So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
But why would you be fighting over these resources? To build better weapons/keeps/etc? What if there was a specific area where PvPers could have territory control and control over specific resources that were used specifically for PvP siege weapons, Keep Defenses, etc? What if these resources were totally not needed for anything in the PvE portion of the game, only useful for the PvP experience? And the only way you could enter these regions was to be instantly flagged for PvP and not able to turn the flag off until you leave this region or until an hour has passed in game time?
Would it matter then if people could choose to not partake in PvP?
To follow up on this again, I should also point out that you'd be making some real design choices here as well. While I did say I'd probably try a game like that, the particulars - how long does the flag last, etc. - make a lot of difference. Do the devs spend more time developing the PVE areas and mechanics or the PVP ones? In most games past one side or the other has gotten the short end of the stick, so to speak. It's a tight rope to walk.
Basically I think a good sandbox game (or any MMO, really) probably has to go one way or the other, as the balance is so tricky.
As for why I'd be fighting, well, beyond the fact that I like fighting against other players, the results of said fighting would have consequences in the game. You'd be talking about a player-driven world with player run cities, factions, etc. That's why I say the PVP would be meaningful. I have no interest in randomly ganking players; I've probably ganked someone in an MMO less than a handful of times. I, along with others I know, have a desire for PVP with a larger scale and scope, and with that the ability to influence the actual game. In that sense it's not just PVP, it's player-driven politics, relationships, long term conflicts. I'd like to find out what could develop out of that.
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Darkfall, MO, Xysom...
Make a list of Triple A Sandbox PvE MMOs with similar scope/budget of those themepark games you listed.
I'll start that list. '.....', Please continue...
Sandbox =/= PvP.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
I dont understand how not having open pvp makes an MMO a WoW Clone..
I have asked the same question and the general consensus has been "Because if I can't kill someone, the game isn't fun for me" and "If its fun for me, its the way it has to be"
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Hi DocBrody, I was just curious about a followup to a question I asked in another thread. I asked if having a PVP server would make the PVPers happy, and you answered no, saying that it would further divide the playerbase.
I responded with a follow-up, but I guess it got lost in the mountain of activity in the thread. I am genuinely curious about this, so here it goes again-- I was just wondering what the problem is with that set-up, since those who like PVP will be able to play their way together, and the PVEers will get to do the same, and neither side will have to deal with the other. Seems like a win-win, don't you think?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Hi DocBrody, I was just curious about a followup to a question I asked in another thread. I asked if having a PVP server would make the PVPers happy, and you answered no, saying that it would further divide the playerbase.
I responded with a follow-up, but I guess it got lost in the mountain of activity in the thread. I am genuinely curious about this, so here it goes again-- I was just wondering what the problem is with that set-up, since those who like PVP will be able to play their way together, and the PVEers will get to do the same, and neither side will have to deal with the other. Seems like a win-win, don't you think?
The thing is when you divide a game up like that, have a separate "pvp foucsed" server then a PVE server, you end up having to develop content/balances, etc for one and the other.
As the player base is divided, PVP is usually left behind in development, with content being focused twoard the PVE side, people gradually move toward it and the pvpers eventually move on because the focus has shifted.
Just like with UO, it started with one single world , open pvp. Then after EQ and things came later in 2001 or so they added Trammel, which was basically a split world where players could play on "trammel" where the pvp wasn't allowed. Slowly players migrated over toward this side and all the pvp fans got left behind, EA shifted it's developer focus toward PVE content and eventually the original UO, in terms of it's gameplay/world was completley lost. The UO that exists today is nothing at all like it was in the 98-2001 era.
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Hi DocBrody, I was just curious about a followup to a question I asked in another thread. I asked if having a PVP server would make the PVPers happy, and you answered no, saying that it would further divide the playerbase.
I responded with a follow-up, but I guess it got lost in the mountain of activity in the thread. I am genuinely curious about this, so here it goes again-- I was just wondering what the problem is with that set-up, since those who like PVP will be able to play their way together, and the PVEers will get to do the same, and neither side will have to deal with the other. Seems like a win-win, don't you think?
Hi, I think the concept of server division and offering multiple ways to play an online game is simply a dated concept and a dead end. It is dividing the player base, it is offering a way of least resistance, it takes social interaction and possible "guild warfare" out of the playfield.
If you are interested here is an interesting article from a self proclaimed "carebear" who in fact rather argues for non consensual PvP in World of Darkness (other sandbox MMO from CCP coming up) because of the need to have antagonists in games.
Here is the article, unfortunately I can´t quote the authors name, didn´t find it
"I don't like PvP. I have tried it in every MMO I've played, from World of Warcraft to EVE Online, and sorry, I'm not a fan. But HfxTenor's post about Powergamers and their value started me thinking about PvP. So, here I am, the self-proclaimed carebear, writing about non-consensual PvP and how I see its place in World of Darkness. And you might find this surprising, but I think it would constitute an essential part of the game. Why? Because I think it would make the game better.
Now, by better, I don't mean nicer. I don't mean that it will be more enjoyable for me. In fact, I can't stand non-consensual PvP. It gets in my way. It slows me down. It keeps me from being able to play the game the way I want. However, I've given this a lot of thought lately, and I think that there is a certain trade-off between what is immediately enjoyable, and mechanics that make for a better game.
