Originally posted by VengeSunsoar 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: )
Mwahahahahahaha! The spawn of my drunk mind spreads!
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.
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.
What exactly do you mean the slider doesn't appear to move? Obviously the slider moves, it just depends on how much. WoW's OW pvp doesn't affect the game that much because the game is largely dependent on instanced content and there's no looting in pvp. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect it at all. WoW's version of ow pvp is as non-sandbox as ow pvp gets, which is why it doesn't make much of a difference, but it does make wow THAT much more sandboxy.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar 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: )
Ok, please don't steal it because it doesn't make sense. It's the impact that makes a difference? That's what impact means...
The reason it affects darkfall more than WoW is because of other factors, which I mentioned. There's less reason to be out in the world in WoW because it's a themepark. You don't have as much of a reason to be out farming lvl 20 mobs when you're lvl 90 or whatever the cap is now. Why do you think there are so many people jumping around town like weirdos? Because they're queued up for some instance.
The other huge reason is the lack of looting in WoW. OW PvP obviously means less if you don't lose anything but some travel time when you die. So obviously it's going to make less of a difference.
EDIT: Also, are you going to respond to my post from a page or so ago?
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar 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: )
Mwahahahahahaha! The spawn of my drunk mind spreads!
Do you realize that you could literally take any other feature that you consider to be a "sandbox" feature and gimp it until it makes no difference to the game? That doesn't mean it's not a sandbox feature. For instance, a game could give you the ability to build cities.... but they could make the buildable cities really small and have no point to owning them and be really expensive to make. City building is an incredibly sandbox feature, but in that instance it would have very little impact on the game.
Honestly... I'd say yes... I feel the OP is right. Sandbox games are for a large part quite to heavily focused on PvP. Theres nothing wrong with it, but it does feel like theres a huge spot missing for sandboxes giving emphasis on more PvE components, creating the world to interact more with the player. As much as pvpers try to 'claim' pvp is quite limited. You will only sometimes be attacked by players, in most cases its not actually 'skill based' type attacks, its often ganks or other low handed tactics ensuring victory for one side with the least bit of skill or effort required. While seiges and all ARE amazing and highly am for them, they don't happen that much in PvP Sandbox as much as just mindless killing, something I find very immature (factions, sure, but killing mindlessly without true purpose, yeah...)
Having a sandbox focus on actually having the environment against your efforts would be quite interesting. Having players working together creating a place having Computer enemy armies to attack your base in an organized fashion and create a constant looming sense of danger that players just can't create on that massive scale all that often. It would be quite interesting to take sandbox away from being competative against one another and brutish to involving true team work and compliance to create a kingdom or nation and defend against hordes of AI using war tactics in swarms, giving players the feel of being heroic and really putting a value of teamwork.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar A person preventing me from building the things I want is not a sandbox from nuilders perspective either
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar That person has limited my freedom
Wrong. Sandbox doesn't mean you get what you want. Sandbox means there are no artificial restrictions.
Oh dear, OK "artificial restrictions" in an entirely artificial world any and all restrictions are, by definition, artificial. There will be restrictions in any game of any type, they are often referred to as "the rules". So yes in a sandbox game there are artificial restrictions. Simply redefining some sub-class of rules as "artificial" because you do not like them while ignoring all the other artificial rules is mind boggling in its stupidity.
If a game designer puts a rule in place that says you cannot attack another player it is just a rule of the game, and as I do not think that PvP is an essential part of a sandbox game your argument simply fails.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar A person preventing me from building the things I want is not a sandbox from nuilders perspective either
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar That person has limited my freedom
Wrong. Sandbox doesn't mean you get what you want. Sandbox means there are no artificial restrictions.
What is there to say about it, other than I disagree with your definition of sandbox. Sandbox is about freedom, something which limits that freedom makes it less sandboxy.
edit - so yes I guess "artificial (whatever the means in a game) restrictions do limit freedom, some restrictions are necessary in order for players to enjoy greater freedoms. As another poster stated, anarchy is not freedom. owpvp imo limits people more than not having owpvp.
Having jail, guards... all that is a step in the right direction, but just not having owpvp imo is better, keep it to flag systems, or specific zones or specific servers is imo a much better solution. Those who want it can do it, those who want to craft, explore, rp.. whatever in peace can do it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Shall I repost the quote from the Declaration of Human Right saying that one's freedom stops where the other people's freedom starts in a democracy?
Total freedom, people ganking each other for no reason, that is not freedom, that's the law of the jungle, that's anarchy. And anarchy is NOT freedom, it's bully paradise..
