@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.
Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.
The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by GreezOriginally posted by lizardbonesA game with little or no PvP won't sell very well. This was part of TSW's problem (I think). A game that gives individual players choices, that gives them some control over when they engage in PvP will do much better. This would be Eve and post Trammel UO. SWG would be in this category too, though like DF and MO, SWG had some pretty big issues.
WoW and Rift sell just fine and they are in the "little to no PvP" group for me. Saying that it was part of TSW's problem is worthless, there are so many factors in why a game does or doesn't sell, on the PvE side alone, that you can say pretty much anything and it's equally unproven.EVE is a PvP driven game, let's not pretend that it isn't. Sure, you can avoid PvP but you'll have a diminished experience and you'll be grossly dependent on PvPers doing anything regardless. That is not balanced.SWG is a better example and most of its issues were rather easy to fix. Unfortunately, it was butchered to death... SWG probably is the best example, but those other games do have PvP, in more than one venue too. They also offer players a choice. Even in Eve, at least half the players never bother with entering Low Sec space. They have a choice, and the game gives them whatever it is they want, without forcing them to go into Low Sec and making a suicide gank in High Sec really rare. The important part is giving individual players a choice. SWG would be the system I'd choose as the 'best' too. But I think that as long as whatever system was chosen gave individual players a choice, it would work out OK and reach a wider group of people than just focusing on either a pure PvP or pure PvE experience. But again, almost nobody wants a "pure pvp" experience. EvE is a ffa pvp sandbox game. Low sec is more profitable than high sec. Even Darkfall has safezones where you can harvest to your heart's content, you just can't get the same rewards you could get if you went out of the safezone.
Well yeah. Not in an MMORPG anyway. Deciding to play an "MMORPG" comes with a different set of expectations than playing something like Planetside 2.
Where people disagree, and where personal preference come into play is how much PvP plays a role in general game play. Not everyone wants a game that is largely driven by PvP, even if they desire risks and rewards in game play.
I think of it like this. In WoW, raiding is the only way to get the 'purple' gear. It's the best stuff in the game, and if you don't raid, you won't get it. There are some mounts that are like that too. There's one path to the rewards. Blizzard realized this setup a lot of their players to basically fail. So they added a comparable set of rewards for instanced PvP. The rewards only applied to PvP, you couldn't use them to raid, but it was enough that many players decided that their end game was going to be PvP. This still left a lot of players out. So Blizzard added or increased things like daily quests. This grabbed a lot of other players. The only players really left out were crafters, but they never really had a place in WoW anyway, so I guess it's all good enough.
The recurring thing is that Blizzard kept adding choices, and that's a good thing. I know that's not necessarily possible with all games because of budget constraints and the like, but it's a good thing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.
Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.
The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.
@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.
Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.
The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.
Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
Well yeah. Not in an MMORPG anyway. Deciding to play an "MMORPG" comes with a different set of expectations than playing something like Planetside 2.
Where people disagree, and where personal preference come into play is how much PvP plays a role in general game play. Not everyone wants a game that is largely driven by PvP, even if they desire risks and rewards in game play.
Nobody is claiming that everybody would want that. Our primary point is that there are more than enough people to sustain a game indefinitely that DO want it. All of the cries about how the game would die are quite honestly BS. There's a big enough market for basically any type of game, it's just about implementation.
The secondary point, which I take full responsibility for defending, is that sandbox games are better than themepark games. Games with open world pvp (if done correctly) are better than games without. I think it makes the game more deep, more interesting and more REWARDING.
I think of it like this. In WoW, raiding is the only way to get the 'purple' gear. It's the best stuff in the game, and if you don't raid, you won't get it. There are some mounts that are like that too. There's one path to the rewards. Blizzard realized this setup a lot of their players to basically fail. So they added a comparable set of rewards for instanced PvP. The rewards only applied to PvP, you couldn't use them to raid, but it was enough that many players decided that their end game was going to be PvP. This still left a lot of players out. So Blizzard added or increased things like daily quests. This grabbed a lot of other players. The only players really left out were crafters, but they never really had a place in WoW anyway, so I guess it's all good enough.
