner.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
What server would have the highest population of players if CCP decided on 3 different models:
1) PvP/FFA - no concord.
2)Eve classic as is.
3)Eve PvE with only consensual PvP. Players must flag themselves for PvP.
Just wondering...
That is an interesting question.
I would have to say that EVE as it is would have the largest number of users. CCP really has something with the way they have the game setup.
That would be followed by the no Concord option. EVE has three overall areas in regard to security. High sec, low sec, and null sec. Concord patrols neither low nor null sec. People manage fine there.
Last, I would say the third option would be last - if it was even viable. I do not think such a system could sustain itself.
According to many posters, 50% of EVE players avoid PVP. I dont have a dev quote, so will not state it as fact....if someone cares to link the numbers that would be cool.
It totally goes against your speculation. As long as there was demand for traders, and PVE folks had something to do, you would have as many, if not more on the option only PVP server.
Keep telling yourself otherwise.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
What server would have the highest population of players if CCP decided on 3 different models:
1) PvP/FFA - no concord.
2)Eve classic as is.
3)Eve PvE with only consensual PvP. Players must flag themselves for PvP.
Just wondering...
That is an interesting question.
I would have to say that EVE as it is would have the largest number of users. CCP really has something with the way they have the game setup.
That would be followed by the no Concord option. EVE has three overall areas in regard to security. High sec, low sec, and null sec. Concord patrols neither low nor null sec. People manage fine there.
Last, I would say the third option would be last - if it was even viable. I do not think such a system could sustain itself.
According to many posters, 50% of EVE players avoid PVP. I dont have a dev quote, so will not state it as fact....if someone cares to link the numbers that would be cool.
It totally goes against your speculation. As long as there was demand for traders, and PVE folks had something to do, you would have as many, if not more on the option only PVP server.
Keep telling yourself otherwise.
Who do you think the PvE folk sell to?
Those that mine - who do they sell their ore to, reprossed or not? For those that build ships? Build any of the components? Those that sell loot from missions?
It is almost as bad as reading the blogs about EVE not being a PvP game. They attempt to replace the threat from players by having NPCs do it. If the NPCs posed the same threat as players, then what would be the difference.
The Market in EVE is some of the most cutthroat PvP in the game...
Play the game or be quiet about it...lol.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You are saying that Darkfall is not a sandbox MMORPG because it puts a priority on PvP, whereas UO IS a sandbox MMORPG because it is more about exploring the world of UO, correct?
Now, weren't you the same person who posted a few pages that the only decent thing to do in UO was PvP, and everything else was just in the game to support PvP? I can dig up the quote if you like, but I think you know what you posted...
So to summarize, you have made the following statements:
1. Darkfall is not a sandbox because it puts a priority on PvP. Anything other than PvP in the game is just to support the PvP.
2. UO is a sandbox because it is about world exploration.
3. There is nothing worthwhile to do in UO other than PvP, all other activies in the game are meant to support PvP.
So it looks like fact 2 and fact 3 are in direct conflict. In fact, if fact 3 is correct, it looks like you have basically equated UO to Darkfall in terms of PvP priority. Therefore, if UO is a sandbox, then Darkfall must be a sandbox.
A person that trains to run a marathon is a runner.
A person being chased by a dog is not a runner.
Both run, but only one is a runner.
Yes, that's true and it's also a straw man argument.
You said that Darkfall was not a sandbox BECAUSE of its PvP focus. You said that UO was a sandbox but it has a PvP focus. If the REASON that Darkfall is not a sandbox is its PvP focus, then UO cannot be a sandbox as well. Let me correct your logical illustration to how it fits in the context of this argument...
Premise 1: If a game is PvP focused then it is not a sandbox.
Premise 2: Darkfall is PvP focused.
Premise 3: UO is PvP focused.
Conclusion: Neither Darkfall or UO are sandboxes.
So basically, you can't use the "Darkfall is a sandbox because of its PvP focus argument." If there is another reason why you feel that Darkfall is not a sandbox but UO is, I would be happy to hear it.
You are saying that Darkfall is not a sandbox MMORPG because it puts a priority on PvP, whereas UO IS a sandbox MMORPG because it is more about exploring the world of UO, correct?
Now, weren't you the same person who posted a few pages that the only decent thing to do in UO was PvP, and everything else was just in the game to support PvP? I can dig up the quote if you like, but I think you know what you posted...
So to summarize, you have made the following statements:
1. Darkfall is not a sandbox because it puts a priority on PvP. Anything other than PvP in the game is just to support the PvP.
2. UO is a sandbox because it is about world exploration.
3. There is nothing worthwhile to do in UO other than PvP, all other activies in the game are meant to support PvP.
So it looks like fact 2 and fact 3 are in direct conflict. In fact, if fact 3 is correct, it looks like you have basically equated UO to Darkfall in terms of PvP priority. Therefore, if UO is a sandbox, then Darkfall must be a sandbox.
A person that trains to run a marathon is a runner.
A person being chased by a dog is not a runner.
Both run, but only one is a runner.
Yes, that's true and it's also a straw man argument.