I want an immersive game. I want a game that captures the darkness, paranoia and conflict of endless manipulations and ruthless power struggles. Plans within plans. Sadly, scripted PvE content, as immersive as that can be, is predictable, once you've played it through. No developer has the resources to create quality content faster than gamers can consume it. What's more, players tend to risk less when fighting an NPC faction. The fact is, no matter how much you destroy of an NPC's assets, you know that no real loss was incurred. You are risking your hard-won assets against a shadow opponent, whose resources are essentially limitless. That is not the case when fighting other players. What MMOs need, to keep us interested, are dynamic conflict drivers with measurable consequences. Player-driven content and emergent gameplay. Player interaction, even if it's forced.
Non-consensual PvP is a conflict driver. It forces player interaction. You may not like it, but that's ok. You don't have to. It will still make your game better, because you don't like it. It will force you into certain types of fun, which you might otherwise avoid. You may not find dealing with a childish ganker particularly immersive, but the ganker himself is not important. The threat of the ganker is important. He is playing a part that needs to be played. He is making the world dangerous. He is giving you someone to dislike, and that gives you a chance to forge alliances with others who feel the same way. In the long term, that is what makes a game more interesting. And if you read or watch Game of Thrones, I would compare your average griefer to a kind of Joffrey. (I'm just picking a villain that will be familiar to many fellow nerds. Feel free to substitute his name with any other truly dislikeable villain.)
Of course, nobody likes Joffrey. We're not supposed to. Most of us hate him. Nevertheless, he is necessary. It would be a nicer show (or book) if he never existed, but it would not be better. We want to be rid of him, but then we would lack a character to hate and fear, and we need that. He is a necessary conflict driver, someone who can make us worry for our favorites, someone against whom our heroes can rally. We want to see him stopped, to see him fail, but in order for that to be interesting, he must succeed often enough to present a real threat.
It should be obvious where I'm going with this. PvP provides conflict. It produces villains. PvP presents the threat of unpredictable opponents, who are at least as strong as we are, and often stronger. Without them, we would have no need to put aside our personal interests and band together. There would be no need for protectors, for support. Our personal storylines would fall flat, because the alliances necessary to survive in a hostile world become meaningful only when the world is actually hostile. Within those alliances, friendships are forged that sometimes even transfer into real life. As much as I enjoy my whims, I get bored with them after a while. I don't get bored of my friends.
How extensively this type of gameplay will affect the game remains to be seen, of course. If the world is too hostile, it becomes predictable again. We all need to be able to play the way we want, at least some of the time. But after careful consideration, I think I would be disappointed if non-consensual PvP were missing, even though I plan to avoid it as much as possible. Strange, but true."
I understand what the author of that article is saying, but I don't agree with it 100%. It makes the shaky assumption that "fun" can be defined empirically. I personally get that sense of tension and paranoia when I decide to explore areas that are too dangerous for me at whatever skill level my character is (be it skills themselves or overall character level-- whatever mechanic the game employs to say "You've got X amount of power"). But the difference between that and danger posed by another character is the decision is mine on whether or not I want to go to a dangerous area. A PKer can be anywhere, at any time.
If I play on a PVP server, I know exactly what I'm getting myself into and am making the conscious choice. If, however, I play on a PVE server, I know that I can expect to be able to do a certain amount of things in a certain amount of time without fear that circumstances in the game that are beyond my control will impede it. Since I work full time and have other responsibilities throughout the day, my play time during the week is limited to maybe an hour and a half to 2 hours an evening, if I'm lucky. What if I want to spend that time collecting mats for crafting? If Joe PK Jackass and his gang of Merry Cockwads decide I'm going to be their bitch for the evening, my limited time will be spent being someone else's entertainment.
I don't pay to be ANYone's entertainment, either in money or in time.
Now, if the server has a flagging option and I'm feeling particularly froggy one evening, I could decide to go out flagged and tempt fate, but once again, it's on my terms.
As for the division of resources between a PVP and PVE server, I'm afraid that argument isn't really valid with EQN. We already know there is going to be a good deal of PVE content, due to the use of Storybricks. With that system, there is the potential for SOE to create questlines in the game, including choices and consequences that could rival some of the better single player RPGs out there. If there is only one server type, then we know that there will be both PVE and PVP, so the point about needing extra resources to support servers with different rulesets is moot. Whether playing together or separately, there's going to be people screaming that one style is unbalanced over another, and the cries of "NERF _____ !!!" will be heard eventually.
So, that said, why not let the PVP-minded folk enjoy a server with all the tension and paranoia they could possibly desire from the threat of the fellow player, and let the PVE side enjoy their server, exploring the world and the dynamic questing afforded by Storybricks?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
Being forced
Being FORCED
BEING FORCED....
CONSENSUAL
I WANT
I WANT
I DO NOT WANT
You know what, you´re neither "forced" to buy the game nor to log in.
Besides, this is a videogames topic not a discussion about the Geneva Convention.
Check the gameplay before hand and if you don´t like it, simply stay away - how about that?
It´s not like you wouldn´t have 253 "consensual" MMO alternatives
Great sign me up and point me to the nearest PvE centric "Sandbox" MMO.
you can't because there isn't one, instead to get meaningful PvE we are relegated to the trappings of a linear Themepark. Whereas you my friend, are able to play at a minimum of 4 current FFA PvP sandboxes with another 4-5 coming out within the next several years.
That's the crux of the whole issue here, many of us want a PvE experience within the confines of a Sandbox.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I dont mind player destructable buildinds and assets that is all fine it adds a lot to the gameplay, I would love for another game to develop a rich political metagame as Lineage 2 did.