The recurring thing is that Blizzard kept adding choices, and that's a good thing. I know that's not necessarily possible with all games because of budget constraints and the like, but it's a good thing.
I don't think that's good at all. I think that's a really clear sign of bad game design. If you have to continue to add "content" or stuff for your players to do, you've probably done something wrong. That's a prefect example of the ignoble "carrot-on-a-stick" design of WoW. The idea of a sandbox is it's about the journey, not about the destination.
@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.
Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.
The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.
Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't think it's a major sandbox feature, but it is a feature. Whats the point in us continuing to say this?
The point is people try to deny it so as to gain a better footing in an argumenet about whether a game should have it or not. It's widely accepted that "sandbox" is a good thing. When asked, people want sandbox games rather than themepark games. So it's harder to conceptually argue against ow pvp if you admit it's a major sandbox feature. It's not impossible to argue against it obviously, but it makes it that much harder.
And the reason I say it's a sandbox feature is because it's by definition a sandbox element. It's less invisible walls, less restrictions. That's why it's a sandbox feateure. The reason I call it a "major" feature is because it's one of the first questions people have about a game. It's also one of the most influential features of a game. It will tend to permeate most aspects of the game, most of all the economy.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't think it's a major sandbox feature, but it is a feature. Whats the point in us continuing to say this?
The point is people try to deny it so as to gain a better footing in an argumenet about whether a game should have it or not. It's widely accepted that "sandbox" is a good thing. When asked, people want sandbox games rather than themepark games. So it's harder to conceptually argue against ow pvp if you admit it's a major sandbox feature. It's not impossible to argue against it obviously, but it makes it that much harder.
And the reason I say it's a sandbox feature is because it's by definition a sandbox element. It's less invisible walls, less restrictions. That's why it's a sandbox feateure. The reason I call it a "major" feature is because it's one of the first questions people have about a game. It's also one of the most influential features of a game. It will tend to permeate most aspects of the game, most of all the economy.
Thats it, I don't say it's a major sandbox feature. I say it actually limits freedom which is the opposite of sandbox. It creates more walls for players by having people interfere with the things that someone wants to accomplish. More limits, more walls = less freedom = less sandbox.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't think it's a major sandbox feature, but it is a feature. Whats the point in us continuing to say this?
The point is people try to deny it so as to gain a better footing in an argumenet about whether a game should have it or not. It's widely accepted that "sandbox" is a good thing. When asked, people want sandbox games rather than themepark games. So it's harder to conceptually argue against ow pvp if you admit it's a major sandbox feature. It's not impossible to argue against it obviously, but it makes it that much harder.
And the reason I say it's a sandbox feature is because it's by definition a sandbox element. It's less invisible walls, less restrictions. That's why it's a sandbox feateure. The reason I call it a "major" feature is because it's one of the first questions people have about a game. It's also one of the most influential features of a game. It will tend to permeate most aspects of the game, most of all the economy.
Thats it, I don't say it's a major sandbox feature. I say it actually limits freedom which is the opposite of sandbox. It creates more walls for players by having people interfere with the things that someone wants to accomplish. More limits, more walls = less freedom = less sandbox.
It doesn't limit freedom though. There is no such thing as freedom from something. You can have natural laws in the game like guards and jailtime and notoriety and those are all very sandbox features. But an invisible force field around your player stopping you from being attacked is not sandbox.
@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.
Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.
The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.
Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature?
Yep, I am saying that, PvP is an optional extra to sandbox play. One I would vote not to include in any sandbox game.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I don't think it's a major sandbox feature, but it is a feature. Whats the point in us continuing to say this?