If a developer manages to make a sandbox MMORPG with open PvP, but with the same limitation/consequences than in the real world for being a mindless murderer/ganker/killer, then I will applause and they will have me as paying customer for a long time.
There's a good reason why games like darkfall and mortal are "failed" niche games. Because anarchy based PvP is NOT what the very, very vast majority wants in a MMORPG.
Even in Games of Thrones, people don't kill each other randomly, but with a purpose, and there are consequences too, very harsh ones. The problem is, a MMO player is an anonymous person behind a screen controlling a character with unlimited lives and close to zero consequences for being an asshole to others.
TLDR: what makes most Open PvP games fail is the lack of serious consequences for mindless murdering, aka ganking.
Freedom
Noun
The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
Kindly refer to the first definition. We're not talking politics here after all.
The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
Kindly refer to the first definition. We're not talking politics here after all.
And anyone with above average intelligence and a little aptitude for philosophy will know that total freedom for everyone is impossible, because then you will always have those who are supposedly "free", and those who are oppressed by them.
For everyone to be able to enjoy the most freedom possible, restrictions are necessary.
Trust me, you wouldn't want to live in a totally anarchic country with no laws, no government, no police.
Same for most people when they play a game they pay for. Actually, even MORE because they pay for it. People won't pay to play a MMO where their play style is crushed by one single play style which has no limitations. And PvP is the one play style with the ability to crush all the others and force everybody into it, that's why it needs serious and very harsh consequences for mindless abuses of it.
Simple questions... in a FFA PvP world, aka "total anarchy":
Can a PvE player stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a crafter stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a PvP player stop a PvE player or a crafter from enjoying their play style? Yes.
Laws, rules, limitations, consequences, call them as you want, are there to ensure everybody can equally enjoy the world, be it virtual or real.
So when confronted with the actual definition of the word (IE a fact) you make a veiled insult and then resort to pseudo-philosophical constructs to justify your attempts at limiting actual freedom.
Also bringing in the real world into a virtual world is a strawman argument, in the real world you cannot fight for your freedom to the same degree as you can in a virtual world simply because in the real world your first, and arguably strongest, instinct is self-preservation at all costs.
Now if you want me to crush anymore of your feeble attempts to justify lazy player side actions you know where to find me.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
That's what call of duty is for. mmorpg's have subpar pvp and the pve always suffers in the end for catering to pvp.
The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
Kindly refer to the first definition. We're not talking politics here after all.
And anyone with above average intelligence and a little aptitude for philosophy will know that total freedom for everyone is impossible, because then you will always have those who are supposedly "free", and those who are oppressed by them.
For everyone to be able to enjoy the most freedom possible, restrictions are necessary.
Trust me, you wouldn't want to live in a totally anarchic country with no laws, no government, no police.
Same for most people when they play a game they pay for. Actually, even MORE because they pay for it. People won't pay to play a MMO where their play style is crushed by one single play style which has no limitations. And PvP is the one play style with the ability to crush all the others and force everybody into it, that's why it needs serious and very harsh consequences for mindless abuses of it.
Simple questions... in a FFA PvP world, aka "total anarchy":
Can a PvE player stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a crafter stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a PvP player stop a PvE player or a crafter from enjoying their play style? Yes.
Laws, rules, limitations, consequences, call them as you want, are there to ensure everybody can equally enjoy the world, be it virtual or real.
So when confronted with the actual definition of the word (IE a fact) you make a veiled insult and then resort to pseudo-philosophical constructs to justify your attempts at limiting actual freedom.
Also bringing in the real world into a virtual world is a strawman argument, in the real world you cannot fight for your freedom to the same degree as you can in a virtual world simply because in the real world your first, and arguably strongest, instinct is self-preservation at all costs.
Now if you want me to crush anymore of your feeble attempts to justify lazy player side actions you know where to find me.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
Kindly refer to the first definition. We're not talking politics here after all.
And anyone with above average intelligence and a little aptitude for philosophy will know that total freedom for everyone is impossible, because then you will always have those who are supposedly "free", and those who are oppressed by them.
For everyone to be able to enjoy the most freedom possible, restrictions are necessary.
Trust me, you wouldn't want to live in a totally anarchic country with no laws, no government, no police.
Same for most people when they play a game they pay for. Actually, even MORE because they pay for it. People won't pay to play a MMO where their play style is crushed by one single play style which has no limitations. And PvP is the one play style with the ability to crush all the others and force everybody into it, that's why it needs serious and very harsh consequences for mindless abuses of it.
Simple questions... in a FFA PvP world, aka "total anarchy":
Can a PvE player stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a crafter stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a PvP player stop a PvE player or a crafter from enjoying their play style? Yes.
