You can make the best game in the world ever. But if you have this in it, I won't be there.
PvP aside, I don't want games that accurately reflect real life. Real life is largely dull. I go to movies or read books or play games for escapism. I want to play/watch/read about the extra-ordinary, not the ordinary.
It sounds a bit like people are wishing for The Matrix where they can jack in and live another life. The trouble with that is who would want to jack in and be a peon?
In a world without consequences there is no disincentive for someone to misbehave. For example there is no moral pressure against killing in an MMO. In fact there are no morals at all because there isn't social pressure to have any. In real life if you want PvP you join the army or you get in a bar fight and end up in jail. And you've got that perma death thing to deal with where you lose are your phat lootz! In game you just shoot someone and they might be inconvenienced by having to go to the bindstone or lose some loot. Champions of sandbox gaming inevitably get down to "Yeah, we could gank anyone and take their lootz! Its awesome!" Not exactly a great seller for people looking to escape life for a bit rather than enter into another on where they can get picked on with impunity.
That's the inherent problem with sandbox MMOs. Anonymity and lack of social consequences mean people will sink to the lowest common denominator. It takes a lot of effort and planning on the part of developers to present the players with a sandbox environment taht won't degenerate into complete anarchy. The devs in sandbox game have to build in a sort of morality (consequences) for bad behavior into the game to make it more likely that people will buy into an online society rather than an online gankfest. Its much easier and probably cheaper (from a design standpoint) to make a theme park and have everyone be a "hero" in the same story.
Out of curiosity, have you spent alot of time playing ffa open world pvp games? Not being funny but they are not the wall to wall gank fests that everyone imagines.
The real life analogy in terms of how an mmo 'society' behaves is a dangerous one. In RL people aren't able to troll the crap out of each other and generally behave like they do in standard themepark games, let alone sandboxes. Furthermore, from personal experience I have found that the communities in sandbox games are actually superior (for want of a better word) and certainly more self regulated than those in themeparks.
That they are more challenging to make than a themepark game is probably correct, but then that is hardly a case against them.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
You can make the best game in the world ever. But if you have this in it, I won't be there.
PvP aside, I don't want games that accurately reflect real life. Real life is largely dull. I go to movies or read books or play games for escapism. I want to play/watch/read about the extra-ordinary, not the ordinary.
Not everyone who favours a sandbox style game elects to be a crafter or a farmer. The point is more that it also caters for people who do want to follow that route, as well as those who want to go off and 'be heroic'.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The technology of allowing thousands of concurrent players in a single simulated environment is, for the most part, being utterly wasted on uninspired and unimaginative roleplaying games.
With this kind of capability, there should be infinitely more ambitious projects than the inane garbage accessible to us at the moment. For instance, how about a wild west virtual realtiy where players have free reign to play out an alternate history of the American frontier? Obviously, it would be the sandbox type with construction elements, player-driven economics and unrestricted PvP.
You'd have a tremendously captivating parallel universe where intricate social dynamics are taking place 24/7. Every possible role would be fulfilled in order to fuel the complex web of a civilization in its infancy stages. There would be trade, conflict, politics, crime and everything else in between happening at all levels, layers and scales. Every second spent playing a game like this would be no less than 100% thrill.
I never really addressed the OP, (my ADD gets the best of me sometimes) and while I agree with most of what you said, I'll take issue with this part and say that PVP in fact, has to be heavily restricted, or you won't have a very realistic depiction of the old west.
You can't rely on players to police themselves, they don't have the same incentives like we do in the real life (perma death) there for the dev's have to build in a consequences structure, a la EVE but even more strict if you really want to appeal to a broader player base.
Even in the old west there was a rule of law, people did not go about wantenly killing everyone they ran across because there would be justice that eventually caught up to them. (Besides, most humans don't go around killing eveyrone they come across, even if they are killers, they usually need to see a reason/profit to do so.)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The technology of allowing thousands of concurrent players in a single simulated environment is, for the most part, being utterly wasted on uninspired and unimaginative roleplaying games.
