Fun factoid: I play EVE-Online yet dislike PVP, not because I dislike losing but because I've never been good at EVE's type of PVP so your idea that everyone who dislikes PVP would be turned away by such a game is flawed by my type of gamer.
Also those groups have and still exist in all games where PVP and PVE coexist (in EVE you have scores of groups bent on protecting their space to establish safe zones for "carebears" as their called in-game because those people bring in a good amount of cash from taxes, in pre-trammel UO there were groups of people who'd hunt pkers and defend non-pvp orientated players, in pre-tammel based private shards this is still happening to this day). To put it bluntly you're telling me people will not fight for their place in a good game and I tell they will and have more examples of such things happening than you do of it not happening(Hell just google "CVA EVE-Online" and start reading up on that alliance's history, that's the biggest group of RPers in EVE that have existed since time immemorial in EVE and have weathered far greater shitstorms than "gank squads").
I played EvE as well for a few years. You can do only PvE stuff there but you can never see all there is to the game because PvP is a large part of it regardless of what your playstyle is. The pure PvE aspects in EVE is limited if you aren't willing to risk going into low sec. Even with 'protection' you can still get podded before they can help. I know.
Besides, going into arguments on what players 'would' do is as useless as a one-legged bicycle race.
The game you propose is still 'forcing' those PvErs to accept those limitations to a game where you can get killed by a player. Period. EvE exists already so you have little choice but to accept what it is if you wish to play.
Yes but lets not forget PvPers also have limitations in EVE and I've done everything there is to do in EVE ( 0.0 exploration, rating, wormholes, high sec exploration, missions up to level 4, etc ) so yeah... flawed arguments are flawed. If you want we can continue discussing on how PVEers get the short end of the stick when you're not looking at how PVPers are also losing things (losing time on their mains if jailed, losing access to certain regions by being outlaws, etc, yes they can run alts to counter this somewhat but these can get counterganked by smart avengers, the metagame is deeper than how you make it look).
The reason why you see such a large percentage of sandbox's that are PvP focused is that it is simply far easier to accomplish then making a PvE based one. One of the big advantages of PvP "sandbox's" for a Developer is that players can provide alot of the content/entertainment for other players......thus reducing the amount of resources the Developer has to put into it.
PvE sandbox's are much harder (require more talent and resources) to do for a Developer because you've got to develop your content and A.I. to react dynamicaly in at least a semi-intelligent fashion to the myriad number of things that players are supposed to be able to do in a "sandbox" and the game-world change accordingly (as it's supposed to in a "sandbox") without "breaking". With PvP you simply rely on the built-in human intelligence of the opposing players brains to accomplish most of that.
PvE is much easier to do in a Themepark because the players are presented with very limited (and typicaly linear) set of actions that the games A.I. needs to react to.....so it's mostly just pre-programmed/pre-scripted. Also since typicaly nothing the players do is allowed to effect real change to the gameworld itself...the Developer simply doesn't need to worry much about setting up systems to account for that.
Note that this is not to say that a PvE focused sandbox wouldn't be cool (I'd certainly be interested in it) or doable, especialy with todays technology.....and in fact I think Tale in the Desert II is one. However it would require alot more sophisticated systems in the design and probably alot more active Developer involvment....to handle well producing interesting content and having that content react to what the players were doing in the world.
Yes but lets not forget PvPers also have limitations in EVE and I've done everything there is to do in EVE ( 0.0 exploration, rating, wormholes, high sec exploration, missions up to level 4, etc ) so yeah... flawed arguments are flawed. If you want we can continue discussing on how PVEers get the short end of the stick when you're not looking at how PVPers are also losing things (losing time on their mains if jailed, losing access to certain regions by being outlaws, etc, yes they can run alts to counter this somewhat but these can get counterganked by smart avengers, the metagame is deeper than how you make it look).
Yes, flawed arguments are flawed.
