PvP isn't the problem. FFA PVP with no consequences and no point is the problem.
I agree with this. But imo the "no point" is the biggest problem.
What is "ganking"?
Why is it that when someone kills you in a bg or scenario or a RvR lake this is not "ganking" and suddenly it is "ganking" when it's done in some PvE area while you're doing some quest?
What is infuriating with ganking is that you know that this guy is not killing you because he has some goal to accomplish. He is killing you "just because". And that is why PvP in a PvP instance or RvR zone is not "ganking" - the guy is doing it for a constructive purpose of his own beyond "pwning noobs".
That's why imo sandboxes urgently need goals that would give PvP meaning as well.
There is this strategy web game that I played for some time and it was all about killing other players and nothing much else. Now with the new patch they introduced world wonders that whole player alliances have to contribute resources to and I can tell you that it took the game to a whole new level, not to mention much improve player relationships and a feeling of camaraderie. It still is a heavily PvP war game but now this warfare has a point beyond "kill everybody".
Problem is that lately , term hardcore PVP and Sandbox became fused together as concept.
Which is insane.
I often muse about EVE and what can it be.
Why Is EVE a game - in its core - about ruthless war ?
When even ELITE , the game it was based upon was a game about trading , exploring and only one third about killing.
I am not saying to remove PVP and danger from sandbox. Keep it
BUT DONT MAKE IT SOLE FOCUS !
I think Xyon, and EVE Incarna - are on the way to fix this ...
I agree completely here...
Imo the problem sandbox devs have is the lack of appreciation of the fact that even in a sandbox game the players should have some kind of a clear selection of long-term goals to choose from.
Themeparks don't have this problem - in those games the goal(s) is usually quite clear - level to the max, kill whatever can be killed and get the best gear (or simply follow the storyline to the end).
If you make a game that is completely goal-less and yet you enable PvP (and ffa one at that!) then it is quite obvious that the majority of players will instinctively see PvP as the goal - crush other players in other words.. which is obviously destructive to the community and thus longevity of the game.
Imo the solution to this PvP vs PvE problem in sandboxes is to offer a range of clear PvE and crafting goals both to players and guilds. A great example of this in a single-player sandbox game would be Civilization's system where you have numerous goals offered to you - conquering the world militarily, building the happiest or most scientific civilization, completing a huge spaceship requiring massive amount of resources... and all of those are equally valid winning goals. Even if you choose a completely peaceful goal like building a spaceship you'll still have plenty of warfare on your hands from other players trying to subvert you.
A FFA PvP sandbox game such as Xsyon doesn't have to have PvP as its ultimate goal. You could have tribes competing in crafting unique structures, like those Civ world wonders for example. With this you'd have PvP become a service of PvE/crafting with mighty interesting warfare over resources and sabotaging other tribes efforts without ever having to go into outright sieging (always a huge problem to implement - the timing problems, the zerginess, the dreadful finality of it..) in order to make PvP meaningful.
The problem is your examples, which are fun game objectives, are designed for a game that ends.
When you complete those objectives in Civilization, the game is over. You win! and you can play again from the start.
MMORPG's don't usually restart.
you grind so much for your objectives, and your character, that most players dont' want to "win" or "lose" and restart the game.
So how do you design a game where you don't restart, but you build the big spaceship and win?
Now what?
I think MMORPG design works best when it's cyclical. Yes, the cycle CAN get repetitive, but no game is meant to be played forever. This way the PLAYER decides when the game is over, not the objective of the game.
For example, in DAoC you can take over keeps. If you control 5 keeps, you get access to Darkness Falls, a cool dungeon with good xp and loot.
But you haven't "won". The other Realms can take your keeps, and get Darnkess Falls back.
I like the idea of building "wonders", but I think the other side should be able to counter your wonder, so that it becomes useless, and then crumbles into decay.
Oh I agree that since mmos, and especially sandboxes, are permanent worlds rather than time-limited games completing goals should not constitute "winning".
But the basic idea is here.. Those wonders (as an example) could decay over time. Other guilds/tribes could maybe lay siege on them. The devs could keep introducing new cooler wonders from time to time... You could add special benefits to guilds who hold those wonders - like special flashy gear that can be produced only by tribes holding them.