With this kind of capability, there should be infinitely more ambitious projects than the inane garbage accessible to us at the moment. For instance, how about a wild west virtual realtiy where players have free reign to play out an alternate history of the American frontier? Obviously, it would be the sandbox type with construction elements, player-driven economics and unrestricted PvP.
You'd have a tremendously captivating parallel universe where intricate social dynamics are taking place 24/7. Every possible role would be fulfilled in order to fuel the complex web of a civilization in its infancy stages. There would be trade, conflict, politics, crime and everything else in between happening at all levels, layers and scales. Every second spent playing a game like this would be no less than 100% thrill.
I never really addressed the OP, (my ADD gets the best of me sometimes) and while I agree with most of what you said, I'll take issue with this part and say that PVP in fact, has to be heavily restricted, or you won't have a very realistic depiction of the old west.
You can't rely on players to police themselves, they don't have the same incentives like we do in the real life (perma death) there for the dev's have to build in a consequences structure, a la EVE but even more strict if you really want to appeal to a broader player base.
Even in the old west there was a rule of law, people did not go about wantenly killing everyone they ran across because there would be justice that eventually caught up to them. (Besides, most humans don't go around killing eveyrone they come across, even if they are killers, they usually need to see a reason/profit to do so.)
PvP in EVE is unrestricted. PvP in the oldwest was unrestricted, PvP in RL is unrestricted, they just have differing ranges of consequences.
Restricted PvP implies that it can only occur to certain players in certain places or at certain times. You can have unrestricted PvP (meaning it can occur at any place, at any time, between anyone) and have a wide range of possible consequences applied.
With regards to the severity of the restrictions, well that would depend, but it seems curious to me that people would want to severely change a sandbox games mechanics in order to attract players that are more interested in zero risk, linear themepark games. Why not just make a themepark if you want massive subs or a sandbox for the niche audience and be done with it.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
Naw, DAOC was the best out of all of those IMO.
Don't confuse the protests of a vocal minority as being even remotely in step with the vast majority of the greater MMORPG community.
And I speak as one of the minority.
I'd take AC Darktide server, Shadowbane and Anarchy Online over DOAC anyday.
and this goes to prove what many have said. the worth of the game is all in the eye of the beholder.
I tried AC and AO and knew in less than 15 mins the games were not for me. I can't stand PVP, but I Loved DAoC (pre ToA). Too much of PVP is dependent upon your hardware and connection quality. It has very little to do with your ability and/or knowledge.
The technology of allowing thousands of concurrent players in a single simulated environment is, for the most part, being utterly wasted on uninspired and unimaginative roleplaying games.
With this kind of capability, there should be infinitely more ambitious projects than the inane garbage accessible to us at the moment. For instance, how about a wild west virtual realtiy where players have free reign to play out an alternate history of the American frontier? Obviously, it would be the sandbox type with construction elements, player-driven economics and unrestricted PvP.
You'd have a tremendously captivating parallel universe where intricate social dynamics are taking place 24/7. Every possible role would be fulfilled in order to fuel the complex web of a civilization in its infancy stages. There would be trade, conflict, politics, crime and everything else in between happening at all levels, layers and scales. Every second spent playing a game like this would be no less than 100% thrill.
I never really addressed the OP, (my ADD gets the best of me sometimes) and while I agree with most of what you said, I'll take issue with this part and say that PVP in fact, has to be heavily restricted, or you won't have a very realistic depiction of the old west.
You can't rely on players to police themselves, they don't have the same incentives like we do in the real life (perma death) there for the dev's have to build in a consequences structure, a la EVE but even more strict if you really want to appeal to a broader player base.
Even in the old west there was a rule of law, people did not go about wantenly killing everyone they ran across because there would be justice that eventually caught up to them. (Besides, most humans don't go around killing eveyrone they come across, even if they are killers, they usually need to see a reason/profit to do so.)