I'm not making it look like anything. You give examples of how PvPers can have consequences to their actions, the repercussions etc. Well, none of this is running. It's still all theory. So maybe it runs perfectly in your head but none of the possible exploits have been brought up. Do you think players will not suffer those consequences just to gank someone. EvE does it, and quite often to afk miners. You may not get ganked ever in EvE but the threat is always there and that simple fact keeps some PvE players away.
Stating what you did in EvE does not negate any of my premises, nice straw man fallacy.
Either way, until such a system exists to be analysed, this is all it will be. A debate.
"You are describing a more PvP oriented game than a mutual PvP/PvE one."
And I'm saying a "pvp oriented game" has a lot of pve in it as well. So a "pvp game" IS a mutual pvp/pve game.
It isn't if the game requires the PvE player to venture into places where they can get attacked by players. Nothing mutual about that unless the PvE player entered the game with the knowledge that he could get jumped.
If the PvE player does not wish to partake in PvP, he is then relegated to small areas to do his/her activities. This is confinement and is again, not mutual. Their choices limited in where they may go.
Therefor, any game that restricts a PvE player to do as they wish for the possibility of being attacked by another player and it being against the PvE player's volition is by definition a PvP oriented game and not geared toward any mutual benefit.
So to you a game with "mutual pve/pvp" really just means no pvp at all? I'm not talking about a game that "caters to all playstyles" because that simply cannot and will not exist. Make no mistake, I'm not looking for a game that welcomes everybody. There isn't one. No matter how much better or deeper sandbox games are, there are always going to be the "carebears" who simply cannot handle being killed or having their stuff taken, even if it makes their successes that much sweeter when they have them.
The difference is you think there is a game like that, because you fundamentally misunderstand what we want. I can't believe how often you guys say things like "IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT PEOPLE JUST GO TO THE PVP SECTION" or something similar. It's not that we're blood thirsty monsters who want to hack down everything we come across. It might surprise you to know that in ffa pvp games like UO and Darkfall, I'm an extremely honorable player who doesn't attack low level players for no reason. But I like the overall atmosphere those games create. It's called risk/reward.
The reason why you see such a large percentage of sandbox's that are PvP focused is that it is simply far easier to accomplish then making a PvE based one. One of the big advantages of PvP "sandbox's" for a Developer is that players can provide alot of the content/entertainment for other players......thus reducing the amount of resources the Developer has to put into it.
PvE sandbox's are much harder (require more talent and resources) to do for a Developer because you've got to develop your content and A.I. to react dynamicaly in at least a semi-intelligent fashion to the myriad number of things that players are supposed to be able to do in a "sandbox" and the game-world change accordingly (as it's supposed to in a "sandbox") without "breaking". With PvP you simply rely on the built-in human intelligence of the opposing players brains to accomplish most of that.
PvE is much easier to do in a Themepark because the players are presented with very limited (and typicaly linear) set of actions that the games A.I. needs to react to.....so it's mostly just pre-programmed/pre-scripted. Also since typicaly nothing the players do is allowed to effect real change to the gameworld itself...the Developer simply doesn't need to worry much about setting up systems to account for that.
Note that this is not to say that a PvE focused sandbox wouldn't be cool (I'd certainly be interested in it) or doable, especialy with todays technology.....and in fact I think Tale in the Desert II is one. However it would require alot more sophisticated systems in the design and probably alot more active Developer involvment....to handle well producing interesting content and having that content react to what the players were doing in the world.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
So to you a game with "mutual pve/pvp" really just means no pvp at all? I'm not talking about a game that "caters to all playstyles" because that simply cannot and will not exist. Make no mistake, I'm not looking for a game that welcomes everybody. There isn't one. No matter how much better or deeper sandbox games are, there are always going to be the "carebears" who simply cannot handle being killed or having their stuff taken, even if it makes their successes that much sweeter when they have them.
The difference is you think there is a game like that, because you fundamentally misunderstand what we want. I can't believe how often you guys say things like "IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT PEOPLE JUST GO TO THE PVP SECTION" or something similar. It's not that we're blood thirsty monsters who want to hack down everything we come across. It might surprise you to know that in ffa pvp games like UO and Darkfall, I'm an extremely honorable player who doesn't attack low level players for no reason. But I like the overall atmosphere those games create. It's called risk/reward.