The point is people try to deny it so as to gain a better footing in an argumenet about whether a game should have it or not. It's widely accepted that "sandbox" is a good thing. When asked, people want sandbox games rather than themepark games. So it's harder to conceptually argue against ow pvp if you admit it's a major sandbox feature. It's not impossible to argue against it obviously, but it makes it that much harder.
And the reason I say it's a sandbox feature is because it's by definition a sandbox element. It's less invisible walls, less restrictions. That's why it's a sandbox feateure. The reason I call it a "major" feature is because it's one of the first questions people have about a game. It's also one of the most influential features of a game. It will tend to permeate most aspects of the game, most of all the economy.
I agree completely, PvP is one of the core features of MMO history. It always has been there since the inception back in the days of NWN, Dark Sun, Meridan and UO. ... But you are going to have a tough time convincing all the delusional PvE players out there. Their casual, anti social, challenge averse crying is what screwed over the MMO genre over the last 8 years.
The idea of a major Production company building an MMO that doesn't cater to them is like heresy. So they accept that "Sandbox" MMOs are having as resurgence but fight tooth and nail against any of the other core MMO principles like, challenge, time investment, risk / reward, basically anything that would let someone play beyond the forced mediocrity they cherish.
The point is people try to deny it so as to gain a better footing in an argumenet about whether a game should have it or not. It's widely accepted that "sandbox" is a good thing. When asked, people want sandbox games rather than themepark games. So it's harder to conceptually argue against ow pvp if you admit it's a major sandbox feature. It's not impossible to argue against it obviously, but it makes it that much harder.
And the reason I say it's a sandbox feature is because it's by definition a sandbox element. It's less invisible walls, less restrictions. That's why it's a sandbox feateure. The reason I call it a "major" feature is because it's one of the first questions people have about a game. It's also one of the most influential features of a game. It will tend to permeate most aspects of the game, most of all the economy.
I agree completely, PvP is one of the core features of MMO history. It always has been there since the inception back in the days of NWN, Dark Sun, Meridan and UO. ... But you are going to have a tough time convincing all the delusional PvE players out there. Their casual, anti social, challenge averse crying is what screwed over the MMO genre over the last 8 years.
The idea of a major Production company building an MMO that doesn't cater to them is like heresy. So they accept that "Sandbox" MMOs are having as resurgence but fight tooth and nail against any of the other core MMO principles like, challenge, time investment, risk / reward, basically anything that would let someone play beyond the forced mediocrity they cherish.
I just love the strange inversions in the OW PvP argument.
Social, mutually beneficial PvE game play becomes "casual, anti social, challenge averse crying"
Not being willing to be co-opted as a victim for someone elses game play style (AKA ganking) becomes not letting "someone play beyond the forced mediocrity they (PvE players) cherish."
... and yes PvP has always been out there in MMORPGs, lurking in the dark gibbering mindlessly. I did not like it then and do not like it now. I did not have to conform to that play style then and do not want to have to conform to it now.
I say it again PvP is on optional feature of sandbox games not a core element.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by craftseekerOriginally posted by JeremyBowyerOriginally posted by Bidwood@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature?
How far down on the list of sandbox features would it be? Because nearly half of WoW's servers have OW PvP, and I don't think anyone has ever considered those servers to be in any way "sandbox".
If a feature doesn't have any measurable impact on whether or not a game is a sandbox, then I would not consider that feature a sandbox or theme park feature, but rather a feature of MMORPG in general, or even just a feature of multi player games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The point is people try to deny it so as to gain a better footing in an argumenet about whether a game should have it or not. It's widely accepted that "sandbox" is a good thing. When asked, people want sandbox games rather than themepark games. So it's harder to conceptually argue against ow pvp if you admit it's a major sandbox feature. It's not impossible to argue against it obviously, but it makes it that much harder.
And the reason I say it's a sandbox feature is because it's by definition a sandbox element. It's less invisible walls, less restrictions. That's why it's a sandbox feateure. The reason I call it a "major" feature is because it's one of the first questions people have about a game. It's also one of the most influential features of a game. It will tend to permeate most aspects of the game, most of all the economy.