Laws, rules, limitations, consequences, call them as you want, are there to ensure everybody can equally enjoy the world, be it virtual or real.
So when confronted with the actual definition of the word (IE a fact) you make a veiled insult and then resort to pseudo-philosophical constructs to justify your attempts at limiting actual freedom.
There was no insult, from your post you seem to be an intelligent person and I assumed you could understand what I was saying.
Also bringing in the real world into a virtual world is a strawman argument, in the real world you cannot fight for your freedom to the same degree as you can in a virtual world simply because in the real world your first, and arguably strongest, instinct is self-preservation at all costs.
And indeed, you understood at least a part of the point I've made, even though you didn't draw the conclusions from it. You should now understand why FFA PvP in a MMO needs limitations, rules and consequences to compensate for this lack of need for self-preservation by a character that basically has unlimited lives and doesn't feel pain.
Now if you want me to crush anymore of your feeble attempts to justify lazy player side actions you know where to find me.
You didn't crush anything, you actually confirmed what I was saying.
If a sandbox with PvP doesn't have limitations to the PvP, it's no longer a sandbox game, but it inevitably becomes a FFA PvP game, the rest of the activities being crushed by the only activity able to do it, PvP without limits. That's what happened to all those pathetic attempts at sandboxes that have become niche games (Darkfall, Mortal...).
You keep using Mortal Online and Darkfall (1 or UW whichever you prefer) as examples of how sandbox games fail with unrestricted PVP... explain how EVE managed to survive with unrestricted PVP then (and if you think it's restricted google "jita 4-4 gank").
Also if you cannot grasp what a veiled insult is
"And anyone with above average intelligence and a little aptitude for philosophy will know (...)"
Or translated: Anyone who doesn't agree with my following opinion is unable to counter my opinion due to lack of intelligence and aptitude in philosophy.
Unrestricted PVP sandboxes rely on their community more than any other kind of sandbox and that's starting with the premise that the game has been constructed well.
The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
Kindly refer to the first definition. We're not talking politics here after all.
And anyone with above average intelligence and a little aptitude for philosophy will know that total freedom for everyone is impossible, because then you will always have those who are supposedly "free", and those who are oppressed by them.
For everyone to be able to enjoy the most freedom possible, restrictions are necessary.
Trust me, you wouldn't want to live in a totally anarchic country with no laws, no government, no police.
Same for most people when they play a game they pay for. Actually, even MORE because they pay for it. People won't pay to play a MMO where their play style is crushed by one single play style which has no limitations. And PvP is the one play style with the ability to crush all the others and force everybody into it, that's why it needs serious and very harsh consequences for mindless abuses of it.
Simple questions... in a FFA PvP world, aka "total anarchy":
Can a PvE player stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a crafter stop you from enjoying PvP? No.
Can a PvP player stop a PvE player or a crafter from enjoying their play style? Yes.
Laws, rules, limitations, consequences, call them as you want, are there to ensure everybody can equally enjoy the world, be it virtual or real.
First of all. I agree with you, that in a good sandbox MMORPG you will need some laws(in best case player made, but supported from the game), and it will need conwequences.
And a lot of FFA PvP advocates don't talk about a FFA PvP world with total anarchy. Therefore a lot of player criticised DF, not just because the lack of consequences, but even more because of the lack of a lot of sandbox features in general. And DF is nevertheless very borderline to call it a sandbox. Because you only have Player Cities, and Player Conflict. The economy is rather simple, not regional, and it lacks a lot of other critical features.
But the most FFA PvP advocates prefer a system like EvE(and in my mind you can even build up on them). Because it does have some laws, it does have some consequences. And more importantly it does have more sandbox features, it does have a real player economy, with regional markets and a lot more.. but is nevertheless limited, but much more because it is a space opera. A space station is much more of a player city in comparsion to a player house, but how would look like a player house in a space sim?
But, at least in my mind, the cardinal rule for laws/rules/limitations in a sandbox game is, to not disallow any action fundamentally, but instead give the player the choice and limited with ingame laws and consequences for some actions. And they can/should be rather tough in some circumstances. Because, yes, in my mind, in a sandbox game it is about opportunities, and any hard limitations is against it.
And PvE player or crafter do have some influence in EvE. (although it is in the hand of corporations, and those are mostly build up from both PvE and PvP players)
PvE player dominate the market, they can influence prices, and could make it extremely expensive for a lot of pvp player in EvE. Because, seriously, you don't make a lot of money with PvP in EvE, even more it usually cost you money in some cases. Although they are so extremely linked together(PvE, PvP, market dominance) that you can't really divide it anyway.