PvP in EVE is unrestricted. PvP in the oldwest was unrestricted, PvP in RL is unrestricted, they just have differing ranges of consequences.
Restricted PvP implies that it can only occur to certain players in certain places or at certain times. You can have unrestricted PvP (meaning it can occur at any place, at any time, between anyone) and have a wide range of possible consequences applied.
With regards to the severity of the restrictions, well that would depend, but it seems curious to me that people would want to severely change a sandbox games mechanics in order to attract players that are more interested in zero risk, linear themepark games. Why not just make a themepark if you want massive subs or a sandbox for the niche audience and be done with it.
OK, I'll concede the clarification of verbiage, consequences might be a better word and approach, wasn't saying there should be areas of the world where PVP can't take place, however I do think PVP should have serious consequences, just like in real life.
Now, if you want PVP game, I can see why you'd disagree, but in my view PVP in a true virtual world game as the OP described should have conquences up to and including permadeath or long periods of incarcaration (say weeks or even months) for really bad behavior.
You're right, I'm trying to prevent you from PVPing, and as history has proven out, your view is the more niche view and when developing a game, business considerations do have to be included in the descision to build.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
Naw, DAOC was the best out of all of those IMO.
Don't confuse the protests of a vocal minority as being even remotely in step with the vast majority of the greater MMORPG community.
And I speak as one of the minority.
I'd take AC Darktide server, Shadowbane and Anarchy Online over DOAC anyday.
and this goes to prove what many have said. the worth of the game is all in the eye of the beholder.
I tried AC and AO and knew in less than 15 mins the games were not for me. I can't stand PVP, but I Loved DAoC (pre ToA). Too much of PVP is dependent upon your hardware and connection quality. It has very little to do with your ability and/or knowledge.
Then it stands to reason that PvE success is down to hardware and connectivity to as you are utilizing the exact same ig mechanics.
Whilst having an uber gaming rig and connection will help in blazingly fast fps games, I doubt it makes as much difference as many like to think in terms of general mmo pvp. I've pvp'd on a works laptop with integrated graphics before and I was beating the same people in the same games. Unless they were using a C64 or a calculator to play then it is unlikely that I had better 'tech' at the time then them.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Isn't it amazing how open-ended, player-driven, sandboxy MMOs are so vehemently protested against by the average forum mmorpg.com user, yet the most cherished and ubiquitously praised of all MMOs that the vast majority of avid/experienced players have been the likes of pre-Trammel UO, pre-NGE SWG and EVE Online?
Naw, DAOC was the best out of all of those IMO.
Don't confuse the protests of a vocal minority as being even remotely in step with the vast majority of the greater MMORPG community.
And I speak as one of the minority.
I'd take AC Darktide server, Shadowbane and Anarchy Online over DOAC anyday.
and this goes to prove what many have said. the worth of the game is all in the eye of the beholder.
I tried AC and AO and knew in less than 15 mins the games were not for me. I can't stand PVP, but I Loved DAoC (pre ToA). Too much of PVP is dependent upon your hardware and connection quality. It has very little to do with your ability and/or knowledge.
Then it stands to reason that PvE success is down to hardware and connectivity to as you are utilizing the exact same ig mechanics.
Whilst having an uber gaming rig and connection will help in blazingly fast fps games, I doubt it makes as much difference as many like to think in terms of general mmo pvp. I've pvp'd on a works laptop with integrated graphics before and I was beating the same people in the same games. Unless they were using a C64 or a calculator to play then it is unlikely that I had better 'tech' at the time then them.
Not quite true. If you fall below a very low minimum in either or both then yes. But you have to be above a significant level to succeed in PVP. This does assume that pvp isn't just 1 vs 1. Going back to DAoC, my lil kobold warrior got attacked by a stealther in the frontier when he was on one of his many crafting gear runs, but I was able to defeat the stealther again 1 vs 1. In keep raids my fps would drop so low that by the time I could target, my screen would update and I would be dead and I had a system well above the minimum required for the game, but it wasn't a $5000 system either.