You said that Darkfall was not a sandbox BECAUSE of its PvP focus. You said that UO was a sandbox but it has a PvP focus. If the REASON that Darkfall is not a sandbox is its PvP focus, then UO cannot be a sandbox as well. Let me correct your logical illustration to how it fits in the context of this argument...
Premise 1: If a game is PvP focused then it is not a sandbox.
Premise 2: Darkfall is PvP focused.
Premise 3: UO is PvP focused.
Conclusion: Neither Darkfall or UO are sandboxes.
So basically, you can't use the "Darkfall is a sandbox because of its PvP focus argument." If there is another reason why you feel that Darkfall is not a sandbox but UO is, I would be happy to hear it.
That is not what I said. I said DF was designed as a PvP game. UO was designed as a world to explore.
Which goes with my running analogy... please try to stop misquoting me. I have been very specific on this matter, detailing where I drew the line between the two.
You can disagree with what I actually said, but again - please try to stop misquoting me.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
You are saying that Darkfall is not a sandbox MMORPG because it puts a priority on PvP, whereas UO IS a sandbox MMORPG because it is more about exploring the world of UO, correct?
Now, weren't you the same person who posted a few pages that the only decent thing to do in UO was PvP, and everything else was just in the game to support PvP? I can dig up the quote if you like, but I think you know what you posted...
So to summarize, you have made the following statements:
1. Darkfall is not a sandbox because it puts a priority on PvP. Anything other than PvP in the game is just to support the PvP.
2. UO is a sandbox because it is about world exploration.
3. There is nothing worthwhile to do in UO other than PvP, all other activies in the game are meant to support PvP.
So it looks like fact 2 and fact 3 are in direct conflict. In fact, if fact 3 is correct, it looks like you have basically equated UO to Darkfall in terms of PvP priority. Therefore, if UO is a sandbox, then Darkfall must be a sandbox.
A person that trains to run a marathon is a runner.
A person being chased by a dog is not a runner.
Both run, but only one is a runner.
Yes, that's true and it's also a straw man argument.
You said that Darkfall was not a sandbox BECAUSE of its PvP focus. You said that UO was a sandbox but it has a PvP focus. If the REASON that Darkfall is not a sandbox is its PvP focus, then UO cannot be a sandbox as well. Let me correct your logical illustration to how it fits in the context of this argument...
Premise 1: If a game is PvP focused then it is not a sandbox.
Premise 2: Darkfall is PvP focused.
Premise 3: UO is PvP focused.
Conclusion: Neither Darkfall or UO are sandboxes.
So basically, you can't use the "Darkfall is a sandbox because of its PvP focus argument." If there is another reason why you feel that Darkfall is not a sandbox but UO is, I would be happy to hear it.
That is not what I said. I said DF was designed as a PvP game. UO was designed as a world to explore.
Which goes with my running analogy... please try to stop misquoting me. I have been very specific on this matter, detailing where I drew the line between the two.
You can disagree with what I actually said, but again - please try to stop misquoting me.
I wasn't quoting you, I was paraphrasing, there were no quote marks.
This is a direct quote from you in reference to UO:
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.
This doesn't sound like you're talking about a game that's about "world exploration." It pretty much sounds like you're talking about a game where you grind up skill to PvP. And too many people, that' what UO was, and that's perfectly fine. I don't see how my statement was so off from what you said.
It is also what Darkfall is. I have to ask...have you ever played Darkfall? I played it for some time...and you basically kill monsters to get skill gain/loot to PvP with. However, in Darkfall is takes FOREVER to get your skills/attributes up to a respectable level and while you're grinding you will constantly be ganked by players that you have no chance of defeating.
I wasn't quoting you, I was paraphrasing, there were no quote marks.
This is a direct quote from you in reference to UO:
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.
This doesn't sound like you're talking about a game that's about "world exploration." It pretty much sounds like you're talking about a game where you grind up skill to PvP. And too many people, that' what UO was, and that's perfectly fine. I don't see how my statement was so off from what you said.
It is also what Darkfall is. I have to ask...have you ever played Darkfall? I played it for some time...and you basically kill monsters to get skill gain/loot to PvP with. However, in Darkfall is takes FOREVER to get your skills/attributes up to a respectable level and while you're grinding you will constantly be ganked by players that you have no chance of defeating.
I do not remember if that quote was from the discussion on comparing UO to other games (such as the UO v. EQ debate that was taking place in the thread or not); but it is along the lines of the difference between a sandbox and a themepark. Yes, there was crafting - running/riding around the world - etc; but in comparison to games where you have more quests than you can shake a stick at - there really was little to do. In regard to the chatroom aspects, that is the nature of RP in most games. You talk.
I started the download of the trial for DF once. It was taking forever, and during that time I read up more on the game that was actually released as opposed to the game that had been discussed for so long. I decided to cancel the download. Much in the way that I would not pay a sub for something like Planetside, I saw no reason to pay a sub for DF. It is funny though, because I thoroughly enjoyed Shadowbane up until the beta of ToO.
During that same period of time, I tried WAR and did not like it. I created a character in CO, went in to the game world, and promptly uninstalled the game. I tried STO, was fine until I jumped and then uninstalled the game - well, not really fine - but that was the proverbial straw. I ended up going back to EVE... though that did not last more than a month.