I agree completely, PvP is one of the core features of MMO history. It always has been there since the inception back in the days of NWN, Dark Sun, Meridan and UO. ... But you are going to have a tough time convincing all the delusional PvE players out there. Their casual, anti social, challenge averse crying is what screwed over the MMO genre over the last 8 years.
The idea of a major Production company building an MMO that doesn't cater to them is like heresy. So they accept that "Sandbox" MMOs are having as resurgence but fight tooth and nail against any of the other core MMO principles like, challenge, time investment, risk / reward, basically anything that would let someone play beyond the forced mediocrity they cherish.
I just love the strange inversions in the OW PvP argument.
Social, mutually beneficial PvE game play becomes "casual, anti social, challenge averse crying"
Not being willing to be co-opted as a victim for someone elses game play style (AKA ganking) becomes not letting "someone play beyond the forced mediocrity they (PvE players) cherish."
... and yes PvP has always been out there in MMORPGs, lurking in the dark gibbering mindlessly. I did not like it then and do not like it now. I did not have to conform to that play style then and do not want to have to conform to it now.
I say it again PvP is on optional feature of sandbox games not a core element.
Nothing in your post is an argument for your last statement. In fact there was very little substance in your post at all. You can't simply say it's not a core element and offer no reasoning.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Well yeah. Not in an MMORPG anyway. Deciding to play an "MMORPG" comes with a different set of expectations than playing something like Planetside 2. Where people disagree, and where personal preference come into play is how much PvP plays a role in general game play. Not everyone wants a game that is largely driven by PvP, even if they desire risks and rewards in game play. Nobody is claiming that everybody would want that. Our primary point is that there are more than enough people to sustain a game indefinitely that DO want it. All of the cries about how the game would die are quite honestly BS. There's a big enough market for basically any type of game, it's just about implementation. The secondary point, which I take full responsibility for defending, is that sandbox games are better than themepark games. Games with open world pvp (if done correctly) are better than games without. I think it makes the game more deep, more interesting and more REWARDING.I think of it like this. In WoW, raiding is the only way to get the 'purple' gear. It's the best stuff in the game, and if you don't raid, you won't get it. There are some mounts that are like that too. There's one path to the rewards. Blizzard realized this setup a lot of their players to basically fail. So they added a comparable set of rewards for instanced PvP. The rewards only applied to PvP, you couldn't use them to raid, but it was enough that many players decided that their end game was going to be PvP. This still left a lot of players out. So Blizzard added or increased things like daily quests. This grabbed a lot of other players. The only players really left out were crafters, but they never really had a place in WoW anyway, so I guess it's all good enough.The recurring thing is that Blizzard kept adding choices, and that's a good thing. I know that's not necessarily possible with all games because of budget constraints and the like, but it's a good thing.
I don't think that's good at all. I think that's a really clear sign of bad game design. If you have to continue to add "content" or stuff for your players to do, you've probably done something wrong. That's a prefect example of the ignoble "carrot-on-a-stick" design of WoW. The idea of a sandbox is it's about the journey, not about the destination.
I would have a hard time arguing against sandbox games having much more potential than theme park games. Whether any given sandbox game is better than any given theme park game depends on the game itself. WoW is a lot better than Mortal Online. But yes, the ideal sandbox game would be better than the ideal theme park game. At least it would be so for me. I don't know that sandboxes being better than theme parks is a universal sentiment.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Bidwood@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.
Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature?
How far down on the list of sandbox features would it be? Because nearly half of WoW's servers have OW PvP, and I don't think anyone has ever considered those servers to be in any way "sandbox".
If a feature doesn't have any measurable impact on whether or not a game is a sandbox, then I would not consider that feature a sandbox or theme park feature, but rather a feature of MMORPG in general, or even just a feature of multi player games.