And besides those wonders don't have to be the only goals presented to players and guilds.. For example you can add special super-powerful monsters that spawn extremely rarely. That would be a good set of goals for the PvE crowd to strive for while still giving plenty of work to PvP part of the guild - their job would be to ensure that it is OUR guild who is having a chance to go at the monster.
for me a perfect game would be a sandbox (core) with a full player driven economy. now add a non-linear system of quests: no mainquest, no questhubs; use lore and setting to bring the story together. quests are just one tool of many tools in a sandbox and never THE game like in modern MMOs. you could also implement a dynamic event system with nearly no quests.
i also think that you need PvP and PvE. i like the system in EVE with a huge area, where you are nearly safe as a PvE-player and better zones for PvP, where you cant survive as a pacifist without a strong community. however, the so called Empire in EVE would need a bit more content in a perfect game, especially PvE endgame-content. no too much, so that players are still attracted to enter PvP-areas after a while.
just an example and propably not the best example, but it explains how big such a world has to be: take the world of Darkfall (please, never take their skillsystem) and make this entire continent pve-only. and now add 3 more continents, with pvp-ffa. if you find a company, willing to invest such huge money, you got a chance to make a good sandbox AAA-title. indies never can do that. they got not the manpower for all this content. well, if they implement a very clever system with persistent player-invented content including mobs .... they propably could.
Imo the solution to this PvP vs PvE problem in sandboxes is to offer a range of clear PvE and crafting goals both to players and guilds. A great example of this in a single-player sandbox game would be Civilization's system where you have numerous goals offered to you - conquering the world militarily, building the happiest or most scientific civilization, completing a huge spaceship requiring massive amount of resources... and all of those are equally valid winning goals. Even if you choose a completely peaceful goal like building a spaceship you'll still have plenty of warfare on your hands from other players trying to subvert you.
I have seen a good example of this in a game recently that would translate to a MMOG. I was playing Dungeon Overlord on Facebook which is a sandbox game like the old Dungeon Keeper. In Dungeon Overlord you have quests, but they are all personal near-term goals like building a tavern, level a minion to level 10, research some new ability, raid another dungeon, etc. As you progress, the goals progress as well so you're never done and always have new goals. They are not story line related like most MMOG's, but they certainly give the player direction. Most importantly, they give the player direction in a sandbox setting and it works intuitively.
In a sandbox MMOG, you could have quests that are simple like "raise your skinning to 20" or "build a shovel" then later game it might have quests like "build a village aqueduct" or "raise your elemental evokation magic to 90". Its handholding in a form that would give direction to the players that need direction. A game like EVE would benifit greatly from something like this.
In a sandbox MMOG, you could have quests that are simple like "raise your skinning to 20" or "build a shovel" then later game it might have quests like "build a village aqueduct" or "raise your elemental evokation magic to 90". Its handholding in a form that would give direction to the players that need direction. A game like EVE would benifit greatly from something like this.
Evony, Ceasary, Grepolis, Ikariam, Lords of Ultima... those are common quests in most PBBGs/SLGs. When transalted over to MMOs, they are usually called Acheivements.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
just an example and propably not the best example, but it explains how big such a world has to be: take the world of Darkfall (please, never take their skillsystem) and make this entire continent pve-only. and now add 3 more continents, with pvp-ffa. if you find a company, willing to invest such huge money, you got a chance to make a good sandbox AAA-title. indies never can do that. they got not the manpower for all this content. well, if they implement a very clever system with persistent player-invented content including mobs .... they propably could.
Back when I played AoC I thought it would be cool if they continued to use the daytime/nighttime mechanic after Tortage Isle. Nighttime would be PvP and daytime would be PvE. Just use a bed to switch between them. The real trick would be to increase the rewards enough to entice the carebears to quest during the nighttime. PvPers can't survive without the tears of carebears, ya know.
Honestly, the sandbox MMOs with PvP would do far better to have harsher death penalties for indiscriminately killing "innocents" (aka players that didn't do anything to provoke an attack).
The biggest issue with sandbox MMOs that drives players aware is a FFA ruleset that allows for the minority of PvP oriented players to lord over everyone else and gank, dry loot, and otherwise harass other players to the point where they simply get tired of it and quit the game.
Of course, you always get that small subset of PvPer crying foul that it isn't a true FFA ruleset if they have penalties... But they can never admit to themselves that they need a penalty like that to keep them in check and preventing them from driving away all of their prey. Besides, it adds some risk vs reward to the mix by making it so that if they so choose to gank and murder 'innocent' players, if they get hunted down and killed their death penalties are far greater.