You could say that I have become jaded and disillusioned with the MMORPG industry. I've been resub'd to CoX now for two months, having hoped that GR would be more than it was...hoping that I19 will hold my interest for a bit...
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.
Alright, you're correct.
From a purely functional/logical standpoint, all capabilities of your character are your character. Your hand is also a tool. It's an intrinsic part of you and you'd be foolish to remove it. The same goes for a character's gear: it's an intrinsic part of the character and you'd be foolish to remove it. Just because your hand happens to be more permanently connected to you (and an impressive piece of biological evolution) doesn't really break the analogy.
It's ironic that the tendancy for humans to not see things from a purely logical perspective that makes it less logical to implement a purely logical game design. (Which is why you're correct.)
I disagree with your take on the "endless grind" though, simply because the word "grind" immediately infers pattern exhaustion. Pattern exhaustion trumps all: if gameplay patterns aren't interesting, the game is over (reward or no.) (granted this is with the slightly stretched version of gameplay patterns which encompasses all the patterns of interaction in a game...even things like social interactions -- which explains why some players who are utterly bored with a game can stick around for a while if they like their guild.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
From a purely functional/logical standpoint, all capabilities of your character are your character. Your hand is also a tool. It's an intrinsic part of you and you'd be foolish to remove it. The same goes for a character's gear: it's an intrinsic part of the character and you'd be foolish to remove it. Just because your hand happens to be more permanently connected to you (and an impressive piece of biological evolution) doesn't really break the analogy.
It's ironic that the tendancy for humans to not see things from a purely logical perspective that makes it less logical to implement a purely logical game design. (Which is why you're correct.)
I disagree with your take on the "endless grind" though, simply because the word "grind" immediately infers pattern exhaustion. Pattern exhaustion trumps all: if gameplay patterns aren't interesting, the game is over (reward or no.) (granted this is with the slightly stretched version of gameplay patterns which encompasses all the patterns of interaction in a game...even things like social interactions -- which explains why some players who are utterly bored with a game can stick around for a while if they like their guild.)
To an extent, I believe I did not elaborate enough on what I was thinking in regard to that. At the very least, I do not believe that I communicated my thoughts well.
In regards to tools and gear:
If one wanted to dig a hole, one could use their hands. One could use a spoon. One could use a knife. A shovel. They could use a backhoe. There are a plethora of tools which one could use to accomplish that task. I do not argue that.
My issue comes into play in regard to the focus on the bonuses received from gear and that is what takes precedence over character. It is along the lines of what I was trying to say in regard to gear in DDO compared to that in WoW.
At level 80 in WoW, your naked character will have a set of stats. A fresh 80 in quest greens and blues will have a certain set of stats. A level 80 in raid gear will have double if not more the stats of the fresh 80.
From the point of view of the stats, the character is twice as good as they were without any actual improvement in the character. The character has not learned any new skills, they do not have any new abilities, or the like. The character has not improved.
Advancement in WoW is gear progression and challenges faced are gear checks. The character has not learned some new ability to better tackle the obstacles in their path. They simply can take more damage and do more damage. It is a linear scaling. What they are doing in raiding is not much different than what they were doing when they hit the level cap.
While during the journey to level 80, the character actually improved...
As for grind, it is a very subjective term. My girlfriend plays Farmerama. I see it is a mindless repetitive clickfest. Yet, I had no issue wtih the "mindless repetitive clickfest" involved in EVE's Planetary Interaction.
As a species, we are groomed for repetitive tasks from an early age. What one calls tedious another is fine with...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Did anyone mention Fallen Earth yet? They do have FFA PvP, but it is hardly a feature to boast about. At least it was. I have heard it is getting "better" though.
I have to agree with the OP , but I do not enjoy FFA PvP games, so. I kind of think it's silly for games like Fallen Earth, Darkfall, and even Age of Conan that have these highly distinct races or factions and yet decide the PvP would be better suited as FFA. FFA is good for games with only one race, such as the original Guild Wars, but if you are going to have factions in a PvP game, at least make them meaningful. Again, my opinion is highly biased, but there it is nonetheless.
Factional warfare does not work. Fiction is full of betrayal - changing sides - fighting along side your enemy against the greater threat - etc, etc, etc.
WoW is a game where they did a horrible job with factions. Throughout the game, you have various races fighting for various factions (most unavailable to players) while the players are limited to factions that make little sense.
EVE does a good job with it...since regardless of origin, players can build up standing for the various NPC factions to fight or they can form their own factions.
It is simply more realistic than what WoW and most other games with some form of limited factional conflict offer.
Perhaps, but in games like DAoC, Civilizations, Age of Wonders, Starcraft, and Warcraft, factions are unique and have meaning. It adds a whole new dimension for dynamic gameplay and immersion. Having only two factions doesn't work well, I agree with you. I would love to see a PvP game come along with like 6 or 8 factions that isn't a FFA game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Perhaps, but in games like DAoC, Civilizations, Age of Wonders, Starcraft, and Warcraft, factions are unique and have meaning. It adds a whole new dimension for dynamic gameplay and immersion. Having only two factions doesn't work well, I agree with you. I would love to see a PvP game come along with like 6 or 8 factions that isn't a FFA game.