Not far down on the list at all. But there are a huge amount of variables in an MMO, just because one thing in it is a sandbox feature doesn't mean it's a sandbox game. For instance (pun intended), a lot of WoW "content" is instanced, so who cares about ow pvp out in the world? Also, there's no loot so the ow pvp means less.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by JeremyBowyerOriginally posted by craftseekerOriginally posted by JeremyBowyerOriginally posted by Bidwood@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature? How far down on the list of sandbox features would it be? Because nearly half of WoW's servers have OW PvP, and I don't think anyone has ever considered those servers to be in any way "sandbox". If a feature doesn't have any measurable impact on whether or not a game is a sandbox, then I would not consider that feature a sandbox or theme park feature, but rather a feature of MMORPG in general, or even just a feature of multi player games. Not far down on the list at all. But there are a huge amount of variables in an MMO, just because one thing in it is a sandbox feature doesn't mean it's a sandbox game. For instance (pun intended), a lot of WoW "content" is instanced, so who cares about ow pvp out in the world? Also, there's no loot so the ow pvp means less.
WoW's OW PvP is PvP for the sake of PvP. If it were a "sandbox feature", it would have some impact on how people see the game. It has no impact at all.
You said in an earlier post that games are on a spectrum between sandbox and theme park. I agree. Depending on the features included in the game, and the way they are implemented, the game is either closer to the sandbox or theme park side of the spectrum.
Looking at a game like WoW (or Rift), when you add OW PvP, the slider doesn't appear to move. The difference is not noticeable, if it even exists. If the addition or subtraction of a feature doesn't make any difference in whether or not a game is a sandbox or a theme park, then how can you say that feature is one type of feature or another?
"Also, there's no loot so the ow pvp means less." I would say that it's the impact that determines whether or not a feature is a sandbox or theme park feature. OW PvP is just a feature, but if the feature has impact, if there is risk vs rewards or if the world somehow changes in a permanent way, then the feature is a sandbox implementation of a general MMORPG feature. If the feature doesn't really have any impact, then it's a theme park implementation of a feature.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Lizarsbones I think that is a fantastic way of determining whether any given feature makes a game more sandboxy or more themepark, how much impact does it have on the game or world. Owpvp could have a lot like darkfall or,nothing like wow. The feature itself doesn't determine where on the spectrum it sits. Its the impact that,makes a difference. Going to steal that: )
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
@JeremyBowyer - I think one of the barriers to this conversation is that the industry has been stuck in a paradigm for the last decade where themeparks dominated and those who are against any form of surprise/unconsensual PVP were fully catered to: No problem, we'll just erect invisible walls that prevent players from doing that.
Now that we're seeing a bit of a renaissance in the sandbox area and those games are all the rage, the players who are still in the old paradigm can't understand why the conventional wisdom of yesteryear doesn't apply here. They don't see how mostly-unrestricted PVP can be a mainstream success, because for many years devs have been saying it can't.
The key isn't to "turn off" PVP. That's an unnatural state for a sandbox, because player conflict is part of an MMO where everyone can shape the world in meaningful ways. PVP needs to be built it into the other systems in such a way that sand from the sandbox is used to limit griefing and give people safer, less-rewarding ways to play. The traditional approach of just having some invisible wall solve the problem is so not what a sandbox is about.
SWG probably is the best example, but those other games do have PvP, in more than one venue too. They also offer players a choice. Even in Eve, at least half the players never bother with entering Low Sec space. They have a choice, and the game gives them whatever it is they want, without forcing them to go into Low Sec and making a suicide gank in High Sec really rare. The important part is giving individual players a choice. SWG would be the system I'd choose as the 'best' too. But I think that as long as whatever system was chosen gave individual players a choice, it would work out OK and reach a wider group of people than just focusing on either a pure PvP or pure PvE experience.
But again, almost nobody wants a "pure pvp" experience. EvE is a ffa pvp sandbox game. Low sec is more profitable than high sec. Even Darkfall has safezones where you can harvest to your heart's content, you just can't get the same rewards you could get if you went out of the safezone.