In a sandbox MMOG, you could have quests that are simple like "raise your skinning to 20" or "build a shovel" then later game it might have quests like "build a village aqueduct" or "raise your elemental evokation magic to 90". Its handholding in a form that would give direction to the players that need direction. A game like EVE would benifit greatly from something like this.
Evony, Ceasary, Grepolis, Ikariam, Lords of Ultima... those are common quests in most PBBGs/SLGs. When transalted over to MMOs, they are usually called Acheivements.
The only problem I've had with Acheivement systems in most games is that I don't know what they are until I've accomplished one or if I try to look them up it will show 1000 acheivements that don't really apply to me like "licked the armpit of a 3 legged troll" or some other such nonsense. In Dungeon Overlord (and probably those others you listed) it has only a handful that are active and they are highly visible at any time. Maybe the only difference is in presentation and if so then MMOG's could improve greatly in that area.
But I think its systems like that that will make sandbox games accessible enough to reach the mainstream. Of course there are plenty of other things that would help as well such as controlling the PvP enough that its 99% consentual.
Imo the solution to this PvP vs PvE problem in sandboxes is to offer a range of clear PvE and crafting goals both to players and guilds. A great example of this in a single-player sandbox game would be Civilization's system where you have numerous goals offered to you - conquering the world militarily, building the happiest or most scientific civilization, completing a huge spaceship requiring massive amount of resources... and all of those are equally valid winning goals. Even if you choose a completely peaceful goal like building a spaceship you'll still have plenty of warfare on your hands from other players trying to subvert you.
I have seen a good example of this in a game recently that would translate to a MMOG. I was playing Dungeon Overlord on Facebook which is a sandbox game like the old Dungeon Keeper. In Dungeon Overlord you have quests, but they are all personal near-term goals like building a tavern, level a minion to level 10, research some new ability, raid another dungeon, etc. As you progress, the goals progress as well so you're never done and always have new goals. They are not story line related like most MMOG's, but they certainly give the player direction. Most importantly, they give the player direction in a sandbox setting and it works intuitively.
In a sandbox MMOG, you could have quests that are simple like "raise your skinning to 20" or "build a shovel" then later game it might have quests like "build a village aqueduct" or "raise your elemental evokation magic to 90". Its handholding in a form that would give direction to the players that need direction. A game like EVE would benifit greatly from something like this.
Oh personal achievements are also a great idea, especially if they give you something visible that you can use to brag to other players.
But imo, still bigger problem is group motivation in sandbox mmos... maybe we could have some kind of group achievements to go into this "sandbox motivational package"? Say things that would give your guild/tribe nice trophies to show around in your guild hall and on the game's web page. Or maybe when your guild gets an achievement they get a "favour of gods" buff towards resources or experience gain or something..
Achievements are a really cool mechanic - especially because they're so easy to implement, not really requiring a lot of dev time for a huge return in player direction and satisfaction. Implementing Wonders in a game (for example) requires creating gfx for these structures, testing the mechanics and all while achievements can be coded in quite easily.
In a sandbox MMOG, you could have quests that are simple like "raise your skinning to 20" or "build a shovel" then later game it might have quests like "build a village aqueduct" or "raise your elemental evokation magic to 90". Its handholding in a form that would give direction to the players that need direction. A game like EVE would benifit greatly from something like this.
Evony, Ceasary, Grepolis, Ikariam, Lords of Ultima... those are common quests in most PBBGs/SLGs. When transalted over to MMOs, they are usually called Acheivements.
The only problem I've had with Acheivement systems in most games is that I don't know what they are until I've accomplished one or if I try to look them up it will show 1000 acheivements that don't really apply to me like "licked the armpit of a 3 legged troll" or some other such nonsense. In Dungeon Overlord (and probably those others you listed) it has only a handful that are active and they are highly visible at any time. Maybe the only difference is in presentation and if so then MMOG's could improve greatly in that area.
But I think its systems like that that will make sandbox games accessible enough to reach the mainstream. Of course there are plenty of other things that would help as well such as controlling the PvP enough that its 99% consentual.