Actually the discussion WAS about having a game with both PvP and PvE players in. I don't what you were following. Even my debate with Dihoru is about this metagame that would included both types.
I'm responding to this type of game and you answered it in your first paragraph. Now you know where I'm coming from and I don't misunderstand anything, you simply didn't encompass the debate I was having.
It isn't if the game requires the PvE player to venture into places where they can get attacked by players. Nothing mutual about that unless the PvE player entered the game with the knowledge that he could get jumped.
If the PvE player does not wish to partake in PvP, he is then relegated to small areas to do his/her activities. This is confinement and is again, not mutual. Their choices limited in where they may go.
Therefor, any game that restricts a PvE player to do as they wish for the possibility of being attacked by another player and it being against the PvE player's volition is by definition a PvP oriented game and not geared toward any mutual benefit.
You'll never convince them of this, they are just unable to see it from the other side. I quit eve when I lost interest in doing the big company battles. What was left was more of a box that I wasn't interested in being in, so I moved on to another game that didn't have those restrictions.
The silliest example of what's going on in this thread is...what if you played on a pve server and every once in a while someone would come along and put you into a raid group and you had to do the raid....would you do it ? Does it matter if you get raid loot at the end if you're not having fun doing it. Would you just accept that as part of the game or would you say fuck this game and go play something else.
There's non-consensual pvp for a pve player in a nutshell.
So to you a game with "mutual pve/pvp" really just means no pvp at all? I'm not talking about a game that "caters to all playstyles" because that simply cannot and will not exist. Make no mistake, I'm not looking for a game that welcomes everybody. There isn't one. No matter how much better or deeper sandbox games are, there are always going to be the "carebears" who simply cannot handle being killed or having their stuff taken, even if it makes their successes that much sweeter when they have them.
The difference is you think there is a game like that, because you fundamentally misunderstand what we want. I can't believe how often you guys say things like "IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT PEOPLE JUST GO TO THE PVP SECTION" or something similar. It's not that we're blood thirsty monsters who want to hack down everything we come across. It might surprise you to know that in ffa pvp games like UO and Darkfall, I'm an extremely honorable player who doesn't attack low level players for no reason. But I like the overall atmosphere those games create. It's called risk/reward.
Actually the discussion WAS about having a game with both PvP and PvE players in. I don't what you were following. Even my debate with Dihoru is about this metagame that would included both types.
I'm responding to this type of game and you answered it in your first paragraph. Now you know where I'm coming from and I don't misunderstand anything, you simply didn't encompass the debate I was having.
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
There are a few problems here.
One is that the "general idea" behind sandboxes isn't removing restrictions. It's a bit more complex than that. SWG had PvP restrictions and UO Trammel had PvP restrictions, yet they are both considered sandboxes.
You've arbitrarily decided that the PvP player's "rights" are more important than the PvE player's "rights". The decision about whether players can flag or not is made by the developer, depending on the audience they want to attract to their game among other things. You're making it seem as if there is some sort of ideal that must be aspired to, and in order to get there all players must participate in PvP in a sandbox game. This isn't true.
In talking about artificial restrictions, video games are just layers of artificial restrictions anyway. Restrictions and permissions are made to make game play. For instance, anyone hit by a two pound sledge hammer in the head is not going to stand back up. It certainly isn't going to require several hits to take them down. Yet most games allow this sort of thing for the sake of game play. The decisions made about PvP and PvE fall into the same category. Some things are allowed and some things aren't to make way for game play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You'll never convince them of this, they are just unable to see it from the other side. I quit eve when I lost interest in doing the big company battles. What was left was more of a box that I wasn't interested in being in, so I moved on to another game that didn't have those restrictions.
The silliest example of what's going on in this thread is...what if you played on a pve server and every once in a while someone would come along and put you into a raid group and you had to do the raid....would you do it ? Does it matter if you get raid loot at the end if you're not having fun doing it. Would you just accept that as part of the game or would you say fuck this game and go play something else.