With eight factions, facing the possibility of being attacked at any moment by one of the seven other factions - what would be the difference in the game being FFA?
I suppose some of the issue in discussing FFA comes down to what it means to individuals. Some see it purely as an open gankfest of wanton murder. I do not picture it as such.
I believe in consequences for actions.
If Player A kills Player B, and both are in Faction X - Player A would lose standing and at a relatively quick point be removed from Faction X. The person would become KoS to Faction X. They would have to try to join one of the other Factions or they would end up not belonging to any Faction and thus be a target of all Factions.
I had meant to ask it earlier in this thread, I think I hinted at it, but I never asked directly.
Is part of the dislike of FFA because of Friendly Fire? I know that in several discussions I have had on the matter of Friendly Fire, that I have never seen so many people get their figurative panties all bunched up.
Imagine how different WoW, CoX, and so many other games would be if there was Friendly Fire...
...I suppose that would get into a mechanic that the average player would not enjoy.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Perhaps, but in games like DAoC, Civilizations, Age of Wonders, Starcraft, and Warcraft, factions are unique and have meaning. It adds a whole new dimension for dynamic gameplay and immersion. Having only two factions doesn't work well, I agree with you. I would love to see a PvP game come along with like 6 or 8 factions that isn't a FFA game.
With eight factions, facing the possibility of being attacked at any moment by one of the seven other factions - what would be the difference in the game being FFA?
It's not like that. It should have a complex align system. Some faction are friendly with each other, some are archenemy which hate each other alot, and some are lesser enemy.
It would have a complex economy and politic system. Some faction are better at crafting certain things, some have better merchant etc etc.
I was actually hoping some company can come up with that. But never seen any.
The closest thing I seen is fallen earth(which have 6 faction), and some other chinese game(have 9 faction). But the politic in this game isn't done very well.
Perhaps, but in games like DAoC, Civilizations, Age of Wonders, Starcraft, and Warcraft, factions are unique and have meaning. It adds a whole new dimension for dynamic gameplay and immersion. Having only two factions doesn't work well, I agree with you. I would love to see a PvP game come along with like 6 or 8 factions that isn't a FFA game.
With eight factions, facing the possibility of being attacked at any moment by one of the seven other factions - what would be the difference in the game being FFA?
It's not like that. It should have a complex align system. Some faction are friendly with each other, some are archenemy which hate each other alot, and some are lesser enemy.
It would have a complex economy and politic system. Some faction are better at crafting certain things, some have better merchant etc etc.
I was actually hoping some company can come up with that. But never seen any.
The closest thing I seen is fallen earth(which have 6 faction), and some other chinese game(have 9 faction). But the politic in this game isn't done very well.
Check out Neocron and its 12 factions. Each faction has differing alignments but there is still a general pro-city vs anti-city feeling. Thing is though the only perk for being in the faction is what special items you can get.
FFA PvP tends to force socialization. That is something that many people that play MMOs do not want to do. They want to play by themselves. Those people do not want a sandbox MMO. They want a sandbox single player game...or perhaps a single player game with an online co-op option where they can hang out with a few of their friends.
Just because a game has FFA PVP doesn't mean that everyone runs around mindlessly ganking each other.
Take Darkfall for example:
You can only have one character per account. They do this so that you are accountable for your actions. Even in a huge world, since there are no instances you tend to get to know everyone. Since chat isn't very common in that game you remember people from their actions more than anything else. You are more likely to remember the guy who killed you and took your stuff than the nice blue guy who ressed you when you died at the mob.
I rerolled for NA server launch and started the crafting grind right away. Business was booming for my first couple weeks. It was easy to find people to sell my stuff to all over the place . ... but then I started to PVP. I went out and PVPed with some friends who were an enemy race and we usually did it where it was most crowded (my racial lands) almost every night for awhile. Almost immediately after I started doing that I had a hard time selling my wares from then on out. I could spam valuable stuff for lower than the going rate only would get tells only from other reds in clan cities or in chaos towns because the local blues no longer trusted me.
How did the blues put a stop to us? They worked together and teamed up with strangers who had the same problem (me and my group killing anyone who comes outside) and then made us stop and took some of their stuff back along with some of ours while they were at it.
In Darkfall there were a lot of spies found right after release. Someone pretending to be your friend that ends up robbing the clan and letting their real clan know what their defense looks like for a future siege. I bet that there was at least one spy in all of the coveted cities in the world. Once their betrayal was known, people will never forget it, and many would vow to someday get payback.
The people who quit Darkfall because of the FFA PVP are probably the same people who think that the alignment system is broken . .. but this is failure in their part, because the sandbox approach to their problem would be to gather the community together and put a stop to other players taking advantage of them. Its definitely a more hardcore approach but sandbox games do not cater as much to the casual player anyways, as it should be.
FFA PVP has not killed any game . .. the community has. I know of many people who play Darkfall and do not like to PVP. You can learn to avoid it pretty easily but there are times when they will have to group up with friends to put a stop to some enemies or to chase them away from their safe haven.
