Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by craftseekerOriginally posted by JeremyBowyerOriginally posted by JeremyBowyerOriginally posted by VengeSunsoarA person preventing me from building the things I want is not a sandbox from nuilders perspective eitherOriginally posted by VengeSunsoarThat 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.
What definition? Can you reference that definition? Because it seems like you are setting yourself up as the authority on what a sandbox is or is not.
If no artificial restrictions means sandbox, then the artificial restriction on having to level skills up to do things would mean skill based progression is not a sandbox feature. It is an artificial restriction, set by the developer strictly for game play purposes.
Developers constantly use divine intervention to keep things from happening. People make a big deal about reputation and killing other players causing some sort of bad karma until the player killer turns red. That is divine intervention. If nobody sees the player killer, and the other player dies before seeing the player killer, it's the developers who have adjusted the player killer's karma, not a player.
Your definitions, as applied by you would mean there do not exist any sandbox MMORPG. There are too many artificial restrictions set by the developer. Darkfall, Mortal Online, Eve and SWG all have artificial restrictions set by the developer for game play purposes and those features are integrated into the sandbox nature of the game.
tldr: Your definition is based on what you think, with very little external confirmation. Artificial restrictions are not a divider between sandbox and theme park, they are just a tool developers use to implement things either in a sandbox or theme park manner.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally 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.
Whether games are more themepark or more sandbox is determined by the overall structure of the hundreds or thousands of different features/aspects in the game. Just because the addition of 1 sandbox element (ow pvp) doesn't seem to have a big affect on an overwhelmingly themepark game, doesn't mean it's not a sandbox feature. It simply means it doesn't make WoW much more of a sandbox because of all the other features that are drowning it out.
Sandbox = less restrictions imposed by developers rather than the players.
OW PvP = less restrictions imposed by the developers = innately sandbox.
Again, just because the other themepark elements (no looting, a huge amount of instanced content) are drowning out the ow pvp and making it somewhat meaningless, doesn't mean that ow pvp is not a sandbox feature.
Im just gonna flat out say it. If this game is all pve carebear fest along with all these other features like Raids, Classes, and bla bla bla it already doesnt sound like a sandbox. MAYBE a Sandpark at best but if it is like its starting to sound now then all the Sandbox talk was smoke blowing from ones ass, and this game will be another SWTOR or any of the 100's of mmos everyone gets all hyped for says it will be the next king daddy king fish and really its just another new themepark hyped with lies and will be populationless and dead within 3 months of its release.
Why? Because they advertised the first flow of news as THIS IS ALL NEW NOTHING SEEN BEFORE! Well ive saw raid's, Class's, Instances and all things fluffy and carebeary So yay another game for carebears to bitch and moan till its all PvP free then just leave it cuz the games boring or one of the 10000 excuses they use after they bitch and moan a game to death. Like they did to Darkfall.
What definition? Can you reference that definition? Because it seems like you are setting yourself up as the authority on what a sandbox is or is not.
Unfortunately it's not in the dictionary so you're going to have to do some research if you haven't just become deeply familiar with the term and how people use it over the years as I have.
If you don't think sandbox = more freedom = less restrictions, I'm not sure what to tell you.
If no artificial restrictions means sandbox, then the artificial restriction on having to level skills up to do things would mean skill based progression is not a sandbox feature. It is an artificial restriction, set by the developer strictly for game play purposes.
Well first of all a lot of sandbox advocates don't like skill progression, so maybe that indeed isn't a sandbox feature. I'm not convinced either way though because learning skills isn't an artificial restriction. It's a real world simulation, so it's not artificial. You could say gravity is a "restriction" in games, but it's just the developers simulating the real world.
Developers constantly use divine intervention to keep things from happening. People make a big deal about reputation and killing other players causing some sort of bad karma until the player killer turns red. That is divine intervention. If nobody sees the player killer, and the other player dies before seeing the player killer, it's the developers who have adjusted the player killer's karma, not a player.
Your definitions, as applied by you would mean there do not exist any sandbox MMORPG. There are too many artificial restrictions set by the developer. Darkfall, Mortal Online, Eve and SWG all have artificial restrictions set by the developer for game play purposes and those features are integrated into the sandbox nature of the game.