There's non-consensual pvp for a pve player in a nutshell.
You're right. I like PvP myself. I loved EvE too though, even if I like to PvE more in it.
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
Yes. Correct on both counts. Trying to come up with a game that would cater to both is quite improbable.
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
that's weird because I remember having tons of big open world pvp battles in swg all the time then unflagging and going and doing whatever pve stuff I wanted to do.
There were bases to fight over, control of space ports, player cities to raid..all manner of pvp that was way better than any of the lame BS that goes on now in mmos AND we never bothered anyone that was just there to pve. You didn't have to pick all one way or the other in that game.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
If you can turn the force field (i.e. pvp tag) on and off at will, it is a choice for YOU, not restriction. Surely it is a restriction for others.
However, in this instance, choice of a player certainly is more important than restrictions to others. This is the corner stone idea of mutual consent. If one side is not consenting, it is ok to restrict the other side.
Note that these other players are not restricted to find others who mutually consent to pvp.
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
that's weird because I remember having tons of big open world pvp battles in swg all the time then unflagging and going and doing whatever pve stuff I wanted to do.
There were bases to fight over, control of space ports, player cities to raid..all manner of pvp that was way better than any of the lame BS that goes on now in mmos AND we never bothered anyone that was just there to pve. You didn't have to pick all one way or the other in that game.
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Why are your posts so often sarcastic and yet so often blatantly wrong?
The cynic in me is starting to equate PVEers in the context of this thread as people too lazy to be arsed to study up on things before making a risky decision in-game whereas the optimist is quietly acknowledging that AAA is dead as far real MMOs are concerned with such an entitled community floating around...
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Do you play Diablo 3 hard core?
The risk of losing everything is right there in any farming situation. One internet disconnect, and you have nothing left.
I'd say have a flag that can turn on and off but only after talking to an NPC. That avoids people turning PVP off when they see a group coming towards them. This saves the people who want only PVE but allows open world PVP.
For gold sink make it more expensive based on the area you are in or your personal level.
For storyline make it some sort of divine protection that prevents players from harming you.
Originally posted by Dihoru The cynic in me is starting to equate PVEers in the context of this thread as people too lazy to be arsed to study up on things before making a risky decision in-game whereas the optimist is quietly acknowledging that AAA is dead as far real MMOs are concerned with such an entitled community floating around...
No worries, I'm sure a company will eventually create the game of your dreams.
In the meantime, enjoy this for 'both' your sides.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
There are a few problems here.
One is that the "general idea" behind sandboxes isn't removing restrictions. It's a bit more complex than that. SWG had PvP restrictions and UO Trammel had PvP restrictions, yet they are both considered sandboxes.
You've arbitrarily decided that the PvP player's "rights" are more important than the PvE player's "rights". The decision about whether players can flag or not is made by the developer, depending on the audience they want to attract to their game among other things. You're making it seem as if there is some sort of ideal that must be aspired to, and in order to get there all players must participate in PvP in a sandbox game. This isn't true.
In talking about artificial restrictions, video games are just layers of artificial restrictions anyway. Restrictions and permissions are made to make game play. For instance, anyone hit by a two pound sledge hammer in the head is not going to stand back up. It certainly isn't going to require several hits to take them down. Yet most games allow this sort of thing for the sake of game play. The decisions made about PvP and PvE fall into the same category. Some things are allowed and some things aren't to make way for game play.
I know it's more complex than just removing restrictions, that's why I said the "general idea." And that's true. Sandbox elements are elements that tend to have less boundaries and invisible walls than other games.
As for your points about SWG and post-trammel UO, yes they are sandboxes compared to games that are less sandboxy. There are no true sandbox games, only a sliding scale from themepark to sandbox. UO was a sandbox, but the addition of Trammel made it LESS of a sandbox.