OK, I'll concede the clarification of verbiage, consequences might be a better word and approach, wasn't saying there should be areas of the world where PVP can't take place, however I do think PVP should have serious consequences, just like in real life.
Now, if you want PVP game, I can see why you'd disagree, but in my view PVP in a true virtual world game as the OP described should have conquences up to and including permadeath or long periods of incarcaration (say weeks or even months) for really bad behavior.
You're right, I'm trying to prevent you from PVPing, and as history has proven out, your view is the more niche view and when developing a game, business considerations do have to be included in the descision to build.
If you are trying to make a true virtual world based upon the actual historical past then yes, consequences for random pvp should be high to say the least, well at least when blatantly done.
Having said that from a business perspective it makes little sense at the moment to make such a world. Sandboxes with or without pvp penalites are currently niche, so if a company is going to make one they need to understand that in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The technology of allowing thousands of concurrent players in a single simulated environment is, for the most part, being utterly wasted on uninspired and unimaginative roleplaying games.
With this kind of capability, there should be infinitely more ambitious projects than the inane garbage accessible to us at the moment. For instance, how about a wild west virtual realtiy where players have free reign to play out an alternate history of the American frontier? Obviously, it would be the sandbox type with construction elements, player-driven economics and unrestricted PvP.
You'd have a tremendously captivating parallel universe where intricate social dynamics are taking place 24/7. Every possible role would be fulfilled in order to fuel the complex web of a civilization in its infancy stages. There would be trade, conflict, politics, crime and everything else in between happening at all levels, layers and scales. Every second spent playing a game like this would be no less than 100% thrill.
The only problem that I have seen with any open PvP world is that there are far more people interested in "murder" and not enough interested in preventing such. This leads to very frustrating situations where players, not wishing to be murdered, can not do things in game without sever fear of it happening to them. That is a very chiling effect on gameplay. You have a much more retrictive ecomonic and even social enviroment in such situations. Where the act of says gathering resources and crafting or just traveling from point A to point B becomes a chore rather then fun.
I am all for open PvP but not in a game that is also trying to be a sandbox in all areas. Either you have to place restrictions on where open PvP can occur OR players have to learn to start policing and punishing other players (something that will not happen) when murder does occur. For the record, murder in this case is the killing of another player in game for no other reason then the "thrill" of being able to do so or steal items that may be on that players avatar.
The problem with MMOs is that modern games are designed for modern players. That means that there is little downtime where people heal up, waits for mobs to reset, or have to wait for anything. That also means that most players fly through the game in no time, and end up leaving after a few months. Just like Xbox-gamers work their way through a game in a month and move on to the next title, MMOers do the same these days.
Most games don't want their players to have to travel all over the place, so they place teleport stones everywhere. Where I in EQ had to decide where I wanted to move next. Travelling often included waiting for boats that sailed at regular intervals, not when it was convenient for me.
The MMO-experience of old is sacrificed at the alter of Non-Stop Action. When I played LotRO and AoC, I rarely had time to get to know the people I grouped with because we were too busy fighting or moving on to the next fight. Back when I played DAoC and EQ, it was during the rests between fights I got to know people, and without those it is harder to get to know people.
When it comes to developers, everyone seems to want to make the next WoW, instead of adhering to their own vision. If you want to make a PvE game, don't include PvP. PvP in PvE games are rarely successful since the game is designed for PvE. Some classes are better for PvP than others, and balancing is a nightmare. If you design a FFA full loot PvP game, then all classes needs to be equally dependant upon gear. If a caster can run around naked and still compete with a fully geared paladin, then everyone will soon be a caster or gone.