I never claimed that any true sandbox game ever existed or that I would want to play it if it did. Do you really think when people call a game a "sandbox" game, that there is no subjectivity in the claim? As humans, we use reason.
tldr: Your definition is based on what you think, with very little external confirmation. Artificial restrictions are not a divider between sandbox and theme park, they are just a tool developers use to implement things either in a sandbox or theme park manner.
Yes and every time they use their divine intervention (which they all do), it's that much less of a sandbox. I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand. Whether a game is a sandbox or a themepark isn't binary. It's not 100% themepark or 100% sandbox. There are varying degrees obviously.
Just beacuse a game has a pvp focus doesnt mean its an less of a PVE game, GW2 or WOW for instance
THis crap allways annoys me, Im one of the few WOW players who loves Raids and Arena and im not sure why everyone feels the need to pick a side...
you can do both and enjoy all the content HORAY!!!!!!!
Well the pro-pvp crowd typically are arguing against games with WoW's type of pvp (instanced arenas) because we're not simply looking to fight all of the time. We won't open world pvp with consequences (preferably some kind of looting) so the game has a sense of risk/reward.
It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people. If that were the case, we would be playing games like WoW that has matchmaking arenas and everything delivered to us on a silver platter.
It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people.
That has been made quite obvious in this thread.
What they want is force everyone into their play style, fight them when they are at a disadvantage or when they play an innocent crafting character with little fighting abilities, loot them dry, and then camp their corpse, all this without any serious consequences for them. No matter if they just wasted the 2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore, they don't want to have their own time wasted in return. Reward without risk, and hopefully ruining some "carebear's" day in the process, that's what they want.
This has been true since Ultima Online beta (and most likely before).
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people.
That has been made quite obvious in this thread.
What they want is force everyone into their play style, fight them when they are at a disadvantage or when they play an innocent crafting character with little fighting abilities, loot them dry, and then camp their corpse, all this without any serious consequences for them. No matter if they just wasted the 2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore, they don't want to have their own time wasted in return. Reward without risk, and hopefully ruining some "carebear's" day in the process, that's what they want.
This has been true since Ultima Online beta (and most likely before).
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
Hey at least he didn't say "If you disagree with my opinion it must mean you're intellectually inferior to me" .
It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people.
That has been made quite obvious in this thread.
What they want is force everyone into their play style, fight them when they are at a disadvantage or when they play an innocent crafting character with little fighting abilities, loot them dry, and then camp their corpse, all this without any serious consequences for them. No matter if they just wasted the 2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore, they don't want to have their own time wasted in return. Reward without risk, and hopefully ruining some "carebear's" day in the process, that's what they want.
This has been true since Ultima Online beta (and most likely before).
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
I'm only making the logical deduction based on the refusal of any compromise by the FFA PvP fans in the thread.
It's not hard to notice that all those proposing compromises are either the pure PvE players (I'm not part of) who would like things like different servers, or the PvE/PvP players like me who want rules so that the game is about meaningful PvP and not mindless and unpunished ganking like in the recent failed pseudo-sandbox games. The answer from most FFA PvP proponents is to dismiss any compromise and insist to enforce their play style on everyone else.
It's not hard to draw a conclusion based on that.
Define meaningful PVP because right now you don't sound like someone who'd like EVE for example, you'd like something like DAoC.
Define meaningful PVP because right now you don't sound like someone who'd like EVE for example, you'd like something like DAoC.
That's not hard to define.
Kill people for a reason, and not just because they are there, and not just because they are weaker. And if the way of the bandit/murderer is chosen, which should be possible, face consequences as harsh as bandits and murderers should face, to avoid the game to turn into an unpunished gank fest.
Want an example of meaningful PvP? Watch the series "Game of Thrones".
Define meaningful PVP because right now you don't sound like someone who'd like EVE for example, you'd like something like DAoC.
That's not hard to define.
Kill people for a reason, and not just because they are there, and not just because they are weaker. And if the way of the bandit/murderer is chosen, which should be possible, face consequences as harsh as bandits and murderers should face, to avoid the game to turn into an unpunished gank fest.
Want an example of meaningful PvP? Watch the series "Game of Thrones".