Well yeah. Not in an MMORPG anyway. Deciding to play an "MMORPG" comes with a different set of expectations than playing something like Planetside 2.
Where people disagree, and where personal preference come into play is how much PvP plays a role in general game play. Not everyone wants a game that is largely driven by PvP, even if they desire risks and rewards in game play.
I think of it like this. In WoW, raiding is the only way to get the 'purple' gear. It's the best stuff in the game, and if you don't raid, you won't get it. There are some mounts that are like that too. There's one path to the rewards. Blizzard realized this setup a lot of their players to basically fail. So they added a comparable set of rewards for instanced PvP. The rewards only applied to PvP, you couldn't use them to raid, but it was enough that many players decided that their end game was going to be PvP. This still left a lot of players out. So Blizzard added or increased things like daily quests. This grabbed a lot of other players. The only players really left out were crafters, but they never really had a place in WoW anyway, so I guess it's all good enough.
The recurring thing is that Blizzard kept adding choices, and that's a good thing. I know that's not necessarily possible with all games because of budget constraints and the like, but it's a good thing.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I completely agree. PvP is a major sandbox feature. Notice there were a couple people that briefly tried to argue that point, but after a round or 2 of replies they died off and just stopped replying. pvp (especially open world pvp) is the epitome of a sandbox feature.
Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
Nobody is claiming that everybody would want that. Our primary point is that there are more than enough people to sustain a game indefinitely that DO want it. All of the cries about how the game would die are quite honestly BS. There's a big enough market for basically any type of game, it's just about implementation.
The secondary point, which I take full responsibility for defending, is that sandbox games are better than themepark games. Games with open world pvp (if done correctly) are better than games without. I think it makes the game more deep, more interesting and more REWARDING.
I don't think that's good at all. I think that's a really clear sign of bad game design. If you have to continue to add "content" or stuff for your players to do, you've probably done something wrong. That's a prefect example of the ignoble "carrot-on-a-stick" design of WoW. The idea of a sandbox is it's about the journey, not about the destination.
A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature?
The point is people try to deny it so as to gain a better footing in an argumenet about whether a game should have it or not. It's widely accepted that "sandbox" is a good thing. When asked, people want sandbox games rather than themepark games. So it's harder to conceptually argue against ow pvp if you admit it's a major sandbox feature. It's not impossible to argue against it obviously, but it makes it that much harder.
And the reason I say it's a sandbox feature is because it's by definition a sandbox element. It's less invisible walls, less restrictions. That's why it's a sandbox feateure. The reason I call it a "major" feature is because it's one of the first questions people have about a game. It's also one of the most influential features of a game. It will tend to permeate most aspects of the game, most of all the economy.
Thats it, I don't say it's a major sandbox feature. I say it actually limits freedom which is the opposite of sandbox. It creates more walls for players by having people interfere with the things that someone wants to accomplish. More limits, more walls = less freedom = less sandbox.
It doesn't limit freedom though. There is no such thing as freedom from something. You can have natural laws in the game like guards and jailtime and notoriety and those are all very sandbox features. But an invisible force field around your player stopping you from being attacked is not sandbox.
Yep, I am saying that, PvP is an optional extra to sandbox play. One I would vote not to include in any sandbox game.
I agree completely, PvP is one of the core features of MMO history. It always has been there since the inception back in the days of NWN, Dark Sun, Meridan and UO. ... But you are going to have a tough time convincing all the delusional PvE players out there. Their casual, anti social, challenge averse crying is what screwed over the MMO genre over the last 8 years.
The idea of a major Production company building an MMO that doesn't cater to them is like heresy. So they accept that "Sandbox" MMOs are having as resurgence but fight tooth and nail against any of the other core MMO principles like, challenge, time investment, risk / reward, basically anything that would let someone play beyond the forced mediocrity they cherish.