Developers should look for those dedicated MMOers who will stay with a game for years, rather than get the big influx of players who check out the game and leave after a month because they have maxed out and there is nothing to do. Big launches tend to cause big failures because people have too high hopes, and when some leave they drag everyone with them out the door.
The problem with MMOs is that modern games are designed for modern players. That means that there is little downtime where people heal up, waits for mobs to reset, or have to wait for anything. That also means that most players fly through the game in no time, and end up leaving after a few months. Just like Xbox-gamers work their way through a game in a month and move on to the next title, MMOers do the same these days.
Most games don't want their players to have to travel all over the place, so they place teleport stones everywhere. Where I in EQ had to decide where I wanted to move next. Travelling often included waiting for boats that sailed at regular intervals, not when it was convenient for me.
The MMO-experience of old is sacrificed at the alter of Non-Stop Action. When I played LotRO and AoC, I rarely had time to get to know the people I grouped with because we were too busy fighting or moving on to the next fight. Back when I played DAoC and EQ, it was during the rests between fights I got to know people, and without those it is harder to get to know people.
When it comes to developers, everyone seems to want to make the next WoW, instead of adhering to their own vision. If you want to make a PvE game, don't include PvP. PvP in PvE games are rarely successful since the game is designed for PvE. Some classes are better for PvP than others, and balancing is a nightmare. If you design a FFA full loot PvP game, then all classes needs to be equally dependant upon gear. If a caster can run around naked and still compete with a fully geared paladin, then everyone will soon be a caster or gone.
Developers should look for those dedicated MMOers who will stay with a game for years, rather than get the big influx of players who check out the game and leave after a month because they have maxed out and there is nothing to do. Big launches tend to cause big failures because people have too high hopes, and when some leave they drag everyone with them out the door.
Not quite true. If you fall below a very low minimum in either or both then yes. But you have to be above a significant level to succeed in PVP. This does assume that pvp isn't just 1 vs 1. Going back to DAoC, my lil kobold warrior got attacked by a stealther in the frontier when he was on one of his many crafting gear runs, but I was able to defeat the stealther again 1 vs 1. In keep raids my fps would drop so low that by the time I could target, my screen would update and I would be dead and I had a system well above the minimum required for the game, but it wasn't a $5000 system either.
I'd make an educated guess that most people who are involved in mass pvp frequently have systems that are above the recommended specs without being overtly expensive machines. In general I would imagine (impossible to know for sure) that the 'average' pvper has specs that are within a range as to make it so that very few people have 'tech' fast enough to give them a telling advantage in pvp in mmo's.
Eitherway turning this into a 'what takes skill' argument is going to cause major derailment of the thread so it's perhaps not for the best to get into that can of worms.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Not quite true. If you fall below a very low minimum in either or both then yes. But you have to be above a significant level to succeed in PVP. This does assume that pvp isn't just 1 vs 1. Going back to DAoC, my lil kobold warrior got attacked by a stealther in the frontier when he was on one of his many crafting gear runs, but I was able to defeat the stealther again 1 vs 1. In keep raids my fps would drop so low that by the time I could target, my screen would update and I would be dead and I had a system well above the minimum required for the game, but it wasn't a $5000 system either.
I'd make an educated guess that most people who are involved in mass pvp frequently have systems that are above the recommended specs without being overtly expensive machines. In general I would imagine (impossible to know for sure) that the 'average' pvper has specs that are within a range as to make it so that very few people have 'tech' fast enough to give them a telling advantage in pvp in mmo's.
Eitherway turning this into a 'what takes skill' argument is going to cause major derailment of the thread so it's perhaps not for the best to get into that can of worms.
actually it leads it back to the a major point of this topic, different people want different things from "their" mmo's so the OP's premise doesn't appear to be sound for the majority of the populace and thus not what most companies would build towards.
actually it leads it back to the a major point of this topic, different people want different things from "their" mmo's so the OP's premise doesn't appear to be sound for the majority of the populace and thus not what most companies would build towards.