I agree. When done as achievements it's usually a poorly filtered massive list of craziness. Your example "licked the armpit of a 3 legged troll" was humorous and not far off from the truth. I'm not a Warhammer fan so I dont know all the cutesy things about the game, so when I clicked my first little green person i got a pop up that said somethin like "You have unlocked knowledge of the WAAAARRTRGH!" and I had absolutely no clue what the game was trying to tell me other than it felt I did something spectacular at that moment. Little did I know that my first 30 minutes of right-clicking things in Warhammer Online was going to result in several dozen more messages like this.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Ceridith Honestly, the sandbox MMOs with PvP would do far better to have harsher death penalties for indiscriminately killing "innocents" (aka players that didn't do anything to provoke an attack). The biggest issue with sandbox MMOs that drives players aware is a FFA ruleset that allows for the minority of PvP oriented players to lord over everyone else and gank, dry loot, and otherwise harass other players to the point where they simply get tired of it and quit the game. Of course, you always get that small subset of PvPer crying foul that it isn't a true FFA ruleset if they have penalties... But they can never admit to themselves that they need a penalty like that to keep them in check and preventing them from driving away all of their prey. Besides, it adds some risk vs reward to the mix by making it so that if they so choose to gank and murder 'innocent' players, if they get hunted down and killed their death penalties are far greater.
Loktofelt (Loktofet?) said something similar in another thread. It's possible for the PvP players to ruin the PvE players' gameplay, but it's not really possible for the PvE players to respond with anything other than PvP, which they don't do.
Whether it's protected zones or some other mechanic, if PvE players have options and things they can do that avoids the PvP Ruination, then it's a good thing. A combination of good PvE and good PvP does make a game better.
For instance, you can have small protected zones, but the more or better your PvE accomplishments, the larger your protected zone gets. Perhaps your zone guards get stronger and you can hire guards to escort you to collect resources in the FFA areas. Anyway, just something that addresses the essential incompatibility of the two play styles that's worked into the world. It could be safe zones, death penalties, kill penalties, or death penalties that increases the more you kill, etc. Whatever...just something clearly defined that people can work within without subverting too much.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Iam not suggestion future developers remove all PvP, but I say endgame in Sandbox MMORPGs should be balanced between both PvP Endgame, and PvE engame. Not 75%PvP / 25%PvE like the current trend is for this subgenre.
I think that if you want a PvE sandbox, you have to remove all PKing right from the start or else eventually the well will get poisoned. The entire philosophy of how competition for scarce resources is resolved and antagonism/drama between players is dealt with needs to be thought out and clearly implemeneted from a PvE-only point of view. Only once the gameplay and community culture is viable and durable without PvP can it be asked if there is room for a PvP minigame.
Yes. Though I usually roll on PvP servers and spent a lot of time in wormhole and low sec space in EVE, I am not deluded by the fact that that is the minority, however vocal, of the MMO community. Look at the 'pilots in space' map in EVE and compare it to security status any time. The vast majority of people are in high sec, despite much if not most forum chatter being about PvP.
Same with AoC, PvP servers are always low population though you'd think they have half the game is PvPers.
Half the forum posts on DCUO are about PvP, but at least on NA servers, there are more people on PvE servers (there are fewer PvP servers and server load 'low' 'medium' 'high' are usually comparable).
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
This game is already ruled by the pvp types from what I saw. The top threads in the forums usually are about pk'ers vs everyone else. That or threads about how the game doesnt need any safe zones.. I made a character to give it a try, and as I loaded in, my brand new character was ganked by 4-5 player thugs... Yea.. ok then. Moving on..
I agree with the OP.. As soon as a game is labeled "FFA PVP", it becomes a gank fest deathmatch..
Where is the middle ground? EvE has a good system, a large play area that's "safe", unless someone has a registered license to kill you (such as a war dec), and an even larger play area that's free for all. Why don't we see this kind of model on land based mmo's?
As far as MMO's that had a good and fun balance between PVE and PVP.. Only one name comes up: DAOC. Even the battleground pvp was great, what with the 3 way sieging of castles with catapults and such, destroying the walls themselves.. When WAR came out I had hoped it would be on the same level as DAOC.. but it fell way short, in every aspect.
Never understood why devs think that pvp and sandbox are the only thing that belong together. ZONES of pvp work just fine. a nice ambush here and there. pay the toll to cross this bridge or die type scenarios.
Yes. Though I usually roll on PvP servers and spent a lot of time in wormhole and low sec space in EVE, I am not deluded by the fact that that is the minority, however vocal, of the MMO community. Look at the 'pilots in space' map in EVE and compare it to security status any time. The vast majority of people are in high sec, despite much if not most forum chatter being about PvP.