I'm not arbitrarily saying anything about what game developer's can or can't do. If game developers want to make a game that is less sandboxy, they can do that. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. But when it comes to what features are more sandbox than others, that's not arbitrary. If the goal is to make a sandbox, as a general rule you want to be eliminating invisible walls, not putting them up. That doesn't mean it's impossible to have a game that has sandbox elements without pvp, but it does mean that ffa pvp is a sandbox element.
And please, you can spare me the "games all have artificial restrictions" speech. I know this. That doesn't change any of my points.
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
that's weird because I remember having tons of big open world pvp battles in swg all the time then unflagging and going and doing whatever pve stuff I wanted to do.
There were bases to fight over, control of space ports, player cities to raid..all manner of pvp that was way better than any of the lame BS that goes on now in mmos AND we never bothered anyone that was just there to pve. You didn't have to pick all one way or the other in that game.
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Why are your posts so often sarcastic and yet so often blatantly wrong?
Why can't you get your risk in a game that has a FFA PvP server alongside the PvE ones. Everyone on the server has the same rulesets and the same risk. No one on that server gets to just opt out. Why would it have to be every server of a game for it to be exciting?
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
Uh, where do you even get the notion that most player prefer to have PD?
D3 (close enough to a MMO) has a PD option (probably one of the few AAA game to have that). Only 9% of the characters are HC characters. The % of players who even try PD is probably lower.
And even 9% is no where close to be "most player".
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Yeah. I do not see how this playstyle can ever be reconciled with a PvE playstyle. Some people like to play Monopoly with their family while others need to gamble with real money in Vegas. If you try to put that in the same package, neither group will be really happy about it.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
I know that some people draw the line at pvp. The guy I was quoting said that the reason there aren't many pve sandbox games is because they're harder to make. I'm saying yes, that's true, but also in general it's because sandbox games are supposed to be more realistic and organic. It's not that pvp is just one small drop in the bucket of features that are found in sandbox games. The question of whether or not a game will have consensual pvp is one of the biggest single questions people have about new games.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
Uh, where do you even get the notion that most player prefer to have PD?
D3 (close enough to a MMO) has a PD option (probably one of the few AAA game to have that). Only 9% of the characters are HC characters. The % of players who even try PD is probably lower.
And even 9% is no where close to be "most player".
Ooops. awkward phrasing on my part. I meant most players prefer to have that artificial restriction ie most players prefer NOT to have perma death.
Comments
Yes but lets not forget PvPers also have limitations in EVE and I've done everything there is to do in EVE ( 0.0 exploration, rating, wormholes, high sec exploration, missions up to level 4, etc ) so yeah... flawed arguments are flawed. If you want we can continue discussing on how PVEers get the short end of the stick when you're not looking at how PVPers are also losing things (losing time on their mains if jailed, losing access to certain regions by being outlaws, etc, yes they can run alts to counter this somewhat but these can get counterganked by smart avengers, the metagame is deeper than how you make it look).
The reason why you see such a large percentage of sandbox's that are PvP focused is that it is simply far easier to accomplish then making a PvE based one. One of the big advantages of PvP "sandbox's" for a Developer is that players can provide alot of the content/entertainment for other players......thus reducing the amount of resources the Developer has to put into it.
PvE sandbox's are much harder (require more talent and resources) to do for a Developer because you've got to develop your content and A.I. to react dynamicaly in at least a semi-intelligent fashion to the myriad number of things that players are supposed to be able to do in a "sandbox" and the game-world change accordingly (as it's supposed to in a "sandbox") without "breaking". With PvP you simply rely on the built-in human intelligence of the opposing players brains to accomplish most of that.
PvE is much easier to do in a Themepark because the players are presented with very limited (and typicaly linear) set of actions that the games A.I. needs to react to.....so it's mostly just pre-programmed/pre-scripted. Also since typicaly nothing the players do is allowed to effect real change to the gameworld itself...the Developer simply doesn't need to worry much about setting up systems to account for that.
Note that this is not to say that a PvE focused sandbox wouldn't be cool (I'd certainly be interested in it) or doable, especialy with todays technology.....and in fact I think Tale in the Desert II is one. However it would require alot more sophisticated systems in the design and probably alot more active Developer involvment....to handle well producing interesting content and having that content react to what the players were doing in the world.