It is hard to imagine a sandbox game that would have enough to do to keep people happy without PVP. Darkfall is challenging and has stuff to do no matter how long that you play it for and never gets easy while remaining unpredictable at the same time . .. thanks to FFA PVP! Also, it can get a person's heart going . .. give an intense adrenaline rush . .. or provide a real sense of accomplishment (or failure) . .. again thanks to FFA PVP! It brings the community together more than you know! People who do not like PVP can still come in and play, avoid the PVP, and rarely come across it.
After reading this i decided that Dark fail or Dork fail might actually despite the Pr bull actually be a game worth trying.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
What server would have the highest population of players if CCP decided on 3 different models:
1) PvP/FFA - no concord.
2)Eve classic as is.
3)Eve PvE with only consensual PvP. Players must flag themselves for PvP.
Just wondering...
i was about to say something like 2 all the way but then i thought about.
number one will have an initial popularity but noobs WILL suffer. also corps would form defensive "enclaves" for muterall protection and trading partners. i remember when tech 2 production via moon mining was new ower corp could mine certain common and rare resources off moons we being a small corp made friends with a corp that could prduce other mins while other corps we made friends with locally thanks to us supplying resources at a dicount could concentrate on the variouse stages of producing what as a valuabvle item on the market at a good price [and a very good profit free price to us]. we also had corps acting as defenders i.e. they were pvp corps/pirates/ gankers who we befrended and actully got on well with. who were also getting cheap tech 2 items as well as cheap asteroid based produce such as practicxally freee ammo and wepons.
However back on subect the population wont have many noobs after the gankers get good.
number 2 will be very popular with the majoraty of uss but we may try out the alternatives just in case its fun.
number 3 ouch...may attract a lot of those who have never played eve but with a flag pvp and the market will suffer in the long term.
personally option one holds appeal for the friendsghips it will help form
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I understand we have pvpers in this thread but face it guys.
FFApvp simply does not work.
Even in a sandboxish world simulation people dont want to be afraid to lose stuff.
We all know it works in EvE due to three rule sets within one game universe.
It didn't work with UO (trammel), It didn't work in Shadowbane (closed) Its doesn't work in Darkfall ( No subs).
Give it a rest already.
OP creating a pve server would kill the game because the reality of it is the majority of people actually playing these ffa pvp games put up with the ffa pvp mechanic just so they could get to the other stuff like crafting, economy, community, skill system, freedom and a realistic game world.
I'm subbed to Darkfall right now. So far, I haven't been ganked much, but it's true, I'm never free from the fear of being ganked, which does limit what I will carry on my character. Still, there seems to be lots to do besides pvp, at least for a new player. I don't know how I'll feel about all of it in a month or two, though.
But all is not harmonious paradise in Eve, either. I spent a month playing, and a month on their forums. And there was a constant stream of complaints from carebears about there being too much pvp, and a constant stream of complaints from pvpers about there not being enough pvp. The community is pretty divided about it, and there is little agreement about the direction the game should take. It's probably fortunate that CCP has its own ideas about where it wants to draw the line.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
FFA PvP tends to force socialization. That is something that many people that play MMOs do not want to do. They want to play by themselves. Those people do not want a sandbox MMO. They want a sandbox single player game...or perhaps a single player game with an online co-op option where they can hang out with a few of their friends.
Take Darkfall for example:
You can only have one character per account. They do this so that you are accountable for your actions. Even in a huge world, since there are no instances you tend to get to know everyone. Since chat isn't very common in that game you remember people from their actions more than anything else. You are more likely to remember the guy who killed you and took your stuff than the nice blue guy who ressed you when you died at the mob.
Wait a second, chat is not common but it's a very social game (based on actions) .. erm I guess that's one form of socialization >.>
Did anyone mention Fallen Earth yet? They do have FFA PvP, but it is hardly a feature to boast about. At least it was. I have heard it is getting "better" though.
Yes, FE is good sample of nearly best crafting system in MMOs I have met. And sad devs still run after a few PvP whiners to build more and more PvP things like Blood Sports etc. tho there is maybe few ppl left to use them. In our clan I think nobody ever used any PvP possibility and we nearly sure don't in future.
other thing You sayd wrong - FE isn't FFA PvP. There is PvP zones and Conflict towns for PvP, or one can PvP in whole territory when he flags himself for PvP and even then he can fight against other PvP-flagged people.
If I don't flag myself he can't do nothing against me, he can try to challenge for duel as much he wanna (or til I close all duelling invites).
Now if devs could see possibilities of PvE side of FE and make more territory chalenges, spawn more rare mobs in wide areas still near empty and add more end-game lvl content (be it raids or world mobs) this game would be future pearl like EVE which grow from little nothing to normal and good game.
I have to agree with the OP , but I do not enjoy FFA PvP games, so. I kind of think it's silly for games like Fallen Earth, Darkfall, and even Age of Conan that have these highly distinct races or factions and yet decide the PvP would be better suited as FFA. FFA is good for games with only one race, such as the original Guild Wars, but if you are going to have factions in a PvP game, at least make them meaningful. Again, my opinion is highly biased, but there it is nonetheless.