Same with AoC, PvP servers are always low population though you'd think they have half the game is PvPers.
Half the forum posts on DCUO are about PvP, but at least on NA servers, there are more people on PvE servers (there are fewer PvP servers and server load 'low' 'medium' 'high' are usually comparable).
well, i was in a pvp corp in EVE and a lot of our guys been in highsec. lot of our economy did run in lowsec / highsec. and a lot of players did farm something or traded something all day long in highsec and jumped into their pvp-clone, if "called to arms". so you would be astonished, how many of these guys in Jita are no carebears. i like the mix in EVE. the pve-game in EVE is just too rudimentary, even if its better than in most pvp-games out there. i myself was at least 30% of my time in highsec, even if i would say "i lived in the outer pvp-regions"
Never understood why devs think that pvp and sandbox are the only thing that belong together. ZONES of pvp work just fine. a nice ambush here and there. pay the toll to cross this bridge or die type scenarios.
and when i say zones i don't mean instances.
that'd be perfect. after you cross a certain line your flagged for pvp. not that hard. runescape does it
Iam not suggestion future developers remove all PvP, but I say endgame in Sandbox MMORPGs should be balanced between both PvP Endgame, and PvE engame. Not 75%PvP / 25%PvE like the current trend is for this subgenre.
I think that if you want a PvE sandbox, you have to remove all PKing right from the start or else eventually the well will get poisoned. The entire philosophy of how competition for scarce resources is resolved and antagonism/drama between players is dealt with needs to be thought out and clearly implemeneted from a PvE-only point of view. Only once the gameplay and community culture is viable and durable without PvP can it be asked if there is room for a PvP minigame.
The nature of FFA PvP is that every part of the game will be 'tainted' by it. For those of us whose main goal in a sandbox game is building rather than destroying, PvP is just a nuisance that does not server any of our goals.
People bring out EVE as an example of a game with PvP safe zones but that is mostly an illusion. High sec space simply has more restrictions on PvP but if someone wants to attack you they will and PvE players always have to face the fact that if they are too successfull the PvPers will cut them down to size.
Non-consensual PvP has always been my reasons for disliking modern sandbox type games. Not necessarily the rules of it but the group that follows it.
In early UO it was alright because that group of people just enjoyed the thrill and the "scene" was still in it's infancy but those players are a demographic now and it's no longer about just playing the game but instead about victory over other players. PvP in a sense was sort of something that just happened but now they're building games that cater to it and it has really lost it's luster on me.
EVE is a modern game that I think captures what was neat about old UO in that PvP just happens but it's not what the game was built around. It still suffers from the scene of players who want to directly make the game a competition, though; it becomes a metagame all too quickly.
Honestly, the sandbox MMOs with PvP would do far better to have harsher death penalties for indiscriminately killing "innocents" (aka players that didn't do anything to provoke an attack).
The biggest issue with sandbox MMOs that drives players aware is a FFA ruleset that allows for the minority of PvP oriented players to lord over everyone else and gank, dry loot, and otherwise harass other players to the point where they simply get tired of it and quit the game.
Of course, you always get that small subset of PvPer crying foul that it isn't a true FFA ruleset if they have penalties... But they can never admit to themselves that they need a penalty like that to keep them in check and preventing them from driving away all of their prey. Besides, it adds some risk vs reward to the mix by making it so that if they so choose to gank and murder 'innocent' players, if they get hunted down and killed their death penalties are far greater.
Loktofelt (Loktofet?) said something similar in another thread. It's possible for the PvP players to ruin the PvE players' gameplay, but it's not really possible for the PvE players to respond with anything other than PvP, which they don't do.
Whether it's protected zones or some other mechanic, if PvE players have options and things they can do that avoids the PvP Ruination, then it's a good thing. A combination of good PvE and good PvP does make a game better.
For instance, you can have small protected zones, but the more or better your PvE accomplishments, the larger your protected zone gets. Perhaps your zone guards get stronger and you can hire guards to escort you to collect resources in the FFA areas. Anyway, just something that addresses the essential incompatibility of the two play styles that's worked into the world. It could be safe zones, death penalties, kill penalties, or death penalties that increases the more you kill, etc. Whatever...just something clearly defined that people can work within without subverting too much.
I was thinking more along the lines of that if a PvP anarchist -- the type that kill any and all players they come across just because -- get out of hand, the game itself starts sending NPC bounty hunters after them to kill and dry loot them.