But as i said already, most FFA advocates are not for total anarchy, they do advocate a System like EvE with different security zones(but with balanced resource distribution), they do advocate a criminal system with harsh penalities for pking. Point is, for most pvp players a purpose to pvp, meaningful pvp is the single most important aspect for good mmorpg pvp.
On a side note. I my humble opinion there is room for a pve only sandbox. I just think it is not the best way for a sandbox, and you will get some problems, because of that restriction. But nevertheless, if some want it, do them the favor and made one. There should be enough room for almost any kind of game in the mmo space.
I just argue, that if you want pvp, you have to build the game with pvp in mind. So some halfassed PvP servers in such a pve sandbox will most probably don't work, and some more halfassed PvP flag rules don't work either. From a pvp standpoint EvE is more or less the only successful pvp game, with a proven ruleset. I just wish, i would see something along the line like eve in another theme with real avatars and a more engaging combat(which is one of the weak points in EvE, and it is even funny, considering it is the best pvp mmorpg).
So.. if you want your PvE sandbox.. just forget pvp at all. Don't bother with it. Because, basicly, it will not worth it. Or design a game with PvP and PvE in mind, like EvE, but to do it right you have to look at the lessons learned in previous games. And from a pvp standpoint, pvp flags don't work.
I agree. But another fact, it works rather good in EvE Online, although i personally think it could have a better criminal system and more consequences.(the bounty system does not work that well in EvE, but any criminal will be rather fast limited to low/null sec and will have some problems to get equipment, and may have to pay usually more than other players in highsec due to the regional market and the higher prices in low sec territory) Mindless killing in EvE Online is rather limited, and not really a problem in the game.
The problem with ganking, and even more low level ganking is the balance between highlvl and lowlvl player. If the highlvl player don't risk anything to kill the lowlvl player it will be done a lot more.
In EvE(and most good sandbox games) the difference between highlvl and lowlvl is not that huge, especially not in the combat power. In EvE a highlvl player can more or less flight almost any ship do almost anything available, but in combat he can lose rather easy against a few day old newbie focusing on combat skills. And he might have a much more expensive ship and equipment on stack.. with other words he risk a lot more than the 14 day old newbie. And that is another factor to reduce mindless lowlvl ganking.
And the problem is, most of the times, the consequences are not harsh enough, simply because a game doesn't have the real life limitations for mindless killing. A specific category of players will be assholes given the opportunity, and take joy in ruining other player's fun. That's the "hannibal lecter" of video games. Only problem is they don't end in a straitjacket in a top security cell when caught, they just respawn and resume griefing.
A harsher system could e.g. involve a jail time when caught after mindlessly murdering other players. Mindlessly means outside of a faction/guild war, just killing for the sake of being a nuisance, aka roleplaying a psychopath.
Give them 1 hour (or more!) of jail without the ability to play their account for each innocent they murder mindlessly, when they are caught either by NPC guards or by other players (bounty hunting could apply too). The duration stacks, and doesn't decay. When in jail, your account can't be played outside of the jail cell. There would be a limit to the max time of jail to serve at once, but then when release, if you killed more than the cap, you remain bounty hunter fodder. The whole account, of course, or it would be pointless. That would allow FFA PvP, but the consequences would be harsh enough for the griefers to think twice before killing that crafter on the way back to town "just because they can". The life of a murderer would be very harsh, they couldn't get close to any normal towns anymore (they could have a "buccaneer's den like place" though).
And yes, I'm talking about real life consequences here, the inability to play the account. If they are able to make another player waste his time (by killing him and looting him dry, stealing all his gathered resources), then they should also risk to waste their own time if caught. They could even eventually make jail as a mini game, but the guys would have a time out without the ability to grief others. Wanna be a bandit, or a "hannibal lecter" clone? Ok, but you have to face the consequences too.
Problem is, no developer will have the balls to implement such a system.
How about devs just giving the tools to players? (for example give them a jail system wherein they construct the jails themselves and catching a griefer is left up to the players in a mini-game/full blown profession option like say a bounty hunter which stalks his prey and when the opportunity arises they jump on the individual, kill him and get a token they can then turn in at a jail for rewards, the griefer will then, regardless of respawn location, be teleported to the jail cell for X number of hours/days/weeks and in the case of zergs of griefers bounty hunters can just gang up together and go after their prey).