But.... Im not gonna be on call at 4am everyday because people with too much time on their hands decide that they are gonna attack and destroy everything everyday at 3AM when no one is online, im also not planning on playing the game 24/7, you know, RL and all that.
So in the interest of creating rich gameplay ( i.e. it is not fun to take down an empty castle because everyone was asleep ), we should have schedules for attacking buildings and or castles, where people can sign up to attack and/or defend. The fun of playing a politically rich game is that your "guild" is theoretically online to protect stuff and to play the political game. If they are not online at the time they have been allocated to defend it then that is a completely different matter. Its like declaring war on this guild with one guy and just killing him over and over whats the fun in that.
On another note, I also dont want to defend a castle everyday at 9PM or something like that, that would be stupid, once you own and defend a structure you should be able to hold onto it for X amount of time before it can be taken away, this will allow you to actually be part of other game activities, Lineage 2 did this very well by having sieges every 2 weeks, which meant you could hold onto a castle for min 2 weeks, that gave you time to be part of the political system, get people on your side, etc....
And mind you Lineage 2 pretty much had very little else other than PVP and politics, I expect EQN to have hundreds of other sandbox systems that players can participate in and they should be allowed to do so, along side PVP and sieges.
The problem with "political gameplay" in a FFA PVP setting is that rarely will you find anyone willing to attempt diplomacy. Factional/Guild conflicts usually just boil down to one side bashing the other side down and taking their stuff, either one on one or 50 on 50. There's no room for "Let's talk this over like adults". More like */inspect ... oh, shit, this guy is 3 levels lower than me and has all greens!* (insert those KAPOW! BAM! images from the old Batman show), followed by the requisite teabagging.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Darkfall, MO, Xysom...
Make a list of Triple A Sandbox PvE MMOs with similar scope/budget of those themepark games you listed.
I'll start that list. '.....', Please continue...
Sandbox =/= PvP.
Are you FREAKIN´ kidding me? Are you? You MUST be kidding, bringing up these half broken cheap indie low budget tiltles, right?
I was asking for triple A budget titles, done by some developer with a name.
What do we have? Nothing but EVE. What if I don´t want to be a freakin´ spaceship all the time?
You have dozens of PVE consensual everything , not forced to anything, casual friendly, broad audience "accessible" alternatives. We have nothing. EQ Next better change this, or else
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Darkfall, MO, Xysom...
Make a list of Triple A Sandbox PvE MMOs with similar scope/budget of those themepark games you listed.
I'll start that list. '.....', Please continue...
Sandbox =/= PvP.
Are you FREAKIN´ kidding me? Are you? You MUST be kidding, bringing up these half broken cheap indie low budget tiltles, right?
I was asking for a triple A budget title, done by some developer with a name.
What do we have? Nothing but EVE. What if I don´t want to be a freakin´ spaceship all the time?
You have dozens of PVE consensual everything , not forced to anything, casual friendly, broad audience "accessible" alternatives. We have nothing. EQ Next better change this, or else
And yet not one sandbox. At least you all have pvp sandboxes, we don't even have broken ones.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Basically what I think will happen is that you will buy large areas of land deeds from a cash shop . That part of the server will be owned by you .
You can shape the land to how you want , build dungeons etc etc , basically you will be the dungeon master so to speak . If you allow people to burn your forests down then so be it .
I guess guilds will form that shape the land , and florish . There wont be any raids or anything unless you create them , but all armor and weapons would be player crafted anyway .
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
Being forced
Being FORCED
BEING FORCED....
CONSENSUAL
I WANT
I WANT
I DO NOT WANT
You know what, you´re neither "forced" to buy the game nor to log in.
Besides, this is a videogames topic not a discussion about the Geneva Convention.
Check the gameplay before hand and if you don´t like it, simply stay away - how about that?
It´s not like you wouldn´t have 253 "consensual" MMO alternatives
Great sign me up and point me to the nearest PvE centric "Sandbox" MMO.
you can't because there isn't one,
I agree, but maybe I can´t because sandbox MMOs are a little more about REALISM and immersion than themeparks, you tell me how being able to kill NPCs but human characters are playing in sweet little invincible safemode is supposed to be realistic or help to get immersed in a sandbox world?
Discrimination between NPCs/Players is not sandboxy at all, sorry to tell you these news.
Let´s stop the NPC/Player segregation attempts for sandboxes and keep it to the mountain of fun little unrealistic themeparks out there, ok?
But again, if I am not being forced to go anywhere I don't want to go, or being forced to do what I don't want to do, then why shouldn't I be allowed the option to turn off the ability to PvP?
Being forced
Being FORCED
BEING FORCED....
CONSENSUAL
I WANT
I WANT
I DO NOT WANT
You know what, you´re neither "forced" to buy the game nor to log in.
Besides, this is a videogames topic not a discussion about the Geneva Convention.
Check the gameplay before hand and if you don´t like it, simply stay away - how about that?
It´s not like you wouldn´t have 253 "consensual" MMO alternatives
Great sign me up and point me to the nearest PvE centric "Sandbox" MMO.
you can't because there isn't one,
I agree, but maybe I can´t because sandbox MMOs are a little more about REALISM and immersion than themeparks, you tell me how being able to kill NPCs but human characters are playing in sweet little invincible safemode is supposed to be realistic or help to get immersed in a sandbox world?
Discrimination between NPCs/Players is not sandboxy at all, sorry to tell you these news.
Let´s stop the NPC/Player segregation attempts for sandboxes and keep it to the mountain of fun little unrealistic themeparks out there, ok?