My issue comes into play in regard to the focus on the bonuses received from gear and that is what takes precedence over character. It is along the lines of what I was trying to say in regard to gear in DDO compared to that in WoW.
At level 80 in WoW, your naked character will have a set of stats. A fresh 80 in quest greens and blues will have a certain set of stats. A level 80 in raid gear will have double if not more the stats of the fresh 80.
Yes, this is exactly why I went into my segment on logic. What you're describing here is an emotional preference for your character to be the source of the stats.
Logically, it doesn't matter -- stats are stats and you earn them all through progression. The fiction of where your various stats come from is irrelevant because stripping your gear is about as useful as cutting off your hand in real life (ie it's not useful and one is viewed as crazy for even suggesting it.)
Emotionally, it matters to you -- you feel like the fact that some of your stats are removable makes them less a part of your character.
And like I said, most players are pretty emotional and so I admitted you're probably right that more progression should exist on characters themselves -- even though logically there's no justification for it (apart from the logic of designing a game for its target audience: us imperfect humans. :P )
Just because a word is subjective doesn't mean it has no definition. When a player calls a game a "grind" they are describing repetitive gameplay and pattern exhaustion. And that's immediately where the game fails to be fun. Rewards do not trump pattern exhaustion. If a game is boring, players leave.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
My issue comes into play in regard to the focus on the bonuses received from gear and that is what takes precedence over character. It is along the lines of what I was trying to say in regard to gear in DDO compared to that in WoW.
At level 80 in WoW, your naked character will have a set of stats. A fresh 80 in quest greens and blues will have a certain set of stats. A level 80 in raid gear will have double if not more the stats of the fresh 80.
Yes, this is exactly why I went into my segment on logic. What you're describing here is an emotional preference for your character to be the source of the stats.
Logically, it doesn't matter -- stats are stats and you earn them all through progression. The fiction of where your various stats come from is irrelevant because stripping your gear is about as useful as cutting off your hand in real life (ie it's not useful and one is viewed as crazy for even suggesting it.)
Emotionally, it matters to you -- you feel like the fact that some of your stats are removable makes them less a part of your character.
And like I said, most players are pretty emotional and so I admitted you're probably right that more progression should exist on characters themselves -- even though logically there's no justification for it (apart from the logic of designing a game for its target audience: us imperfect humans. :P )
Just because a word is subjective doesn't mean it has no definition. When a player calls a game a "grind" they are describing repetitive gameplay and pattern exhaustion. And that's immediately where the game fails to be fun. Rewards do not trump pattern exhaustion. If a game is boring, players leave.
That is only because of the broken mechanics in regard to gear. Gear breaks, is not able to be repaired, is lost, etc... only because of the permanent nature of gear, does it actually work in that sense.
While there is an objective defeinition of the word, the application is subjective.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The other thing that comes to mind in regard to gear is the sheer amount of it. Try to recall a single hero in fiction that is so over-geared as players are in MMORPGs...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The other thing that comes to mind in regard to gear is the sheer amount of it. Try to recall a single hero in fiction that is so over-geared as players are in MMORPGs...
A leather jacket, a dog, a shotgun, and some gasoline is all any true badass hero ever needs.
There's nothing wrong with FFA PVP, except for one little thing: proper punishment. Developers don't seem to have it figured yet.
What are your thoughts on how EVE handles it, if you are familiar with it...
I've only played EvE for a little less than a month, so most things I know about the game are from the couple of guides and forum posts I've read: nullsec/lowsec/highsec, Concord, etc...
In theory, their system seems to be a little on the insufficient side compared to certain concepts I have in my mind, but in practice, it seems to be mostly working. Stil, perhaps it could use a little tightening, in order to make the game a tad more accessible.
Comments
A person that trains to run a marathon is a runner.
A person being chased by a dog is not a runner.
Both run, but only one is a runner.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
According to many posters, 50% of EVE players avoid PVP. I dont have a dev quote, so will not state it as fact....if someone cares to link the numbers that would be cool.
It totally goes against your speculation. As long as there was demand for traders, and PVE folks had something to do, you would have as many, if not more on the option only PVP server.
Keep telling yourself otherwise.
Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.
Who do you think the PvE folk sell to?
Those that mine - who do they sell their ore to, reprossed or not? For those that build ships? Build any of the components? Those that sell loot from missions?
It is almost as bad as reading the blogs about EVE not being a PvP game. They attempt to replace the threat from players by having NPCs do it. If the NPCs posed the same threat as players, then what would be the difference.
The Market in EVE is some of the most cutthroat PvP in the game...
Play the game or be quiet about it...lol.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Yes, that's true and it's also a straw man argument.
You said that Darkfall was not a sandbox BECAUSE of its PvP focus. You said that UO was a sandbox but it has a PvP focus. If the REASON that Darkfall is not a sandbox is its PvP focus, then UO cannot be a sandbox as well. Let me correct your logical illustration to how it fits in the context of this argument...
Premise 1: If a game is PvP focused then it is not a sandbox.
Premise 2: Darkfall is PvP focused.
Premise 3: UO is PvP focused.
Conclusion: Neither Darkfall or UO are sandboxes.