The most awesome thing about this thread is the fact that a thread with this many replies and controversy guarantees sandboxes will be a permanent fixture in the future of mmos. Developers that peruse this thread will understand even more its time to move away from pve themeparks.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, Age of Wushu etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
god, i love how you took the only real working sandbox there (eve online) and put it into one sentance with all the other failed and wannabe sandbox tries
that, dear sire, is trolling on a superior lvl, i am impressed.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar A person preventing me from building the things I want is not a sandbox from nuilders perspective either
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar That person has limited my freedom
Wrong. Sandbox doesn't mean you get what you want. Sandbox means there are no artificial restrictions.
Oh dear, OK "artificial restrictions" in an entirely artificial world any and all restrictions are, by definition, artificial. There will be restrictions in any game of any type, they are often referred to as "the rules". So yes in a sandbox game there are artificial restrictions. Simply redefining some sub-class of rules as "artificial" because you do not like them while ignoring all the other artificial rules is mind boggling in its stupidity.
If a game designer puts a rule in place that says you cannot attack another player it is just a rule of the game, and as I do not think that PvP is an essential part of a sandbox game your argument simply fails.
Lol are you kidding? Artificial as in imposed by the developers to stop somebody from doing something. Perhaps you'd prefer "arbitrary"? Either way, it's called bad game design.
If there were a spell in the game that made you invincible, that wouldn't be a problem (if it were balanced), but the developers using divine intervention to keep people from attacking each other is by definition not a sandbox feature.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar A person preventing me from building the things I want is not a sandbox from nuilders perspective either
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar That person has limited my freedom
Wrong. Sandbox doesn't mean you get what you want. Sandbox means there are no artificial restrictions.
What is there to say about it, other than I disagree with your definition of sandbox. Sandbox is about freedom, something which limits that freedom makes it less sandboxy.
edit - so yes I guess "artificial (whatever the means in a game) restrictions do limit freedom, some restrictions are necessary in order for players to enjoy greater freedoms. As another poster stated, anarchy is not freedom. owpvp imo limits people more than not having owpvp.
Having jail, guards... all that is a step in the right direction, but just not having owpvp imo is better, keep it to flag systems, or specific zones or specific servers is imo a much better solution. Those who want it can do it, those who want to craft, explore, rp.. whatever in peace can do it.
Ok but you just don't understand the word freedom. As I said before, freedom doesn't mean the freedom from something. I'd like to own a mansion, but lack of money says I can't. That's not me being less free. I'm free to work hard and make enough money to buy a mansion.
Games needs players AND NPCs enforcing justice. Why? Simple... during off hours, the player population is low. One shouldn't be open to griefing just because he's playing at off hours. And a criminal shouldn't be able to get into towns just because no players are online at that moment, it would defeat the purpose of the crime count.
Players ensure justice everywhere, while NPC Guards do it for NPC villages and towns, and also could patrol the main roads with a few guard posts at places like e.g. bridges too.
Well there's nothing wrong with NPC guards. But it would be better if it were tied to the playerbase somehow. Maybe each town elects a mayor and the mayor can buy guards, set npc vendor tax rates, etc.
And the problem is, most of the times, the consequences are not harsh enough, simply because a game doesn't have the real life limitations for mindless killing. A specific category of players will be assholes given the opportunity, and take joy in ruining other player's fun. That's the "hannibal lecter" of video games. Only problem is they don't end in a straitjacket in a top security cell when caught, they just respawn and resume griefing.
A harsher system could e.g. involve a jail time when caught after mindlessly murdering other players. Mindlessly means outside of a faction/guild war, just killing for the sake of being a nuisance, aka roleplaying a psychopath.
Give them 1 hour (or more!) of jail without the ability to play their account for each innocent they murder mindlessly, when they are caught either by NPC guards or by other players (bounty hunting could apply too). The duration stacks, and doesn't decay. When in jail, your account can't be played outside of the jail cell. There would be a limit to the max time of jail to serve at once, but then when release, if you killed more than the cap, you remain bounty hunter fodder. The whole account, of course, or it would be pointless. That would allow FFA PvP, but the consequences would be harsh enough for the griefers to think twice before killing that crafter on the way back to town "just because they can". The life of a murderer would be very harsh, they couldn't get close to any normal towns anymore (they could have a "buccaneer's den like place" though).
And yes, I'm talking about real life consequences here, the inability to play the account. If they are able to make another player waste his time (by killing him and looting him dry, stealing all his gathered resources), then they should also risk to waste their own time if caught. They could even eventually make jail as a mini game, but the guys would have a time out without the ability to grief others. Wanna be a bandit, or a "hannibal lecter" clone? Ok, but you have to face the consequences too.
Problem is, no developer will have the balls to implement such a system.