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard Originally posted by JeremyBowyer It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people.
That has been made quite obvious in this thread.
What they want is force everyone into their play style, fight them when they are at a disadvantage or when they play an innocent crafting character with little fighting abilities, loot them dry, and then camp their corpse, all this without any serious consequences for them. No matter if they just wasted the 2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore, they don't want to have their own time wasted in return. Reward without risk, and hopefully ruining some "carebear's" day in the process, that's what they want.
This has been true since Ultima Online beta (and most likely before).
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
I'm only making the logical deduction based on the refusal of any compromise by the FFA PvP fans in the thread.
It's not hard to notice that all those proposing compromises are either the pure PvE players (I'm not part of) who would like things like different servers or PvP areas, or the PvE/PvP players like me who want rules so that the game is about meaningful PvP and not mindless and unpunished ganking like in the recent failed pseudo-sandbox games. The answer from most FFA PvP proponents is to dismiss any compromise and insist to enforce their play style on everyone else. You even have nonsense answers like "the guy who just mined 2 hours", or hell, 1 hours, or whatever, and who got ganked and looted dry, didn't waste his time.
Make me change my mind, make propositions for compromises that permit all play styles to have fun. Until then, the only possible conclusion is pretty obvious: FFA PvP proponents want to force their play style on everybody else, without compromises.
Where are you getting this idea that compromise is a good thing? Why would I want a watered down game that "appeals to everybody? Why don't you have your game and I have my game? Again, nobody is forcing you to play anything.
Regarding the miner scenario: it's an important point. Why is harvesting better if you can haul your ass out into the wilderness, fill your packs and have no risk of losing it? It's a lot more interesting and satisfying to include actual danger. Also, we have very different ideas of what meaningful pvp means if you think zones or instances or opt-in systems will offer it better than a well made ow pvp game.
It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people.
That has been made quite obvious in this thread.
What they want is force everyone into their play style, fight them when they are at a disadvantage or when they play an innocent crafting character with little fighting abilities, loot them dry, and then camp their corpse, all this without any serious consequences for them. No matter if they just wasted the 2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore, they don't want to have their own time wasted in return. Reward without risk, and hopefully ruining some "carebear's" day in the process, that's what they want.
This has been true since Ultima Online beta (and most likely before).
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
I'm only making the logical deduction based on the refusal of any compromise by the FFA PvP fans in the thread.
It's not hard to notice that all those proposing compromises are either the pure PvE players (I'm not part of) who would like things like different servers or PvP areas, or the PvE/PvP players like me who want rules so that the game is about meaningful PvP and not mindless and unpunished ganking like in the recent failed pseudo-sandbox games. The answer from most FFA PvP proponents is to dismiss any compromise and insist to enforce their play style on everyone else. You even have nonsense answers like "the guy who just mined 2 hours", or hell, 1 hours, or whatever, and who got ganked and looted dry, didn't waste his time.
Make me change my mind, make propositions for compromises that permit all play styles to have fun. Until then, the only possible conclusion is pretty obvious: FFA PvP proponents want to force their play style on everybody else, without compromises.
Where are you getting this idea that compromise is a good thing? Why would I want a watered down game that "appeals to everybody? Why don't you have your game and I have my game? Again, nobody is forcing you to play anything. Regarding the miner scenario: it's an important point. Why is harvesting better if you can haul your ass out into the wilderness, fill your packs and have no risk of losing it? It's a lot more interesting and satisfying to include actual danger. Also, we have very different ideas of what meaningful pvp means if you think zones or instances or opt-in systems will offer it better than a well made ow pvp game.
There is no reason for players to compromise. There is one reason for developers to compromise $$$$. I doubt SOE is making a game to hold some form of MMORPG high ground, they want the cash and they aren't going to get it by making a straight up FFA PVP game. Its not going to be fantasy EVE.
There will be a PVP ruleset server, and PVE rulest severs. The PVE servers will most likely have some form of flagging mechanic so they can PVP when they want to.
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.
I disagree, freedom means exactly that, freedom from somthing. Someone actually posted the definition, "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." In this case a crafter, explorer... is being hindered or restrained from doing that activity by the actions of the pvp person.