So basically, you can't use the "Darkfall is a sandbox because of its PvP focus argument." If there is another reason why you feel that Darkfall is not a sandbox but UO is, I would be happy to hear it.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
That is not what I said. I said DF was designed as a PvP game. UO was designed as a world to explore.
Which goes with my running analogy... please try to stop misquoting me. I have been very specific on this matter, detailing where I drew the line between the two.
You can disagree with what I actually said, but again - please try to stop misquoting me.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I wasn't quoting you, I was paraphrasing, there were no quote marks.
This is a direct quote from you in reference to UO:
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.
This doesn't sound like you're talking about a game that's about "world exploration." It pretty much sounds like you're talking about a game where you grind up skill to PvP. And too many people, that' what UO was, and that's perfectly fine. I don't see how my statement was so off from what you said.
It is also what Darkfall is. I have to ask...have you ever played Darkfall? I played it for some time...and you basically kill monsters to get skill gain/loot to PvP with. However, in Darkfall is takes FOREVER to get your skills/attributes up to a respectable level and while you're grinding you will constantly be ganked by players that you have no chance of defeating.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I do not remember if that quote was from the discussion on comparing UO to other games (such as the UO v. EQ debate that was taking place in the thread or not); but it is along the lines of the difference between a sandbox and a themepark. Yes, there was crafting - running/riding around the world - etc; but in comparison to games where you have more quests than you can shake a stick at - there really was little to do. In regard to the chatroom aspects, that is the nature of RP in most games. You talk.
I started the download of the trial for DF once. It was taking forever, and during that time I read up more on the game that was actually released as opposed to the game that had been discussed for so long. I decided to cancel the download. Much in the way that I would not pay a sub for something like Planetside, I saw no reason to pay a sub for DF. It is funny though, because I thoroughly enjoyed Shadowbane up until the beta of ToO.
During that same period of time, I tried WAR and did not like it. I created a character in CO, went in to the game world, and promptly uninstalled the game. I tried STO, was fine until I jumped and then uninstalled the game - well, not really fine - but that was the proverbial straw. I ended up going back to EVE... though that did not last more than a month.
You could say that I have become jaded and disillusioned with the MMORPG industry. I've been resub'd to CoX now for two months, having hoped that GR would be more than it was...hoping that I19 will hold my interest for a bit...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Alright, you're correct.
From a purely functional/logical standpoint, all capabilities of your character are your character. Your hand is also a tool. It's an intrinsic part of you and you'd be foolish to remove it. The same goes for a character's gear: it's an intrinsic part of the character and you'd be foolish to remove it. Just because your hand happens to be more permanently connected to you (and an impressive piece of biological evolution) doesn't really break the analogy.
It's ironic that the tendancy for humans to not see things from a purely logical perspective that makes it less logical to implement a purely logical game design. (Which is why you're correct.)
I disagree with your take on the "endless grind" though, simply because the word "grind" immediately infers pattern exhaustion. Pattern exhaustion trumps all: if gameplay patterns aren't interesting, the game is over (reward or no.) (granted this is with the slightly stretched version of gameplay patterns which encompasses all the patterns of interaction in a game...even things like social interactions -- which explains why some players who are utterly bored with a game can stick around for a while if they like their guild.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To an extent, I believe I did not elaborate enough on what I was thinking in regard to that. At the very least, I do not believe that I communicated my thoughts well.
In regards to tools and gear:
If one wanted to dig a hole, one could use their hands. One could use a spoon. One could use a knife. A shovel. They could use a backhoe. There are a plethora of tools which one could use to accomplish that task. I do not argue that.
My issue comes into play in regard to the focus on the bonuses received from gear and that is what takes precedence over character. It is along the lines of what I was trying to say in regard to gear in DDO compared to that in WoW.
At level 80 in WoW, your naked character will have a set of stats. A fresh 80 in quest greens and blues will have a certain set of stats. A level 80 in raid gear will have double if not more the stats of the fresh 80.
From the point of view of the stats, the character is twice as good as they were without any actual improvement in the character. The character has not learned any new skills, they do not have any new abilities, or the like. The character has not improved.
Advancement in WoW is gear progression and challenges faced are gear checks. The character has not learned some new ability to better tackle the obstacles in their path. They simply can take more damage and do more damage. It is a linear scaling. What they are doing in raiding is not much different than what they were doing when they hit the level cap.
While during the journey to level 80, the character actually improved...
As for grind, it is a very subjective term. My girlfriend plays Farmerama. I see it is a mindless repetitive clickfest. Yet, I had no issue wtih the "mindless repetitive clickfest" involved in EVE's Planetary Interaction.
As a species, we are groomed for repetitive tasks from an early age. What one calls tedious another is fine with...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Perhaps, but in games like DAoC, Civilizations, Age of Wonders, Starcraft, and Warcraft, factions are unique and have meaning. It adds a whole new dimension for dynamic gameplay and immersion. Having only two factions doesn't work well, I agree with you. I would love to see a PvP game come along with like 6 or 8 factions that isn't a FFA game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
With eight factions, facing the possibility of being attacked at any moment by one of the seven other factions - what would be the difference in the game being FFA?