Additionally, much like with Ultima Online, the more innocent kills a murderer accrued, the more of a statloss death penalty they receive if/when they are killed. This gives additional deterent agaisnt slaughtering innocents by making their risk of loss exponentially greater. Furthermore I generally think that there should also be mechanics in place to prevent a player from simply logging to a different character, hiding behind their non-flagged friends, or otherwise easily evading retribution for their actions.
What's soured me on FFA PvP games isn't so much that I get ganked for no reason. It's moreso that the people doing it abuse game mechanics to pick and choose who they gank, then run off and hide with little to no fear of any actual consequences. Simply put, it's far too easy to get away with being a jerk and indescriminately kill people in FFA MMOs.
Comments
I agree with this. But imo the "no point" is the biggest problem.
What is "ganking"?
Why is it that when someone kills you in a bg or scenario or a RvR lake this is not "ganking" and suddenly it is "ganking" when it's done in some PvE area while you're doing some quest?
What is infuriating with ganking is that you know that this guy is not killing you because he has some goal to accomplish. He is killing you "just because". And that is why PvP in a PvP instance or RvR zone is not "ganking" - the guy is doing it for a constructive purpose of his own beyond "pwning noobs".
That's why imo sandboxes urgently need goals that would give PvP meaning as well.
There is this strategy web game that I played for some time and it was all about killing other players and nothing much else. Now with the new patch they introduced world wonders that whole player alliances have to contribute resources to and I can tell you that it took the game to a whole new level, not to mention much improve player relationships and a feeling of camaraderie. It still is a heavily PvP war game but now this warfare has a point beyond "kill everybody".
Oh I agree that since mmos, and especially sandboxes, are permanent worlds rather than time-limited games completing goals should not constitute "winning".
But the basic idea is here.. Those wonders (as an example) could decay over time. Other guilds/tribes could maybe lay siege on them. The devs could keep introducing new cooler wonders from time to time... You could add special benefits to guilds who hold those wonders - like special flashy gear that can be produced only by tribes holding them.
And besides those wonders don't have to be the only goals presented to players and guilds.. For example you can add special super-powerful monsters that spawn extremely rarely. That would be a good set of goals for the PvE crowd to strive for while still giving plenty of work to PvP part of the guild - their job would be to ensure that it is OUR guild who is having a chance to go at the monster.
I would try more sandboxes if there weren't any FFA PvP in them for sure.
Actually it is not that it is PvP, it is that there are jerks in the world. Plenty of PvPers are nice people, unfortuantly some are not.
Having an option to escape the jerks of the world is something many sandboxes fail to supply.
for me a perfect game would be a sandbox (core) with a full player driven economy. now add a non-linear system of quests: no mainquest, no questhubs; use lore and setting to bring the story together. quests are just one tool of many tools in a sandbox and never THE game like in modern MMOs. you could also implement a dynamic event system with nearly no quests.
i also think that you need PvP and PvE. i like the system in EVE with a huge area, where you are nearly safe as a PvE-player and better zones for PvP, where you cant survive as a pacifist without a strong community. however, the so called Empire in EVE would need a bit more content in a perfect game, especially PvE endgame-content. no too much, so that players are still attracted to enter PvP-areas after a while.
just an example and propably not the best example, but it explains how big such a world has to be: take the world of Darkfall (please, never take their skillsystem) and make this entire continent pve-only. and now add 3 more continents, with pvp-ffa. if you find a company, willing to invest such huge money, you got a chance to make a good sandbox AAA-title. indies never can do that. they got not the manpower for all this content. well, if they implement a very clever system with persistent player-invented content including mobs .... they propably could.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
I have seen a good example of this in a game recently that would translate to a MMOG. I was playing Dungeon Overlord on Facebook which is a sandbox game like the old Dungeon Keeper. In Dungeon Overlord you have quests, but they are all personal near-term goals like building a tavern, level a minion to level 10, research some new ability, raid another dungeon, etc. As you progress, the goals progress as well so you're never done and always have new goals. They are not story line related like most MMOG's, but they certainly give the player direction. Most importantly, they give the player direction in a sandbox setting and it works intuitively.
In a sandbox MMOG, you could have quests that are simple like "raise your skinning to 20" or "build a shovel" then later game it might have quests like "build a village aqueduct" or "raise your elemental evokation magic to 90". Its handholding in a form that would give direction to the players that need direction. A game like EVE would benifit greatly from something like this.