Yes, flawed arguments are flawed.
I'm not making it look like anything. You give examples of how PvPers can have consequences to their actions, the repercussions etc. Well, none of this is running. It's still all theory. So maybe it runs perfectly in your head but none of the possible exploits have been brought up. Do you think players will not suffer those consequences just to gank someone. EvE does it, and quite often to afk miners. You may not get ganked ever in EvE but the threat is always there and that simple fact keeps some PvE players away.
Stating what you did in EvE does not negate any of my premises, nice straw man fallacy.
Either way, until such a system exists to be analysed, this is all it will be. A debate.
So to you a game with "mutual pve/pvp" really just means no pvp at all? I'm not talking about a game that "caters to all playstyles" because that simply cannot and will not exist. Make no mistake, I'm not looking for a game that welcomes everybody. There isn't one. No matter how much better or deeper sandbox games are, there are always going to be the "carebears" who simply cannot handle being killed or having their stuff taken, even if it makes their successes that much sweeter when they have them.
The difference is you think there is a game like that, because you fundamentally misunderstand what we want. I can't believe how often you guys say things like "IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT PEOPLE JUST GO TO THE PVP SECTION" or something similar. It's not that we're blood thirsty monsters who want to hack down everything we come across. It might surprise you to know that in ffa pvp games like UO and Darkfall, I'm an extremely honorable player who doesn't attack low level players for no reason. But I like the overall atmosphere those games create. It's called risk/reward.
This is a good point and I agree 100% but I would also point out that the idea of a sandbox is that it in general removes restrictions. An invisible force field around your person which makes him invulnerable to other players' attacks is definitely an example of an artificial restriction.
Actually the discussion WAS about having a game with both PvP and PvE players in. I don't what you were following. Even my debate with Dihoru is about this metagame that would included both types.
I'm responding to this type of game and you answered it in your first paragraph. Now you know where I'm coming from and I don't misunderstand anything, you simply didn't encompass the debate I was having.
You'll never convince them of this, they are just unable to see it from the other side. I quit eve when I lost interest in doing the big company battles. What was left was more of a box that I wasn't interested in being in, so I moved on to another game that didn't have those restrictions.
The silliest example of what's going on in this thread is...what if you played on a pve server and every once in a while someone would come along and put you into a raid group and you had to do the raid....would you do it ? Does it matter if you get raid loot at the end if you're not having fun doing it. Would you just accept that as part of the game or would you say fuck this game and go play something else.
There's non-consensual pvp for a pve player in a nutshell.
So when you say a mutual pvp/pve game, you don't mean one that is roughly equal parts pvp and pve, you mean one that caters to both "types" of players?
If so, yeah it doesn't exist because it can't. I guess you could make 2 separate versions of the same game with different mechanics, but then it's not really the same game is it?
There are a few problems here.
One is that the "general idea" behind sandboxes isn't removing restrictions. It's a bit more complex than that. SWG had PvP restrictions and UO Trammel had PvP restrictions, yet they are both considered sandboxes.
You've arbitrarily decided that the PvP player's "rights" are more important than the PvE player's "rights". The decision about whether players can flag or not is made by the developer, depending on the audience they want to attract to their game among other things. You're making it seem as if there is some sort of ideal that must be aspired to, and in order to get there all players must participate in PvP in a sandbox game. This isn't true.
In talking about artificial restrictions, video games are just layers of artificial restrictions anyway. Restrictions and permissions are made to make game play. For instance, anyone hit by a two pound sledge hammer in the head is not going to stand back up. It certainly isn't going to require several hits to take them down. Yet most games allow this sort of thing for the sake of game play. The decisions made about PvP and PvE fall into the same category. Some things are allowed and some things aren't to make way for game play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You're right. I like PvP myself. I loved EvE too though, even if I like to PvE more in it.
Like your example too.
Yes. Correct on both counts. Trying to come up with a game that would cater to both is quite improbable.