It's sad that for you to be 'immersed' in a game world you need to be able to murder anyone at any time. That speaks volumes about you....
And nice post with the 'forced' crap. The only thing you want is to kill anyone. You don't want immersion. You don't want a sandbox. You want an FPS.
Sandbox does not automatically mean PvP. You need to get that through your head.
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Darkfall, MO, Xysom...
Make a list of Triple A Sandbox PvE MMOs with similar scope/budget of those themepark games you listed.
I'll start that list. '.....', Please continue...
Sandbox =/= PvP.
Are you FREAKIN´ kidding me? Are you? You MUST be kidding, bringing up these half broken cheap indie low budget tiltles, right?
I was asking for a triple A budget title, done by some developer with a name.
What do we have? Nothing but EVE. What if I don´t want to be a freakin´ spaceship all the time?
You have dozens of PVE consensual everything , not forced to anything, casual friendly, broad audience "accessible" alternatives. We have nothing. EQ Next better change this, or else
And yet not one sandbox. At least you all have pvp sandboxes, we don't even have broken ones.
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
Bingo!
Ohh whats my point? Ohh yea, consensual PvP via alternate rule set servers is the perfect way to give both parties something they desire.
All I see is us PvE'ers going for the middle ground by allowing your preferred playstyle to be catered too, but the moment we request the same for us it gets shot down with the utmost sense of urgency because your draconic sense of immersion is the "only way". When in reality both ways can be and are immersive.
[mod edit]
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
a sandbox where you can build and decorate your houses/castles without fear of pvp.
Smed says everything can be destroyed.
Do you want me to ask for your consent to destroy you house/castle?
[mod edit]
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
a sandbox where you can build and decorate your houses/castles without fear of pvp.
Smed says everything can be destroyed.
Do you want me to ask for your consent to destroy you house/castle?
[mod edit]
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
I love politics and war in games thats literally the reason I played L2 for like 6 years, but there need to be rules, penalties, things that stop you from just going around killing everyone. I will never play an MMO that just allows you to grief people non stop ala DF:UW because to me that is just not fun, give people a system that can be abused and they will abuse it.
Its one of the reason some korean MMOs dont work in the west, because they implement rulesets that NA/EU players just think "I can grief anyone with this", while in Korea, there are sets of unwritten rules regarding how you should behave within an MMO world, which simply dont exist around here anymore, FFA rulesets worked once in the west when the communities were small enough that people actually cared about their reputation and everyone followed these unwritten rules, not anymore.
Im not saying people that want to play these games were people murder eachother constantly, dont have any merit in their opinion, but I hope the game I want to play Everquest Next isnt like that otherwise I just wont play it, if I want to kill people non stop, I can just hop into League of Legends.
a sandbox where you can build and decorate your houses/castles without fear of pvp.
Smed says everything can be destroyed.
Do you want me to ask for your consent to destroy you house/castle?
[mod edit]
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
More than agreeable, EQ Next should be 100% EvE in a fantasy setting. Take my money.
So let´s use the "force" argument of PvE-only players..
If this supposed "sandbox" forces restrictions on players it is not a sandbox. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" into territories to be able to do PvP. I want to be free to choose to do PvP wherever I want. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to see immersion breaking invincible PvE-flagged players running around. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to accept that some buildings are destructable and some not. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to do PvE. Period.
I don´t want to be "forced" to choose between server types.
I don´t want to be "forced" to get another WoWclone when Smedly promised the "Biggest sandbox ever made"
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Darkfall, MO, Xysom...
Make a list of Triple A Sandbox PvE MMOs with similar scope/budget of those themepark games you listed.
I'll start that list. '.....', Please continue...
Sandbox =/= PvP.
Are you FREAKIN´ kidding me? Are you? You MUST be kidding, bringing up these half broken cheap indie low budget tiltles, right?
I was asking for a triple A budget title, done by some developer with a name.
What do we have? Nothing but EVE. What if I don´t want to be a freakin´ spaceship all the time?
You have dozens of PVE consensual everything , not forced to anything, casual friendly, broad audience "accessible" alternatives. We have nothing. EQ Next better change this, or else
And yet not one sandbox. At least you all have pvp sandboxes, we don't even have broken ones.
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
Bingo!
Ohh whats my point? Ohh yea, consensual PvP via alternate rule set servers is the perfect way to give both parties something they desire.
All I see is us PvE'ers going for the middle ground by allowing your preferred playstyle to be catered too, but the moment we request the same for us it gets shot down with the utmost sense of urgency because your draconic sense of immersion is the "only way". When in reality both ways can be and are immersive.
[mod edit]
[mod edit]
Not so much allowing in me giving you something but allowing inasmuch as the develoeprs giving both of the tools to play our preferred way.
You want the game your way.
I want the game both ways.
Huge difference! And I believe its pathetic to argue your point by calling someone who doesn't believe in your preferred way names to try and force a point.
How is your experience crippled when you get your preferred game mode on a separate server, or alternate rule set. Consensually is not something that "cripples" your game style.
And I would love for you to quit arguing your point from the standpoint of the thempark mentality, none of us are asking to create a new WoW clone what we are asking for is a consensual PvE experience within the confines of a sandbox world, something that has never been done. Hell I would play a broken ass sandbox PvE game at this point in time but I can't because developers have this sick sense of definitions that say forced PvP must be included in a sandbox world. You at least get the option of several PvP focused sandbox games with many more on the way over the next several years.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
a sandbox where you can build and decorate your houses/castles without fear of pvp.