The thing is in a lot of games the griefer already is wasting his time. In UO the most profitable professions by far were pve professions, despite getting killed by pk's. So by playing a PK, you're spending more time to get less than if you just played a pve character. There should be natural consequences like notoriety, jailtime, not allowing reds in town, etc. But I don't think there should be real world consequences. That's a little silly and feels like you just want it to satisfy some sense of vengeance.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by VengeSunsoarLizarsbones 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: )
Mwahahahahahaha! The spawn of my drunk mind spreads!Do you realize that you could literally take any other feature that you consider to be a "sandbox" feature and gimp it until it makes no difference to the game? That doesn't mean it's not a sandbox feature. For instance, a game could give you the ability to build cities.... but they could make the buildable cities really small and have no point to owning them and be really expensive to make. City building is an incredibly sandbox feature, but in that instance it would have very little impact on the game.
It seems unlikely that building a city would have no impact on a game. It would probably depend on the context of how it's done and what kind of impact it has. If you built a theme park game out of building cities though, then yeah, city building would be a feature of a theme park game.
I haven't done a survey beyond PvP, but it seems a lot more likely that what we have are MMORPG features, and the implementation determines whether they are a sandbox or theme park implementation. After all, the way to see if a feature is a sandbox or theme park feature is by the results of that feature being included in a game.
For instance, OW PvP by itself is just a feature. It doesn't make a noticeable different in a game being either a sandbox or a theme park. However, if you add full loot to the OW PvP, you've implemented OW PvP in a way that is more sandbox than theme park. Now the OW PvP has some impact, there is now risk and there are now immediate rewards for every encounter. It's the implementation, not the feature that makes the determination.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Mwahahahahahaha! The spawn of my drunk mind spreads!
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You said it limits freedom, which isn't sandbox.
What exactly do you mean the slider doesn't appear to move? Obviously the slider moves, it just depends on how much. WoW's OW pvp doesn't affect the game that much because the game is largely dependent on instanced content and there's no looting in pvp. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect it at all. WoW's version of ow pvp is as non-sandbox as ow pvp gets, which is why it doesn't make much of a difference, but it does make wow THAT much more sandboxy.
Ok, please don't steal it because it doesn't make sense. It's the impact that makes a difference? That's what impact means...
The reason it affects darkfall more than WoW is because of other factors, which I mentioned. There's less reason to be out in the world in WoW because it's a themepark. You don't have as much of a reason to be out farming lvl 20 mobs when you're lvl 90 or whatever the cap is now. Why do you think there are so many people jumping around town like weirdos? Because they're queued up for some instance.
The other huge reason is the lack of looting in WoW. OW PvP obviously means less if you don't lose anything but some travel time when you die. So obviously it's going to make less of a difference.
EDIT: Also, are you going to respond to my post from a page or so ago?
Do you realize that you could literally take any other feature that you consider to be a "sandbox" feature and gimp it until it makes no difference to the game? That doesn't mean it's not a sandbox feature. For instance, a game could give you the ability to build cities.... but they could make the buildable cities really small and have no point to owning them and be really expensive to make. City building is an incredibly sandbox feature, but in that instance it would have very little impact on the game.
Honestly... I'd say yes... I feel the OP is right. Sandbox games are for a large part quite to heavily focused on PvP. Theres nothing wrong with it, but it does feel like theres a huge spot missing for sandboxes giving emphasis on more PvE components, creating the world to interact more with the player. As much as pvpers try to 'claim' pvp is quite limited. You will only sometimes be attacked by players, in most cases its not actually 'skill based' type attacks, its often ganks or other low handed tactics ensuring victory for one side with the least bit of skill or effort required. While seiges and all ARE amazing and highly am for them, they don't happen that much in PvP Sandbox as much as just mindless killing, something I find very immature (factions, sure, but killing mindlessly without true purpose, yeah...)
Having a sandbox focus on actually having the environment against your efforts would be quite interesting. Having players working together creating a place having Computer enemy armies to attack your base in an organized fashion and create a constant looming sense of danger that players just can't create on that massive scale all that often. It would be quite interesting to take sandbox away from being competative against one another and brutish to involving true team work and compliance to create a kingdom or nation and defend against hordes of AI using war tactics in swarms, giving players the feel of being heroic and really putting a value of teamwork.
Oh dear, OK "artificial restrictions" in an entirely artificial world any and all restrictions are, by definition, artificial. There will be restrictions in any game of any type, they are often referred to as "the rules". So yes in a sandbox game there are artificial restrictions. Simply redefining some sub-class of rules as "artificial" because you do not like them while ignoring all the other artificial rules is mind boggling in its stupidity.