I'm not sure how blaming a tech disparity between players forms a counter to the OP's idea of an open world game tbh.
That aside, most of us in the minority who prefer sandbox games do realise that we are exactly that, in the minority.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Comments
You can make the best game in the world ever. But if you have this in it, I won't be there.
PvP aside, I don't want games that accurately reflect real life. Real life is largely dull. I go to movies or read books or play games for escapism. I want to play/watch/read about the extra-ordinary, not the ordinary.
Out of curiosity, have you spent alot of time playing ffa open world pvp games? Not being funny but they are not the wall to wall gank fests that everyone imagines.
The real life analogy in terms of how an mmo 'society' behaves is a dangerous one. In RL people aren't able to troll the crap out of each other and generally behave like they do in standard themepark games, let alone sandboxes. Furthermore, from personal experience I have found that the communities in sandbox games are actually superior (for want of a better word) and certainly more self regulated than those in themeparks.
That they are more challenging to make than a themepark game is probably correct, but then that is hardly a case against them.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Not everyone who favours a sandbox style game elects to be a crafter or a farmer. The point is more that it also caters for people who do want to follow that route, as well as those who want to go off and 'be heroic'.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I never really addressed the OP, (my ADD gets the best of me sometimes) and while I agree with most of what you said, I'll take issue with this part and say that PVP in fact, has to be heavily restricted, or you won't have a very realistic depiction of the old west.
You can't rely on players to police themselves, they don't have the same incentives like we do in the real life (perma death) there for the dev's have to build in a consequences structure, a la EVE but even more strict if you really want to appeal to a broader player base.
Even in the old west there was a rule of law, people did not go about wantenly killing everyone they ran across because there would be justice that eventually caught up to them. (Besides, most humans don't go around killing eveyrone they come across, even if they are killers, they usually need to see a reason/profit to do so.)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
PvP in EVE is unrestricted. PvP in the oldwest was unrestricted, PvP in RL is unrestricted, they just have differing ranges of consequences.
Restricted PvP implies that it can only occur to certain players in certain places or at certain times. You can have unrestricted PvP (meaning it can occur at any place, at any time, between anyone) and have a wide range of possible consequences applied.
With regards to the severity of the restrictions, well that would depend, but it seems curious to me that people would want to severely change a sandbox games mechanics in order to attract players that are more interested in zero risk, linear themepark games. Why not just make a themepark if you want massive subs or a sandbox for the niche audience and be done with it.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
the defacto problem
the by fact problem
ipso facto might ahve been more appropriate 'by the fact itself'
perceptum latin proprie
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Norsefire-logo.png
and this goes to prove what many have said. the worth of the game is all in the eye of the beholder.
I tried AC and AO and knew in less than 15 mins the games were not for me. I can't stand PVP, but I Loved DAoC (pre ToA). Too much of PVP is dependent upon your hardware and connection quality. It has very little to do with your ability and/or knowledge.
OK, I'll concede the clarification of verbiage, consequences might be a better word and approach, wasn't saying there should be areas of the world where PVP can't take place, however I do think PVP should have serious consequences, just like in real life.
Now, if you want PVP game, I can see why you'd disagree, but in my view PVP in a true virtual world game as the OP described should have conquences up to and including permadeath or long periods of incarcaration (say weeks or even months) for really bad behavior.
You're right, I'm trying to prevent you from PVPing, and as history has proven out, your view is the more niche view and when developing a game, business considerations do have to be included in the descision to build.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Then it stands to reason that PvE success is down to hardware and connectivity to as you are utilizing the exact same ig mechanics.