Smed says everything can be destroyed.
Do you want me to ask for your consent to destroy you house/castle?
Absolutely. I would also like to have your character imprisoned for life if you attempt to murder another player. You said you wanted 'realism', well there it is. Muderers should be jailed permanently. Unless of course you are one of those open world PvP advocates that just want to abuse and grief players with no consequences. Which, by reading your posts, is exactly what you are. You and Doc are a pair of hypocritical, blind griefers who just want to harass others for your enjoyment. Want me to prove it? Sure..
First, you both are against PvE and PvP servers being separate. Only players that want to grief as many people as possible are against this.
Second, you keep saying you don't want restrictions, yet you don't want any penalties for murder/wanton destruction.
Third, you attack anyone who wants PvE in a beloved IP with insults and anger.
No matter how many posts you and Doc make...you both are wrong and part of an irrelevant, dying breed of griefers.
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
More than agreeable, EQ Next should be 100% EvE in a fantasy setting. Take my money.
We are in agreement then
Im not against allowing people in extraordinary circumstances to go on a rampage, like nothing is stopping anyone from just podding someone in high sec in EVE for instance, but they need to be aware of the consequences, and taking on those consequences shouldnt be a lighthearted decision. Im ok with this.
But just having a rez penalty for 5min or something is not enough, it has be an almost game changing decision, which could potentially be reverted after a lot of work.
a sandbox where you can build and decorate your houses/castles without fear of pvp.
Smed says everything can be destroyed.
Do you want me to ask for your consent to destroy you house/castle?
Absolutely. I would also like to have your character imprisoned for life if you attempt to murder another player. You said you wanted 'realism', well there it is. Muderers should be jailed permanently. Unless of course you are one of those open world PvP advocates that just want to abuse and grief players with no consequences. Which, by reading your posts, is exactly what you are. You and Doc are a pair of hypocritical, blind griefers who just want to harass others for your enjoyment. Want me to prove it? Sure..
First, you both are against PvE and PvP servers being separate. Only players that want to grief as many people as possible are against this.
Second, you keep saying you don't want restrictions, yet you don't want any penalties for murder/wanton destruction.
Third, you attack anyone who wants PvE in a beloved IP with insults and anger.
No matter how many posts you and Doc make...you both are wrong and part of an irrelevant, dying breed of griefers.
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
More than agreeable, EQ Next should be 100% EvE in a fantasy setting. Take my money.
Which is the point that I have been trying to make all day and all night long. Consensual PvP is a must. Eve, not a game I freely admit to knowing anything about, nor care to, gives PvE'ers the choice whether to PvP or not.
As long as I have the option to PvE in safety and the systems are in place to penalize indiscriminate killing or ganking then that is one rule I could handle. Would still prefer optional rule set servers the most through, seeing as they worked really well on the games that provided them.
Glad we're all on the same page now.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
a sandbox where you can build and decorate your houses/castles without fear of pvp.
Smed says everything can be destroyed.
Do you want me to ask for your consent to destroy you house/castle?
Absolutely. I would also like to have your character imprisoned for life if you attempt to murder another player. You said you wanted 'realism', well there it is. Muderers should be jailed permanently. Unless of course you are one of those open world PvP advocates that just want to abuse and grief players with no consequences. Which, by reading your posts, is exactly what you are. You and Doc are a pair of hypocritical, blind griefers who just want to harass others for your enjoyment. Want me to prove it? Sure..
First, you both are against PvE and PvP servers being separate. Only players that want to grief as many people as possible are against this.
Second, you keep saying you don't want restrictions, yet you don't want any penalties for murder/wanton destruction.
Third, you attack anyone who wants PvE in a beloved IP with insults and anger.
No matter how many posts you and Doc make...you both are wrong and part of an irrelevant, dying breed of griefers.
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
More than agreeable, EQ Next should be 100% EvE in a fantasy setting. Take my money.
Which is the point that I have been trying to make all day and all night long. Consensual PvP is a must. Eve, not a game I freely admit to knowing anything about, nor care to, gives PvE'ers the choice whether to PvP or not.
As long as I have the option to PvE in safety and the systems are in place to penalize indiscriminate killing or ganking then that is one rule I could handle. Would still prefer optional rule set servers the most through, seeing as they worked really well on the games that provided them.
Glad we're all on the same page now.
Absolutely agree, never had a problem with territory security levels. But I bet the PvE-only lobbyists come out and state how unfair it is that they can´t go EVERYWHERE in safemode. Wait for it, it´s coming. Even if there is one half square foot small space with non-consensual PvP enabled, they will stomp with their feet until they can go there too in safemode.
Usually they bring up EvE Online as their personal evil, evil nemesis and the ultimate ganker paradise (which it is not), stating how it is the most evil unfair game ever existed, filled with sociapathic murderers.
It´s really hilarious how far paranoia and griefophobia can go. ;-)
Comments
And as you stated earlier,
You would not be forced to play or log into the game.
You could go and play some of the other PvP MMOs out there right now.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
To follow up on this again, I should also point out that you'd be making some real design choices here as well. While I did say I'd probably try a game like that, the particulars - how long does the flag last, etc. - make a lot of difference. Do the devs spend more time developing the PVE areas and mechanics or the PVP ones? In most games past one side or the other has gotten the short end of the stick, so to speak. It's a tight rope to walk.