There are some very obvious things to be free from, freedom from oppression is what this is all about.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Want an example of meaningful PvP? Watch the series "Game of Thrones".
Perma-death. Heavy voice-over and non-combat activities. It makes a great tv show, but as a game, i will pass.
Pretty much my point. In a game, you have to replace that with something else which will dissuade people of mindless PKing just as efficiently as perma-death.
It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people.
That has been made quite obvious in this thread.
What they want is force everyone into their play style, fight them when they are at a disadvantage or when they play an innocent crafting character with little fighting abilities, loot them dry, and then camp their corpse, all this without any serious consequences for them. No matter if they just wasted the 2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore, they don't want to have their own time wasted in return. Reward without risk, and hopefully ruining some "carebear's" day in the process, that's what they want.
This has been true since Ultima Online beta (and most likely before).
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
I'm only making the logical deduction based on the refusal of any compromise by the FFA PvP fans in the thread.
It's not hard to notice that all those proposing compromises are either the pure PvE players (I'm not part of) who would like things like different servers or PvP areas, or the PvE/PvP players like me who want rules so that the game is about meaningful PvP and not mindless and unpunished ganking like in the recent failed pseudo-sandbox games. The answer from most FFA PvP proponents is to dismiss any compromise and insist to enforce their play style on everyone else. You even have nonsense answers like "the guy who just mined 2 hours", or hell, 1 hours, or whatever, and who got ganked and looted dry, didn't waste his time.
Make me change my mind, make propositions for compromises that permit all play styles to have fun. Until then, the only possible conclusion is pretty obvious: FFA PvP proponents want to force their play style on everybody else, without compromises.
Where are you getting this idea that compromise is a good thing? Why would I want a watered down game that "appeals to everybody? Why don't you have your game and I have my game? Again, nobody is forcing you to play anything. Regarding the miner scenario: it's an important point. Why is harvesting better if you can haul your ass out into the wilderness, fill your packs and have no risk of losing it? It's a lot more interesting and satisfying to include actual danger. Also, we have very different ideas of what meaningful pvp means if you think zones or instances or opt-in systems will offer it better than a well made ow pvp game.
There is no reason for players to compromise. There is one reason for developers to compromise $$$$. I doubt SOE is making a game to hold some form of MMORPG high ground, they want the cash and they aren't going to get it by making a straight up FFA PVP game. Its not going to be fantasy EVE.
There will be a PVP ruleset server, and PVE rulest severs. The PVE servers will most likely have some form of flagging mechanic so they can PVP when they want to.
This line of thinking only makes sense if they're trying to make an enormous, wildly successful mmo. I'm not asking for a sandbox version of WoW. Every other medium of entertainment works in a similar way. You have watered down crap that appeals to the largest amount of people (WoW), and then you have niche stuff that is completely sustainable that appeals to specific groups. Look at music, TV, movies, everything. Why is it assumed that in order for a game to exist, it has to appeal to millions upon millions of people?
It isn`t assumed. However the more features you have in your game, the more the game costs, the bigger your audience has to be. If you can achieve a balance between player expectations on features in the game and player population you`re golden, if not you`re screwed.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Where are you getting this idea that compromise is a good thing? Why would I want a watered down game that "appeals to everybody? Why don't you have your game and I have my game? Again, nobody is forcing you to play anything. Also, we have very different ideas of what meaningful pvp means if you think zones or instances or opt-in systems will offer it better than a well made ow pvp game.
Reread my posts. Carefully this time, so you don't miss anything. It will avoid you making up things I think in the future. All I want is PvP with consequences, like murderers should have. Not zones or instances (except maybe a short introduction zone where people can get used to the controls and the game mechanics), no flag or opt ins, but powerful drawbacks for being a psychopath or a bandit, so that the game focuses on guild/nation vs guild/nation wars instead of petty ganking which adds nothing to any game.
You are right on one point though... nobody forces anyone to play anything. That's why we have failed crap niche games with phantom populations like Darkfall or Mortal as only recent attempts at a sandbox. And if EQ Next goes that route, it will end the same way, even though I'm 99.9% sure SoE aren't that stupid.