Evony, Ceasary, Grepolis, Ikariam, Lords of Ultima... those are common quests in most PBBGs/SLGs. When transalted over to MMOs, they are usually called Acheivements.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Back when I played AoC I thought it would be cool if they continued to use the daytime/nighttime mechanic after Tortage Isle. Nighttime would be PvP and daytime would be PvE. Just use a bed to switch between them. The real trick would be to increase the rewards enough to entice the carebears to quest during the nighttime. PvPers can't survive without the tears of carebears, ya know.
Honestly, the sandbox MMOs with PvP would do far better to have harsher death penalties for indiscriminately killing "innocents" (aka players that didn't do anything to provoke an attack).
The biggest issue with sandbox MMOs that drives players aware is a FFA ruleset that allows for the minority of PvP oriented players to lord over everyone else and gank, dry loot, and otherwise harass other players to the point where they simply get tired of it and quit the game.
Of course, you always get that small subset of PvPer crying foul that it isn't a true FFA ruleset if they have penalties... But they can never admit to themselves that they need a penalty like that to keep them in check and preventing them from driving away all of their prey. Besides, it adds some risk vs reward to the mix by making it so that if they so choose to gank and murder 'innocent' players, if they get hunted down and killed their death penalties are far greater.
The only problem I've had with Acheivement systems in most games is that I don't know what they are until I've accomplished one or if I try to look them up it will show 1000 acheivements that don't really apply to me like "licked the armpit of a 3 legged troll" or some other such nonsense. In Dungeon Overlord (and probably those others you listed) it has only a handful that are active and they are highly visible at any time. Maybe the only difference is in presentation and if so then MMOG's could improve greatly in that area.
But I think its systems like that that will make sandbox games accessible enough to reach the mainstream. Of course there are plenty of other things that would help as well such as controlling the PvP enough that its 99% consentual.
Oh personal achievements are also a great idea, especially if they give you something visible that you can use to brag to other players.
But imo, still bigger problem is group motivation in sandbox mmos... maybe we could have some kind of group achievements to go into this "sandbox motivational package"? Say things that would give your guild/tribe nice trophies to show around in your guild hall and on the game's web page. Or maybe when your guild gets an achievement they get a "favour of gods" buff towards resources or experience gain or something..
Achievements are a really cool mechanic - especially because they're so easy to implement, not really requiring a lot of dev time for a huge return in player direction and satisfaction. Implementing Wonders in a game (for example) requires creating gfx for these structures, testing the mechanics and all while achievements can be coded in quite easily.
I agree. When done as achievements it's usually a poorly filtered massive list of craziness. Your example "licked the armpit of a 3 legged troll" was humorous and not far off from the truth. I'm not a Warhammer fan so I dont know all the cutesy things about the game, so when I clicked my first little green person i got a pop up that said somethin like "You have unlocked knowledge of the WAAAARRTRGH!" and I had absolutely no clue what the game was trying to tell me other than it felt I did something spectacular at that moment. Little did I know that my first 30 minutes of right-clicking things in Warhammer Online was going to result in several dozen more messages like this.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Loktofelt (Loktofet?) said something similar in another thread. It's possible for the PvP players to ruin the PvE players' gameplay, but it's not really possible for the PvE players to respond with anything other than PvP, which they don't do.
Whether it's protected zones or some other mechanic, if PvE players have options and things they can do that avoids the PvP Ruination, then it's a good thing. A combination of good PvE and good PvP does make a game better.
For instance, you can have small protected zones, but the more or better your PvE accomplishments, the larger your protected zone gets. Perhaps your zone guards get stronger and you can hire guards to escort you to collect resources in the FFA areas. Anyway, just something that addresses the essential incompatibility of the two play styles that's worked into the world. It could be safe zones, death penalties, kill penalties, or death penalties that increases the more you kill, etc. Whatever...just something clearly defined that people can work within without subverting too much.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I completely agree.
I think that if you want a PvE sandbox, you have to remove all PKing right from the start or else eventually the well will get poisoned. The entire philosophy of how competition for scarce resources is resolved and antagonism/drama between players is dealt with needs to be thought out and clearly implemeneted from a PvE-only point of view. Only once the gameplay and community culture is viable and durable without PvP can it be asked if there is room for a PvP minigame.