Basically I think a good sandbox game (or any MMO, really) probably has to go one way or the other, as the balance is so tricky.
As for why I'd be fighting, well, beyond the fact that I like fighting against other players, the results of said fighting would have consequences in the game. You'd be talking about a player-driven world with player run cities, factions, etc. That's why I say the PVP would be meaningful. I have no interest in randomly ganking players; I've probably ganked someone in an MMO less than a handful of times. I, along with others I know, have a desire for PVP with a larger scale and scope, and with that the ability to influence the actual game. In that sense it's not just PVP, it's player-driven politics, relationships, long term conflicts. I'd like to find out what could develop out of that.
I could? Really? Make a list of triple A sandbox MMOs.
You got Wow/Rift/Tera/GW2/SWTOR/LOTRO/AOC/TSW/FFIX and a truckload of asian ones.
List the sandbox titles with similiar scope and budget. I´ll start: EvE. Go continue that list.
Darkfall, MO, Xysom...
Make a list of Triple A Sandbox PvE MMOs with similar scope/budget of those themepark games you listed.
I'll start that list. '.....', Please continue...
Sandbox =/= PvP.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I have asked the same question and the general consensus has been "Because if I can't kill someone, the game isn't fun for me" and "If its fun for me, its the way it has to be"
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Hi DocBrody, I was just curious about a followup to a question I asked in another thread. I asked if having a PVP server would make the PVPers happy, and you answered no, saying that it would further divide the playerbase.
I responded with a follow-up, but I guess it got lost in the mountain of activity in the thread. I am genuinely curious about this, so here it goes again-- I was just wondering what the problem is with that set-up, since those who like PVP will be able to play their way together, and the PVEers will get to do the same, and neither side will have to deal with the other. Seems like a win-win, don't you think?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
The thing is when you divide a game up like that, have a separate "pvp foucsed" server then a PVE server, you end up having to develop content/balances, etc for one and the other.
As the player base is divided, PVP is usually left behind in development, with content being focused twoard the PVE side, people gradually move toward it and the pvpers eventually move on because the focus has shifted.
Just like with UO, it started with one single world , open pvp. Then after EQ and things came later in 2001 or so they added Trammel, which was basically a split world where players could play on "trammel" where the pvp wasn't allowed. Slowly players migrated over toward this side and all the pvp fans got left behind, EA shifted it's developer focus toward PVE content and eventually the original UO, in terms of it's gameplay/world was completley lost. The UO that exists today is nothing at all like it was in the 98-2001 era.
Hi, I think the concept of server division and offering multiple ways to play an online game is simply a dated concept and a dead end. It is dividing the player base, it is offering a way of least resistance, it takes social interaction and possible "guild warfare" out of the playfield.
If you are interested here is an interesting article from a self proclaimed "carebear" who in fact rather argues for non consensual PvP in World of Darkness (other sandbox MMO from CCP coming up) because of the need to have antagonists in games.
Here is the article, unfortunately I can´t quote the authors name, didn´t find it
http://www.wodnews.net/Blogs/tabid/82/Article/940/The-value-of-non-consensual-PvP.aspx
"I don't like PvP. I have tried it in every MMO I've played, from World of Warcraft to EVE Online, and sorry, I'm not a fan. But HfxTenor's post about Powergamers and their value started me thinking about PvP. So, here I am, the self-proclaimed carebear, writing about non-consensual PvP and how I see its place in World of Darkness. And you might find this surprising, but I think it would constitute an essential part of the game. Why? Because I think it would make the game better.
Now, by better, I don't mean nicer. I don't mean that it will be more enjoyable for me. In fact, I can't stand non-consensual PvP. It gets in my way. It slows me down. It keeps me from being able to play the game the way I want. However, I've given this a lot of thought lately, and I think that there is a certain trade-off between what is immediately enjoyable, and mechanics that make for a better game.
I want an immersive game. I want a game that captures the darkness, paranoia and conflict of endless manipulations and ruthless power struggles. Plans within plans. Sadly, scripted PvE content, as immersive as that can be, is predictable, once you've played it through. No developer has the resources to create quality content faster than gamers can consume it. What's more, players tend to risk less when fighting an NPC faction. The fact is, no matter how much you destroy of an NPC's assets, you know that no real loss was incurred. You are risking your hard-won assets against a shadow opponent, whose resources are essentially limitless. That is not the case when fighting other players. What MMOs need, to keep us interested, are dynamic conflict drivers with measurable consequences. Player-driven content and emergent gameplay. Player interaction, even if it's forced.
Non-consensual PvP is a conflict driver. It forces player interaction. You may not like it, but that's ok. You don't have to. It will still make your game better, because you don't like it. It will force you into certain types of fun, which you might otherwise avoid. You may not find dealing with a childish ganker particularly immersive, but the ganker himself is not important. The threat of the ganker is important. He is playing a part that needs to be played. He is making the world dangerous. He is giving you someone to dislike, and that gives you a chance to forge alliances with others who feel the same way. In the long term, that is what makes a game more interesting. And if you read or watch Game of Thrones, I would compare your average griefer to a kind of Joffrey. (I'm just picking a villain that will be familiar to many fellow nerds. Feel free to substitute his name with any other truly dislikeable villain.)
Of course, nobody likes Joffrey. We're not supposed to. Most of us hate him. Nevertheless, he is necessary. It would be a nicer show (or book) if he never existed, but it would not be better. We want to be rid of him, but then we would lack a character to hate and fear, and we need that. He is a necessary conflict driver, someone who can make us worry for our favorites, someone against whom our heroes can rally. We want to see him stopped, to see him fail, but in order for that to be interesting, he must succeed often enough to present a real threat.