If a game designer puts a rule in place that says you cannot attack another player it is just a rule of the game, and as I do not think that PvP is an essential part of a sandbox game your argument simply fails.
What is there to say about it, other than I disagree with your definition of sandbox. Sandbox is about freedom, something which limits that freedom makes it less sandboxy.
edit - so yes I guess "artificial (whatever the means in a game) restrictions do limit freedom, some restrictions are necessary in order for players to enjoy greater freedoms. As another poster stated, anarchy is not freedom. owpvp imo limits people more than not having owpvp.
Having jail, guards... all that is a step in the right direction, but just not having owpvp imo is better, keep it to flag systems, or specific zones or specific servers is imo a much better solution. Those who want it can do it, those who want to craft, explore, rp.. whatever in peace can do it.
Freedom
Noun
Kindly refer to the first definition. We're not talking politics here after all.
So when confronted with the actual definition of the word (IE a fact) you make a veiled insult and then resort to pseudo-philosophical constructs to justify your attempts at limiting actual freedom.
Also bringing in the real world into a virtual world is a strawman argument, in the real world you cannot fight for your freedom to the same degree as you can in a virtual world simply because in the real world your first, and arguably strongest, instinct is self-preservation at all costs.
Now if you want me to crush anymore of your feeble attempts to justify lazy player side actions you know where to find me.
That's what call of duty is for. mmorpg's have subpar pvp and the pve always suffers in the end for catering to pvp.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
You keep using Mortal Online and Darkfall (1 or UW whichever you prefer) as examples of how sandbox games fail with unrestricted PVP... explain how EVE managed to survive with unrestricted PVP then (and if you think it's restricted google "jita 4-4 gank").
Also if you cannot grasp what a veiled insult is
"And anyone with above average intelligence and a little aptitude for philosophy will know (...)"
Or translated: Anyone who doesn't agree with my following opinion is unable to counter my opinion due to lack of intelligence and aptitude in philosophy.
Unrestricted PVP sandboxes rely on their community more than any other kind of sandbox and that's starting with the premise that the game has been constructed well.
First of all. I agree with you, that in a good sandbox MMORPG you will need some laws(in best case player made, but supported from the game), and it will need conwequences.
And a lot of FFA PvP advocates don't talk about a FFA PvP world with total anarchy. Therefore a lot of player criticised DF, not just because the lack of consequences, but even more because of the lack of a lot of sandbox features in general. And DF is nevertheless very borderline to call it a sandbox. Because you only have Player Cities, and Player Conflict. The economy is rather simple, not regional, and it lacks a lot of other critical features.
But the most FFA PvP advocates prefer a system like EvE(and in my mind you can even build up on them). Because it does have some laws, it does have some consequences. And more importantly it does have more sandbox features, it does have a real player economy, with regional markets and a lot more.. but is nevertheless limited, but much more because it is a space opera. A space station is much more of a player city in comparsion to a player house, but how would look like a player house in a space sim?
But, at least in my mind, the cardinal rule for laws/rules/limitations in a sandbox game is, to not disallow any action fundamentally, but instead give the player the choice and limited with ingame laws and consequences for some actions. And they can/should be rather tough in some circumstances. Because, yes, in my mind, in a sandbox game it is about opportunities, and any hard limitations is against it.
And PvE player or crafter do have some influence in EvE. (although it is in the hand of corporations, and those are mostly build up from both PvE and PvP players)
PvE player dominate the market, they can influence prices, and could make it extremely expensive for a lot of pvp player in EvE. Because, seriously, you don't make a lot of money with PvP in EvE, even more it usually cost you money in some cases. Although they are so extremely linked together(PvE, PvP, market dominance) that you can't really divide it anyway.
But as i said already, most FFA advocates are not for total anarchy, they do advocate a System like EvE with different security zones(but with balanced resource distribution), they do advocate a criminal system with harsh penalities for pking. Point is, for most pvp players a purpose to pvp, meaningful pvp is the single most important aspect for good mmorpg pvp.
On a side note. I my humble opinion there is room for a pve only sandbox. I just think it is not the best way for a sandbox, and you will get some problems, because of that restriction. But nevertheless, if some want it, do them the favor and made one. There should be enough room for almost any kind of game in the mmo space.
I just argue, that if you want pvp, you have to build the game with pvp in mind. So some halfassed PvP servers in such a pve sandbox will most probably don't work, and some more halfassed PvP flag rules don't work either. From a pvp standpoint EvE is more or less the only successful pvp game, with a proven ruleset. I just wish, i would see something along the line like eve in another theme with real avatars and a more engaging combat(which is one of the weak points in EvE, and it is even funny, considering it is the best pvp mmorpg).