I'm right on all of the points except where I misunderstood your position, which happens to be the most minor point... but this is arguing on the internet after all. So that means most of the stuff I say gets filtered down into whatever you think you can argue against and the rest is lost forever. Fine, if you're not arguing for zones, instances or opt-in systems, then what exactly are you arguing AGAINST? Like I said, I haven't seen anybody in this thread arguing for a system with 0 rules. I myself have mentioned the opposite a couple of times. Maybe you'll be able to dredge through the 50+ pages and find one or two, but they are in no way indicative of the whole group.
New made-up thing by you: Darkfall and MO failed/will fail because of the ow pvp. I don't play MO so I won't speak to that, but if you think DF1 failed because of ow pvp or DFUW may fail because of the same thing, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If DFUW fails, it will be because of all the things the players complain about. Bugs, bad UI, lack of things to fight for, etc. The game could easily sustain itself on its current population or maybe a bit more. When people leave, it's because of the things I mentioned. You can close your eyes and pretend like it's because of ow pvp, but you'd be wrong.
Unanswered points:
1. You never explained why compromise is a good thing. You claim that the hardcore crowd are the only ones not willing to "compromise" but really what compromise means in that context is the non-pvp crowd gets what they want. Do you understand that what I want is in direct conflict with what they want? They want pure safety. No amount of natural measures like notoriety or guards or bounty systems or good-guy protection clans will give them what they want. And that's fine, no game can please everybody. I never claimed to want a game that appeals to masses.
2. Your idea of what the hardcore players want is an idiotic ad hominem attack. Saying what we want is to gank, loot and bind camp people is bullshit and wastes everybody's time. Nobody seems to acknowledge that having a harsher world makes for deeper gameplay, or even that this position exists. Everytime the topic is brought up, people like you wreck the entire discussion and say it's because I want to gank people. I don't want to go out and harvest for 1, 2, 3, however many hours and know that I'm in no danger. There should be setbacks. It will be a boring grind if I'm never in any danger, as opposed to an exhilerating success when I DON'T get killed.
3. You claim that a system like that leaves the PK's with rewards but no risks. I explained to you that the opposite is the case. PvE characters were the money makers in UO. PKs rolled around with better gear, risking way more than some naked miner.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar It isn`t assumed. However the more features you have in your game, the more the game costs, the bigger your audience has to be. If you can achieve a balance between player expectations on features in the game and player population you`re golden, if not you`re screwed.
So what? Sandbox games need a good concept and good implementation, not expensive "content" like in themeparks. The fact that EVE exists and UO existed (before watering down EXACTLY the way the pve crowd wanted) shows that you're wrong. Games like that can and have existed.
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.
I disagree, freedom means exactly that, freedom from somthing. Someone actually posted the definition, "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." In this case a crafter, explorer... is being hindered or restrained from doing that activity by the actions of the pvp person.
There are some very obvious things to be free from, freedom from oppression is what this is all about.
No, you're horribly incorrect. You're free to fight back, you're free to join a crafting guild for protection, you're free to harvest/craft at off hours to avoid pk's.
Also, why did you ignore my example about the mansion? Am I less free because I can't afford the things I want? That damn bank won't give me money, they're killing my freedom! You're just wrong about the word, plain and simple. This is an important point, which I'm sure is why you ignored it. Your definition of the word freedom means literally nothing.
Think of it like this: in the real world, everybody is free to do whatever the want. They're free to rape and pillage and murder. They can do those things. However, we're also free to set up mutually beneficial governments/laws to stop people from doing bad things to us. The natural restrictions in games (notoriety, guards, etc) are just SIMULATING the real world steps that were taken by people simply because creating a world where the players could set something like that up themselves would be too difficult and complex to make... otherwise they would do it!
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer Unanswered points:
All those points have been answered in detail in several of my previous posts.
And I can't even understand how a human being, nowadays, can pretend compromise can be a bad thing, as long as it's mutually beneficial of course.
I will repeat again, reread my previous posts, all your answers are there. Or don't. At this point, it doesn't matter, since at the end, your kind will lose this debate about EQ:Next anyway, because SoE aren't stupid enough to make it a full FFA PvP game and ruin the third installation of their major franchise, Everquest.
Trust me, they're not there. Even now you're ignoring my points about DF/MO, yet you claim to not be ignoring things I'm saying.... ok.