It should be obvious where I'm going with this. PvP provides conflict. It produces villains. PvP presents the threat of unpredictable opponents, who are at least as strong as we are, and often stronger. Without them, we would have no need to put aside our personal interests and band together. There would be no need for protectors, for support. Our personal storylines would fall flat, because the alliances necessary to survive in a hostile world become meaningful only when the world is actually hostile. Within those alliances, friendships are forged that sometimes even transfer into real life. As much as I enjoy my whims, I get bored with them after a while. I don't get bored of my friends.
How extensively this type of gameplay will affect the game remains to be seen, of course. If the world is too hostile, it becomes predictable again. We all need to be able to play the way we want, at least some of the time. But after careful consideration, I think I would be disappointed if non-consensual PvP were missing, even though I plan to avoid it as much as possible. Strange, but true."
I understand what the author of that article is saying, but I don't agree with it 100%. It makes the shaky assumption that "fun" can be defined empirically. I personally get that sense of tension and paranoia when I decide to explore areas that are too dangerous for me at whatever skill level my character is (be it skills themselves or overall character level-- whatever mechanic the game employs to say "You've got X amount of power"). But the difference between that and danger posed by another character is the decision is mine on whether or not I want to go to a dangerous area. A PKer can be anywhere, at any time.
If I play on a PVP server, I know exactly what I'm getting myself into and am making the conscious choice. If, however, I play on a PVE server, I know that I can expect to be able to do a certain amount of things in a certain amount of time without fear that circumstances in the game that are beyond my control will impede it. Since I work full time and have other responsibilities throughout the day, my play time during the week is limited to maybe an hour and a half to 2 hours an evening, if I'm lucky. What if I want to spend that time collecting mats for crafting? If Joe PK Jackass and his gang of Merry Cockwads decide I'm going to be their bitch for the evening, my limited time will be spent being someone else's entertainment.
I don't pay to be ANYone's entertainment, either in money or in time.
Now, if the server has a flagging option and I'm feeling particularly froggy one evening, I could decide to go out flagged and tempt fate, but once again, it's on my terms.
As for the division of resources between a PVP and PVE server, I'm afraid that argument isn't really valid with EQN. We already know there is going to be a good deal of PVE content, due to the use of Storybricks. With that system, there is the potential for SOE to create questlines in the game, including choices and consequences that could rival some of the better single player RPGs out there. If there is only one server type, then we know that there will be both PVE and PVP, so the point about needing extra resources to support servers with different rulesets is moot. Whether playing together or separately, there's going to be people screaming that one style is unbalanced over another, and the cries of "NERF _____ !!!" will be heard eventually.
So, that said, why not let the PVP-minded folk enjoy a server with all the tension and paranoia they could possibly desire from the threat of the fellow player, and let the PVE side enjoy their server, exploring the world and the dynamic questing afforded by Storybricks?
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Great sign me up and point me to the nearest PvE centric "Sandbox" MMO.
you can't because there isn't one, instead to get meaningful PvE we are relegated to the trappings of a linear Themepark. Whereas you my friend, are able to play at a minimum of 4 current FFA PvP sandboxes with another 4-5 coming out within the next several years.
That's the crux of the whole issue here, many of us want a PvE experience within the confines of a Sandbox.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I dont mind player destructable buildinds and assets that is all fine it adds a lot to the gameplay, I would love for another game to develop a rich political metagame as Lineage 2 did.
But.... Im not gonna be on call at 4am everyday because people with too much time on their hands decide that they are gonna attack and destroy everything everyday at 3AM when no one is online, im also not planning on playing the game 24/7, you know, RL and all that.
So in the interest of creating rich gameplay ( i.e. it is not fun to take down an empty castle because everyone was asleep ), we should have schedules for attacking buildings and or castles, where people can sign up to attack and/or defend. The fun of playing a politically rich game is that your "guild" is theoretically online to protect stuff and to play the political game. If they are not online at the time they have been allocated to defend it then that is a completely different matter. Its like declaring war on this guild with one guy and just killing him over and over whats the fun in that.
On another note, I also dont want to defend a castle everyday at 9PM or something like that, that would be stupid, once you own and defend a structure you should be able to hold onto it for X amount of time before it can be taken away, this will allow you to actually be part of other game activities, Lineage 2 did this very well by having sieges every 2 weeks, which meant you could hold onto a castle for min 2 weeks, that gave you time to be part of the political system, get people on your side, etc....
And mind you Lineage 2 pretty much had very little else other than PVP and politics, I expect EQN to have hundreds of other sandbox systems that players can participate in and they should be allowed to do so, along side PVP and sieges.
The problem with "political gameplay" in a FFA PVP setting is that rarely will you find anyone willing to attempt diplomacy. Factional/Guild conflicts usually just boil down to one side bashing the other side down and taking their stuff, either one on one or 50 on 50. There's no room for "Let's talk this over like adults". More like */inspect ... oh, shit, this guy is 3 levels lower than me and has all greens!* (insert those KAPOW! BAM! images from the old Batman show), followed by the requisite teabagging.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
Are you FREAKIN´ kidding me? Are you? You MUST be kidding, bringing up these half broken cheap indie low budget tiltles, right?
I was asking for triple A budget titles, done by some developer with a name.
What do we have? Nothing but EVE. What if I don´t want to be a freakin´ spaceship all the time?