Even in EVE, most players are in high-sec
If that tells you anything
Check out my nature/animal/relaxing music channel on Youtube!
My game channel on Youtube!
http://www.youtube.com/vendayn
Yes. Though I usually roll on PvP servers and spent a lot of time in wormhole and low sec space in EVE, I am not deluded by the fact that that is the minority, however vocal, of the MMO community. Look at the 'pilots in space' map in EVE and compare it to security status any time. The vast majority of people are in high sec, despite much if not most forum chatter being about PvP.
Same with AoC, PvP servers are always low population though you'd think they have half the game is PvPers.
Half the forum posts on DCUO are about PvP, but at least on NA servers, there are more people on PvE servers (there are fewer PvP servers and server load 'low' 'medium' 'high' are usually comparable).
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
This game is already ruled by the pvp types from what I saw. The top threads in the forums usually are about pk'ers vs everyone else. That or threads about how the game doesnt need any safe zones.. I made a character to give it a try, and as I loaded in, my brand new character was ganked by 4-5 player thugs... Yea.. ok then. Moving on..
I agree with the OP.. As soon as a game is labeled "FFA PVP", it becomes a gank fest deathmatch..
Where is the middle ground? EvE has a good system, a large play area that's "safe", unless someone has a registered license to kill you (such as a war dec), and an even larger play area that's free for all. Why don't we see this kind of model on land based mmo's?
As far as MMO's that had a good and fun balance between PVE and PVP.. Only one name comes up: DAOC. Even the battleground pvp was great, what with the 3 way sieging of castles with catapults and such, destroying the walls themselves.. When WAR came out I had hoped it would be on the same level as DAOC.. but it fell way short, in every aspect.
Never understood why devs think that pvp and sandbox are the only thing that belong together. ZONES of pvp work just fine. a nice ambush here and there. pay the toll to cross this bridge or die type scenarios.
and when i say zones i don't mean instances.
well, i was in a pvp corp in EVE and a lot of our guys been in highsec. lot of our economy did run in lowsec / highsec. and a lot of players did farm something or traded something all day long in highsec and jumped into their pvp-clone, if "called to arms". so you would be astonished, how many of these guys in Jita are no carebears. i like the mix in EVE. the pve-game in EVE is just too rudimentary, even if its better than in most pvp-games out there. i myself was at least 30% of my time in highsec, even if i would say "i lived in the outer pvp-regions"
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
that'd be perfect. after you cross a certain line your flagged for pvp. not that hard. runescape does it
The nature of FFA PvP is that every part of the game will be 'tainted' by it. For those of us whose main goal in a sandbox game is building rather than destroying, PvP is just a nuisance that does not server any of our goals.
People bring out EVE as an example of a game with PvP safe zones but that is mostly an illusion. High sec space simply has more restrictions on PvP but if someone wants to attack you they will and PvE players always have to face the fact that if they are too successfull the PvPers will cut them down to size.
Non-consensual PvP has always been my reasons for disliking modern sandbox type games. Not necessarily the rules of it but the group that follows it.
In early UO it was alright because that group of people just enjoyed the thrill and the "scene" was still in it's infancy but those players are a demographic now and it's no longer about just playing the game but instead about victory over other players. PvP in a sense was sort of something that just happened but now they're building games that cater to it and it has really lost it's luster on me.
EVE is a modern game that I think captures what was neat about old UO in that PvP just happens but it's not what the game was built around. It still suffers from the scene of players who want to directly make the game a competition, though; it becomes a metagame all too quickly.
This is probably not the best week to be praising EVE's high sec safety.
I was thinking more along the lines of that if a PvP anarchist -- the type that kill any and all players they come across just because -- get out of hand, the game itself starts sending NPC bounty hunters after them to kill and dry loot them.
Additionally, much like with Ultima Online, the more innocent kills a murderer accrued, the more of a statloss death penalty they receive if/when they are killed. This gives additional deterent agaisnt slaughtering innocents by making their risk of loss exponentially greater. Furthermore I generally think that there should also be mechanics in place to prevent a player from simply logging to a different character, hiding behind their non-flagged friends, or otherwise easily evading retribution for their actions.
What's soured me on FFA PvP games isn't so much that I get ganked for no reason. It's moreso that the people doing it abuse game mechanics to pick and choose who they gank, then run off and hide with little to no fear of any actual consequences. Simply put, it's far too easy to get away with being a jerk and indescriminately kill people in FFA MMOs.