Wrong. Sandbox doesn't mean you get what you want. Sandbox means there are no artificial restrictions.
You JUST said it wasn't a sandbox feature....
I just love the strange inversions in the OW PvP argument.
Social, mutually beneficial PvE game play becomes "casual, anti social, challenge averse crying"
Not being willing to be co-opted as a victim for someone elses game play style (AKA ganking) becomes not letting "someone play beyond the forced mediocrity they (PvE players) cherish."
... and yes PvP has always been out there in MMORPGs, lurking in the dark gibbering mindlessly. I did not like it then and do not like it now. I did not have to conform to that play style then and do not want to have to conform to it now.
I say it again PvP is on optional feature of sandbox games not a core element.
Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature?
How far down on the list of sandbox features would it be? Because nearly half of WoW's servers have OW PvP, and I don't think anyone has ever considered those servers to be in any way "sandbox".
If a feature doesn't have any measurable impact on whether or not a game is a sandbox, then I would not consider that feature a sandbox or theme park feature, but rather a feature of MMORPG in general, or even just a feature of multi player games.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Nothing in your post is an argument for your last statement. In fact there was very little substance in your post at all. You can't simply say it's not a core element and offer no reasoning.
I don't think that's good at all. I think that's a really clear sign of bad game design. If you have to continue to add "content" or stuff for your players to do, you've probably done something wrong. That's a prefect example of the ignoble "carrot-on-a-stick" design of WoW. The idea of a sandbox is it's about the journey, not about the destination.
I would have a hard time arguing against sandbox games having much more potential than theme park games. Whether any given sandbox game is better than any given theme park game depends on the game itself. WoW is a lot better than Mortal Online. But yes, the ideal sandbox game would be better than the ideal theme park game. At least it would be so for me. I don't know that sandboxes being better than theme parks is a universal sentiment.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Not far down on the list at all. But there are a huge amount of variables in an MMO, just because one thing in it is a sandbox feature doesn't mean it's a sandbox game. For instance (pun intended), a lot of WoW "content" is instanced, so who cares about ow pvp out in the world? Also, there's no loot so the ow pvp means less.
Lol OW PvP is the epitome of a kitty litter tray feature. Sandboxes are way nicer than that.
A sandbox feature. It's not the only sandbox feature. Are you saying ow pvp isn't a huge sandbox feature?
How far down on the list of sandbox features would it be? Because nearly half of WoW's servers have OW PvP, and I don't think anyone has ever considered those servers to be in any way "sandbox". If a feature doesn't have any measurable impact on whether or not a game is a sandbox, then I would not consider that feature a sandbox or theme park feature, but rather a feature of MMORPG in general, or even just a feature of multi player games.
Not far down on the list at all. But there are a huge amount of variables in an MMO, just because one thing in it is a sandbox feature doesn't mean it's a sandbox game. For instance (pun intended), a lot of WoW "content" is instanced, so who cares about ow pvp out in the world? Also, there's no loot so the ow pvp means less.
WoW's OW PvP is PvP for the sake of PvP. If it were a "sandbox feature", it would have some impact on how people see the game. It has no impact at all.
You said in an earlier post that games are on a spectrum between sandbox and theme park. I agree. Depending on the features included in the game, and the way they are implemented, the game is either closer to the sandbox or theme park side of the spectrum.
Looking at a game like WoW (or Rift), when you add OW PvP, the slider doesn't appear to move. The difference is not noticeable, if it even exists. If the addition or subtraction of a feature doesn't make any difference in whether or not a game is a sandbox or a theme park, then how can you say that feature is one type of feature or another?
"Also, there's no loot so the ow pvp means less." I would say that it's the impact that determines whether or not a feature is a sandbox or theme park feature. OW PvP is just a feature, but if the feature has impact, if there is risk vs rewards or if the world somehow changes in a permanent way, then the feature is a sandbox implementation of a general MMORPG feature. If the feature doesn't really have any impact, then it's a theme park implementation of a feature.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.