You have dozens of PVE consensual everything , not forced to anything, casual friendly, broad audience "accessible" alternatives. We have nothing. EQ Next better change this, or else
And yet not one sandbox. At least you all have pvp sandboxes, we don't even have broken ones.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Basically what I think will happen is that you will buy large areas of land deeds from a cash shop . That part of the server will be owned by you .
You can shape the land to how you want , build dungeons etc etc , basically you will be the dungeon master so to speak . If you allow people to burn your forests down then so be it .
I guess guilds will form that shape the land , and florish . There wont be any raids or anything unless you create them , but all armor and weapons would be player crafted anyway .
I agree, but maybe I can´t because sandbox MMOs are a little more about REALISM and immersion than themeparks, you tell me how being able to kill NPCs but human characters are playing in sweet little invincible safemode is supposed to be realistic or help to get immersed in a sandbox world?
Discrimination between NPCs/Players is not sandboxy at all, sorry to tell you these news.
Let´s stop the NPC/Player segregation attempts for sandboxes and keep it to the mountain of fun little unrealistic themeparks out there, ok?
It's sad that for you to be 'immersed' in a game world you need to be able to murder anyone at any time. That speaks volumes about you....
And nice post with the 'forced' crap. The only thing you want is to kill anyone. You don't want immersion. You don't want a sandbox. You want an FPS.
Sandbox does not automatically mean PvP. You need to get that through your head.
Bingo!
Ohh whats my point? Ohh yea, consensual PvP via alternate rule set servers is the perfect way to give both parties something they desire.
All I see is us PvE'ers going for the middle ground by allowing your preferred playstyle to be catered too, but the moment we request the same for us it gets shot down with the utmost sense of urgency because your draconic sense of immersion is the "only way". When in reality both ways can be and are immersive.
[mod edit]
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
As a firm opponent of Forced PvP or FFA PvP or non-consensual PvP I will defend Bc here, not that I agree with him on many things pertaining to MMO philosophy but he is one of the few PvP guys here who has gave an alternate ruleset that "could potentially work". Plus he has been pretty vocal about his opposition to indiscriminate ganking and griefing.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
FFA PvP will never work, unless the game is solely based around that, you need rules in certain areas, penalties etc... even EVE has its own rules and penalties which is why you can only really free pvp on nullsec.
I love politics and war in games thats literally the reason I played L2 for like 6 years, but there need to be rules, penalties, things that stop you from just going around killing everyone. I will never play an MMO that just allows you to grief people non stop ala DF:UW because to me that is just not fun, give people a system that can be abused and they will abuse it.
Its one of the reason some korean MMOs dont work in the west, because they implement rulesets that NA/EU players just think "I can grief anyone with this", while in Korea, there are sets of unwritten rules regarding how you should behave within an MMO world, which simply dont exist around here anymore, FFA rulesets worked once in the west when the communities were small enough that people actually cared about their reputation and everyone followed these unwritten rules, not anymore.
Im not saying people that want to play these games were people murder eachother constantly, dont have any merit in their opinion, but I hope the game I want to play Everquest Next isnt like that otherwise I just wont play it, if I want to kill people non stop, I can just hop into League of Legends.
More than agreeable, EQ Next should be 100% EvE in a fantasy setting. Take my money.
Not so much allowing in me giving you something but allowing inasmuch as the develoeprs giving both of the tools to play our preferred way.
You want the game your way.
I want the game both ways.
Huge difference! And I believe its pathetic to argue your point by calling someone who doesn't believe in your preferred way names to try and force a point.
How is your experience crippled when you get your preferred game mode on a separate server, or alternate rule set. Consensually is not something that "cripples" your game style.
And I would love for you to quit arguing your point from the standpoint of the thempark mentality, none of us are asking to create a new WoW clone what we are asking for is a consensual PvE experience within the confines of a sandbox world, something that has never been done. Hell I would play a broken ass sandbox PvE game at this point in time but I can't because developers have this sick sense of definitions that say forced PvP must be included in a sandbox world. You at least get the option of several PvP focused sandbox games with many more on the way over the next several years.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
We are in agreement then
Im not against allowing people in extraordinary circumstances to go on a rampage, like nothing is stopping anyone from just podding someone in high sec in EVE for instance, but they need to be aware of the consequences, and taking on those consequences shouldnt be a lighthearted decision. Im ok with this.
But just having a rez penalty for 5min or something is not enough, it has be an almost game changing decision, which could potentially be reverted after a lot of work.
Which is the point that I have been trying to make all day and all night long. Consensual PvP is a must. Eve, not a game I freely admit to knowing anything about, nor care to, gives PvE'ers the choice whether to PvP or not.
As long as I have the option to PvE in safety and the systems are in place to penalize indiscriminate killing or ganking then that is one rule I could handle. Would still prefer optional rule set servers the most through, seeing as they worked really well on the games that provided them.
Glad we're all on the same page now.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Absolutely agree, never had a problem with territory security levels. But I bet the PvE-only lobbyists come out and state how unfair it is that they can´t go EVERYWHERE in safemode. Wait for it, it´s coming. Even if there is one half square foot small space with non-consensual PvP enabled, they will stomp with their feet until they can go there too in safemode.
Usually they bring up EvE Online as their personal evil, evil nemesis and the ultimate ganker paradise (which it is not), stating how it is the most evil unfair game ever existed, filled with sociapathic murderers.
It´s really hilarious how far paranoia and griefophobia can go. ;-)