Whilst having an uber gaming rig and connection will help in blazingly fast fps games, I doubt it makes as much difference as many like to think in terms of general mmo pvp. I've pvp'd on a works laptop with integrated graphics before and I was beating the same people in the same games. Unless they were using a C64 or a calculator to play then it is unlikely that I had better 'tech' at the time then them.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Not quite true. If you fall below a very low minimum in either or both then yes. But you have to be above a significant level to succeed in PVP. This does assume that pvp isn't just 1 vs 1. Going back to DAoC, my lil kobold warrior got attacked by a stealther in the frontier when he was on one of his many crafting gear runs, but I was able to defeat the stealther again 1 vs 1. In keep raids my fps would drop so low that by the time I could target, my screen would update and I would be dead and I had a system well above the minimum required for the game, but it wasn't a $5000 system either.
If you are trying to make a true virtual world based upon the actual historical past then yes, consequences for random pvp should be high to say the least, well at least when blatantly done.
Having said that from a business perspective it makes little sense at the moment to make such a world. Sandboxes with or without pvp penalites are currently niche, so if a company is going to make one they need to understand that in the first place.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The only problem that I have seen with any open PvP world is that there are far more people interested in "murder" and not enough interested in preventing such. This leads to very frustrating situations where players, not wishing to be murdered, can not do things in game without sever fear of it happening to them. That is a very chiling effect on gameplay. You have a much more retrictive ecomonic and even social enviroment in such situations. Where the act of says gathering resources and crafting or just traveling from point A to point B becomes a chore rather then fun.
I am all for open PvP but not in a game that is also trying to be a sandbox in all areas. Either you have to place restrictions on where open PvP can occur OR players have to learn to start policing and punishing other players (something that will not happen) when murder does occur. For the record, murder in this case is the killing of another player in game for no other reason then the "thrill" of being able to do so or steal items that may be on that players avatar.
Let's party like it is 1863!
The problem with MMOs is that modern games are designed for modern players. That means that there is little downtime where people heal up, waits for mobs to reset, or have to wait for anything. That also means that most players fly through the game in no time, and end up leaving after a few months. Just like Xbox-gamers work their way through a game in a month and move on to the next title, MMOers do the same these days.
Most games don't want their players to have to travel all over the place, so they place teleport stones everywhere. Where I in EQ had to decide where I wanted to move next. Travelling often included waiting for boats that sailed at regular intervals, not when it was convenient for me.
The MMO-experience of old is sacrificed at the alter of Non-Stop Action. When I played LotRO and AoC, I rarely had time to get to know the people I grouped with because we were too busy fighting or moving on to the next fight. Back when I played DAoC and EQ, it was during the rests between fights I got to know people, and without those it is harder to get to know people.
When it comes to developers, everyone seems to want to make the next WoW, instead of adhering to their own vision. If you want to make a PvE game, don't include PvP. PvP in PvE games are rarely successful since the game is designed for PvE. Some classes are better for PvP than others, and balancing is a nightmare. If you design a FFA full loot PvP game, then all classes needs to be equally dependant upon gear. If a caster can run around naked and still compete with a fully geared paladin, then everyone will soon be a caster or gone.
Developers should look for those dedicated MMOers who will stay with a game for years, rather than get the big influx of players who check out the game and leave after a month because they have maxed out and there is nothing to do. Big launches tend to cause big failures because people have too high hopes, and when some leave they drag everyone with them out the door.
Couldn't agree more
I'd make an educated guess that most people who are involved in mass pvp frequently have systems that are above the recommended specs without being overtly expensive machines. In general I would imagine (impossible to know for sure) that the 'average' pvper has specs that are within a range as to make it so that very few people have 'tech' fast enough to give them a telling advantage in pvp in mmo's.
Eitherway turning this into a 'what takes skill' argument is going to cause major derailment of the thread so it's perhaps not for the best to get into that can of worms.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
actually it leads it back to the a major point of this topic, different people want different things from "their" mmo's so the OP's premise doesn't appear to be sound for the majority of the populace and thus not what most companies would build towards.
I'm not sure how blaming a tech disparity between players forms a counter to the OP's idea of an open world game tbh.
That aside, most of us in the minority who prefer sandbox games do realise that we are exactly that, in the minority.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."