I suppose some of the issue in discussing FFA comes down to what it means to individuals. Some see it purely as an open gankfest of wanton murder. I do not picture it as such.
I believe in consequences for actions.
If Player A kills Player B, and both are in Faction X - Player A would lose standing and at a relatively quick point be removed from Faction X. The person would become KoS to Faction X. They would have to try to join one of the other Factions or they would end up not belonging to any Faction and thus be a target of all Factions.
I had meant to ask it earlier in this thread, I think I hinted at it, but I never asked directly.
Is part of the dislike of FFA because of Friendly Fire? I know that in several discussions I have had on the matter of Friendly Fire, that I have never seen so many people get their figurative panties all bunched up.
Imagine how different WoW, CoX, and so many other games would be if there was Friendly Fire...
...I suppose that would get into a mechanic that the average player would not enjoy.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
It's not like that. It should have a complex align system. Some faction are friendly with each other, some are archenemy which hate each other alot, and some are lesser enemy.
It would have a complex economy and politic system. Some faction are better at crafting certain things, some have better merchant etc etc.
I was actually hoping some company can come up with that. But never seen any.
The closest thing I seen is fallen earth(which have 6 faction), and some other chinese game(have 9 faction). But the politic in this game isn't done very well.
Check out Neocron and its 12 factions. Each faction has differing alignments but there is still a general pro-city vs anti-city feeling. Thing is though the only perk for being in the faction is what special items you can get.
After reading this i decided that Dark fail or Dork fail might actually despite the Pr bull actually be a game worth trying.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
i was about to say something like 2 all the way but then i thought about.
number one will have an initial popularity but noobs WILL suffer. also corps would form defensive "enclaves" for muterall protection and trading partners. i remember when tech 2 production via moon mining was new ower corp could mine certain common and rare resources off moons we being a small corp made friends with a corp that could prduce other mins while other corps we made friends with locally thanks to us supplying resources at a dicount could concentrate on the variouse stages of producing what as a valuabvle item on the market at a good price [and a very good profit free price to us]. we also had corps acting as defenders i.e. they were pvp corps/pirates/ gankers who we befrended and actully got on well with. who were also getting cheap tech 2 items as well as cheap asteroid based produce such as practicxally freee ammo and wepons.
However back on subect the population wont have many noobs after the gankers get good.
number 2 will be very popular with the majoraty of uss but we may try out the alternatives just in case its fun.
number 3 ouch...may attract a lot of those who have never played eve but with a flag pvp and the market will suffer in the long term.
personally option one holds appeal for the friendsghips it will help form
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
I'm subbed to Darkfall right now. So far, I haven't been ganked much, but it's true, I'm never free from the fear of being ganked, which does limit what I will carry on my character. Still, there seems to be lots to do besides pvp, at least for a new player. I don't know how I'll feel about all of it in a month or two, though.
But all is not harmonious paradise in Eve, either. I spent a month playing, and a month on their forums. And there was a constant stream of complaints from carebears about there being too much pvp, and a constant stream of complaints from pvpers about there not being enough pvp. The community is pretty divided about it, and there is little agreement about the direction the game should take. It's probably fortunate that CCP has its own ideas about where it wants to draw the line.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Wait a second, chat is not common but it's a very social game (based on actions) .. erm I guess that's one form of socialization >.>
/cue 2001 music
Yes, this is exactly why I went into my segment on logic. What you're describing here is an emotional preference for your character to be the source of the stats.
Logically, it doesn't matter -- stats are stats and you earn them all through progression. The fiction of where your various stats come from is irrelevant because stripping your gear is about as useful as cutting off your hand in real life (ie it's not useful and one is viewed as crazy for even suggesting it.)
Emotionally, it matters to you -- you feel like the fact that some of your stats are removable makes them less a part of your character.
And like I said, most players are pretty emotional and so I admitted you're probably right that more progression should exist on characters themselves -- even though logically there's no justification for it (apart from the logic of designing a game for its target audience: us imperfect humans. :P )
Just because a word is subjective doesn't mean it has no definition. When a player calls a game a "grind" they are describing repetitive gameplay and pattern exhaustion. And that's immediately where the game fails to be fun. Rewards do not trump pattern exhaustion. If a game is boring, players leave.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That is only because of the broken mechanics in regard to gear. Gear breaks, is not able to be repaired, is lost, etc... only because of the permanent nature of gear, does it actually work in that sense.
While there is an objective defeinition of the word, the application is subjective.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
There's nothing wrong with FFA PVP, except for one little thing: proper punishment. Developers don't seem to have it figured yet.
The other thing that comes to mind in regard to gear is the sheer amount of it. Try to recall a single hero in fiction that is so over-geared as players are in MMORPGs...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
What are your thoughts on how EVE handles it, if you are familiar with it...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
A leather jacket, a dog, a shotgun, and some gasoline is all any true badass hero ever needs.
I've only played EvE for a little less than a month, so most things I know about the game are from the couple of guides and forum posts I've read: nullsec/lowsec/highsec, Concord, etc...
In theory, their system seems to be a little on the insufficient side compared to certain concepts I have in my mind, but in practice, it seems to be mostly working. Stil, perhaps it could use a little tightening, in order to make the game a tad more accessible.