So.. if you want your PvE sandbox.. just forget pvp at all. Don't bother with it. Because, basicly, it will not worth it. Or design a game with PvP and PvE in mind, like EvE, but to do it right you have to look at the lessons learned in previous games. And from a pvp standpoint, pvp flags don't work.
@Jean_Luc
I agree. But another fact, it works rather good in EvE Online, although i personally think it could have a better criminal system and more consequences.(the bounty system does not work that well in EvE, but any criminal will be rather fast limited to low/null sec and will have some problems to get equipment, and may have to pay usually more than other players in highsec due to the regional market and the higher prices in low sec territory) Mindless killing in EvE Online is rather limited, and not really a problem in the game.
The problem with ganking, and even more low level ganking is the balance between highlvl and lowlvl player. If the highlvl player don't risk anything to kill the lowlvl player it will be done a lot more.
In EvE(and most good sandbox games) the difference between highlvl and lowlvl is not that huge, especially not in the combat power. In EvE a highlvl player can more or less flight almost any ship do almost anything available, but in combat he can lose rather easy against a few day old newbie focusing on combat skills. And he might have a much more expensive ship and equipment on stack.. with other words he risk a lot more than the 14 day old newbie. And that is another factor to reduce mindless lowlvl ganking.
How about devs just giving the tools to players? (for example give them a jail system wherein they construct the jails themselves and catching a griefer is left up to the players in a mini-game/full blown profession option like say a bounty hunter which stalks his prey and when the opportunity arises they jump on the individual, kill him and get a token they can then turn in at a jail for rewards, the griefer will then, regardless of respawn location, be teleported to the jail cell for X number of hours/days/weeks and in the case of zergs of griefers bounty hunters can just gang up together and go after their prey).
The most awesome thing about this thread is the fact that a thread with this many replies and controversy guarantees sandboxes will be a permanent fixture in the future of mmos. Developers that peruse this thread will understand even more its time to move away from pve themeparks.
Sabotaged yourself grievously OP.
Life IS Feudal
god, i love how you took the only real working sandbox there (eve online) and put it into one sentance with all the other failed and wannabe sandbox tries
that, dear sire, is trolling on a superior lvl, i am impressed.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Lol are you kidding? Artificial as in imposed by the developers to stop somebody from doing something. Perhaps you'd prefer "arbitrary"? Either way, it's called bad game design.
If there were a spell in the game that made you invincible, that wouldn't be a problem (if it were balanced), but the developers using divine intervention to keep people from attacking each other is by definition not a sandbox feature.
Ok but you just don't understand the word freedom. As I said before, freedom doesn't mean the freedom from something. I'd like to own a mansion, but lack of money says I can't. That's not me being less free. I'm free to work hard and make enough money to buy a mansion.
Well there's nothing wrong with NPC guards. But it would be better if it were tied to the playerbase somehow. Maybe each town elects a mayor and the mayor can buy guards, set npc vendor tax rates, etc.
The thing is in a lot of games the griefer already is wasting his time. In UO the most profitable professions by far were pve professions, despite getting killed by pk's. So by playing a PK, you're spending more time to get less than if you just played a pve character. There should be natural consequences like notoriety, jailtime, not allowing reds in town, etc. But I don't think there should be real world consequences. That's a little silly and feels like you just want it to satisfy some sense of vengeance.
Do you realize that you could literally take any other feature that you consider to be a "sandbox" feature and gimp it until it makes no difference to the game? That doesn't mean it's not a sandbox feature. For instance, a game could give you the ability to build cities.... but they could make the buildable cities really small and have no point to owning them and be really expensive to make. City building is an incredibly sandbox feature, but in that instance it would have very little impact on the game.
It seems unlikely that building a city would have no impact on a game. It would probably depend on the context of how it's done and what kind of impact it has. If you built a theme park game out of building cities though, then yeah, city building would be a feature of a theme park game.
I haven't done a survey beyond PvP, but it seems a lot more likely that what we have are MMORPG features, and the implementation determines whether they are a sandbox or theme park implementation. After all, the way to see if a feature is a sandbox or theme park feature is by the results of that feature being included in a game.
For instance, OW PvP by itself is just a feature. It doesn't make a noticeable different in a game being either a sandbox or a theme park. However, if you add full loot to the OW PvP, you've implemented OW PvP in a way that is more sandbox than theme park. Now the OW PvP has some impact, there is now risk and there are now immediate rewards for every encounter. It's the implementation, not the feature that makes the determination.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.