Re: compromise: I like how you slip in "....as long as it's mutually beneficial of course" Before it was just "you guys aren't talking about compromise, pve guys are." But as it turns out the compromises from the pve folks weren't mututally beneficial, yet you praise them for their compromises. Their compromises are exactly what we don't want: zones, instances, opt-ins. So how is that mutually beneficial?
And I'm not arguing about EQN at all, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You may want to re-read my posts, because you're confused. But I'm not surprised you're pulling the "scoreboard" approach. I'm not here to claim that any company will do anything, and I'm not here to claim that sandbox pvp games will be the next WoW. I'm here to claim that you CAN have sandbox games with open world pvp/full loot that are successful. Also a more subjective (but not totally) claim of mine personally is that they're just better games, if done well.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar It isn`t assumed. However the more features you have in your game, the more the game costs, the bigger your audience has to be. If you can achieve a balance between player expectations on features in the game and player population you`re golden, if not you`re screwed.
So what? Sandbox games need a good concept and good implementation, not expensive "content" like in themeparks. The fact that EVE exists and UO existed (before watering down EXACTLY the way the pve crowd wanted) shows that you're wrong. Games like that can and have existed.
No it doesn`t. Some in the industry have argued that the systems and content (yes they still need content as Eve has shown) that sandbox games need are more expensive thatteh conent that themeparks need.
And when Eve released it was crap, it too many years to develop the systems and change the game to reach a point where there was a decent population and they could make money. Eve also released at a time when people were more accepting of bad systems, bad coding and implementatino. I do not believe that would work today.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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.
You're forgetting one simple fact, you're free to play the games you want and pass on the ones you don't. IF you don't want to be subject to FFA PVP stay away from games that offer it. The people playing FFA pvp games do not look at it like this at all. They want that experience that feels like you have to fight for survival. They want that anarchy. It's a big part of what makes the experience what it is.
SO to answer all of your questions, There's no ruining each others experiences, at least between like minded players in a FFA environment. The crafter finds a safe spot to craft, asks for protection from friends when they're in harms way etc.. Again this is all part of the experience. Those who do not want this stay away from such games/servers. Which pretty much renders these points you're making moot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
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.
I disagree, freedom means exactly that, freedom from somthing. Someone actually posted the definition, "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." In this case a crafter, explorer... is being hindered or restrained from doing that activity by the actions of the pvp person.
There are some very obvious things to be free from, freedom from oppression is what this is all about.
No, you're horribly incorrect. You're free to fight back, you're free to join a crafting guild for protection, you're free to harvest/craft at off hours to avoid pk's.
Also, why did you ignore my example about the mansion? Am I less free because I can't afford the things I want? That damn bank won't give me money, they're killing my freedom! You're just wrong about the word, plain and simple. This is an important point, which I'm sure is why you ignored it. Your definition of the word freedom means literally nothing.
Think of it like this: in the real world, everybody is free to do whatever the want. They're free to rape and pillage and murder. They can do those things. However, we're also free to set up mutually beneficial governments/laws to stop people from doing bad things to us. The natural restrictions in games (notoriety, guards, etc) are just SIMULATING the real world steps that were taken by people simply because creating a world where the players could set something like that up themselves would be too difficult and complex to make... otherwise they would do it!
I guess this where we disagree. I think you are horribly wrong. If I`m building something and someone attacks me they have limited my ability to build that structure at that time.
Your mansion is irrelevant. You are free to build the mansion provide you have the resources. In the game I may have the resources but someone may be stopping me from building it by constantly killing me or destroying what I have built.
The games are not simulating those things. Yes like the real world people would need to stop it, however unlike the real world, there may not always be people there within a reasonable amount of time or they may decide not to pursue it, or may decide it isn`t worth their time. A cop in the real world earns is income (a good income) by catching those bad guys, he is there on a regular schedule and when he is not there, other people are. A game does not simulate that environment. That person playing the cop may be doing other things, he is not obligated to be there or do anything.
It is not a very good simulation at all.
And then of course the reason we are playing games is because we don`t want ot simulate it exactly. We want it better.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
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.