So nice to be understood.
that's weird because I remember having tons of big open world pvp battles in swg all the time then unflagging and going and doing whatever pve stuff I wanted to do.
There were bases to fight over, control of space ports, player cities to raid..all manner of pvp that was way better than any of the lame BS that goes on now in mmos AND we never bothered anyone that was just there to pve. You didn't have to pick all one way or the other in that game.
If you can turn the force field (i.e. pvp tag) on and off at will, it is a choice for YOU, not restriction. Surely it is a restriction for others.
However, in this instance, choice of a player certainly is more important than restrictions to others. This is the corner stone idea of mutual consent. If one side is not consenting, it is ok to restrict the other side.
Note that these other players are not restricted to find others who mutually consent to pvp.
Yeah and that doesn't cater to my playstyle. That's the playstyle you want. So you're being catered to but I'm not. I want a game where there's risk involved in almost everything you do. Farming is boring to me without the risk of losing what I've earned. It forces me to play safe by banking often, or play greedy and risk losing everything.
Why are your posts so often sarcastic and yet so often blatantly wrong?
The lack of permadeath is also an artificial restriction but most players prefer to have it in a MMORPG. At a certain point the level of "realism" just gets too much and the game stops being fun. PvE sandbox players draw that line at non-consensual PvP.
Do you play Diablo 3 hard core?
The risk of losing everything is right there in any farming situation. One internet disconnect, and you have nothing left.
I'd say have a flag that can turn on and off but only after talking to an NPC. That avoids people turning PVP off when they see a group coming towards them. This saves the people who want only PVE but allows open world PVP.
For gold sink make it more expensive based on the area you are in or your personal level.
For storyline make it some sort of divine protection that prevents players from harming you.
No worries, I'm sure a company will eventually create the game of your dreams.
In the meantime, enjoy this for 'both' your sides.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7hkZhoDBes
I know it's more complex than just removing restrictions, that's why I said the "general idea." And that's true. Sandbox elements are elements that tend to have less boundaries and invisible walls than other games.
As for your points about SWG and post-trammel UO, yes they are sandboxes compared to games that are less sandboxy. There are no true sandbox games, only a sliding scale from themepark to sandbox. UO was a sandbox, but the addition of Trammel made it LESS of a sandbox.
I'm not arbitrarily saying anything about what game developer's can or can't do. If game developers want to make a game that is less sandboxy, they can do that. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. But when it comes to what features are more sandbox than others, that's not arbitrary. If the goal is to make a sandbox, as a general rule you want to be eliminating invisible walls, not putting them up. That doesn't mean it's impossible to have a game that has sandbox elements without pvp, but it does mean that ffa pvp is a sandbox element.
And please, you can spare me the "games all have artificial restrictions" speech. I know this. That doesn't change any of my points.
Why can't you get your risk in a game that has a FFA PvP server alongside the PvE ones. Everyone on the server has the same rulesets and the same risk. No one on that server gets to just opt out. Why would it have to be every server of a game for it to be exciting?
Uh, where do you even get the notion that most player prefer to have PD?
D3 (close enough to a MMO) has a PD option (probably one of the few AAA game to have that). Only 9% of the characters are HC characters. The % of players who even try PD is probably lower.
And even 9% is no where close to be "most player".
Yeah. I do not see how this playstyle can ever be reconciled with a PvE playstyle. Some people like to play Monopoly with their family while others need to gamble with real money in Vegas. If you try to put that in the same package, neither group will be really happy about it.
I know that some people draw the line at pvp. The guy I was quoting said that the reason there aren't many pve sandbox games is because they're harder to make. I'm saying yes, that's true, but also in general it's because sandbox games are supposed to be more realistic and organic. It's not that pvp is just one small drop in the bucket of features that are found in sandbox games. The question of whether or not a game will have consensual pvp is one of the biggest single questions people have about new games.
Ooops. awkward phrasing on my part. I meant most players prefer to have that artificial restriction ie most players prefer NOT to have perma death.