What definition? Can you reference that definition? Because it seems like you are setting yourself up as the authority on what a sandbox is or is not.
If no artificial restrictions means sandbox, then the artificial restriction on having to level skills up to do things would mean skill based progression is not a sandbox feature. It is an artificial restriction, set by the developer strictly for game play purposes.
Developers constantly use divine intervention to keep things from happening. People make a big deal about reputation and killing other players causing some sort of bad karma until the player killer turns red. That is divine intervention. If nobody sees the player killer, and the other player dies before seeing the player killer, it's the developers who have adjusted the player killer's karma, not a player.
Your definitions, as applied by you would mean there do not exist any sandbox MMORPG. There are too many artificial restrictions set by the developer. Darkfall, Mortal Online, Eve and SWG all have artificial restrictions set by the developer for game play purposes and those features are integrated into the sandbox nature of the game.
tldr: Your definition is based on what you think, with very little external confirmation. Artificial restrictions are not a divider between sandbox and theme park, they are just a tool developers use to implement things either in a sandbox or theme park manner.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Whether games are more themepark or more sandbox is determined by the overall structure of the hundreds or thousands of different features/aspects in the game. Just because the addition of 1 sandbox element (ow pvp) doesn't seem to have a big affect on an overwhelmingly themepark game, doesn't mean it's not a sandbox feature. It simply means it doesn't make WoW much more of a sandbox because of all the other features that are drowning it out.
Sandbox = less restrictions imposed by developers rather than the players.
OW PvP = less restrictions imposed by the developers = innately sandbox.
Again, just because the other themepark elements (no looting, a huge amount of instanced content) are drowning out the ow pvp and making it somewhat meaningless, doesn't mean that ow pvp is not a sandbox feature.
Im just gonna flat out say it. If this game is all pve carebear fest along with all these other features like Raids, Classes, and bla bla bla it already doesnt sound like a sandbox. MAYBE a Sandpark at best but if it is like its starting to sound now then all the Sandbox talk was smoke blowing from ones ass, and this game will be another SWTOR or any of the 100's of mmos everyone gets all hyped for says it will be the next king daddy king fish and really its just another new themepark hyped with lies and will be populationless and dead within 3 months of its release.
Why? Because they advertised the first flow of news as THIS IS ALL NEW NOTHING SEEN BEFORE! Well ive saw raid's, Class's, Instances and all things fluffy and carebeary So yay another game for carebears to bitch and moan till its all PvP free then just leave it cuz the games boring or one of the 10000 excuses they use after they bitch and moan a game to death. Like they did to Darkfall.
Unfortunately it's not in the dictionary so you're going to have to do some research if you haven't just become deeply familiar with the term and how people use it over the years as I have.
" making a game open, giving players control, essentially"
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/179811/EVE_Online_and_the_meaning_of_sandbox.php
"PoE is not qualified for a sandbox game, you're limited in almost everything you do."
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/286475
"Well a "sandbox" game are games where you can go wherever you want to go and do whatever you want to"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080301061110AAka03f
If you don't think sandbox = more freedom = less restrictions, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Well first of all a lot of sandbox advocates don't like skill progression, so maybe that indeed isn't a sandbox feature. I'm not convinced either way though because learning skills isn't an artificial restriction. It's a real world simulation, so it's not artificial. You could say gravity is a "restriction" in games, but it's just the developers simulating the real world.
I never claimed that any true sandbox game ever existed or that I would want to play it if it did. Do you really think when people call a game a "sandbox" game, that there is no subjectivity in the claim? As humans, we use reason.
Yes and every time they use their divine intervention (which they all do), it's that much less of a sandbox. I'm really not sure why this is so hard to understand. Whether a game is a sandbox or a themepark isn't binary. It's not 100% themepark or 100% sandbox. There are varying degrees obviously.
I know im jumping into an old ass thread but...
Just beacuse a game has a pvp focus doesnt mean its an less of a PVE game, GW2 or WOW for instance
THis crap allways annoys me, Im one of the few WOW players who loves Raids and Arena and im not sure why everyone feels the need to pick a side...
you can do both and enjoy all the content HORAY!!!!!!!
Well the pro-pvp crowd typically are arguing against games with WoW's type of pvp (instanced arenas) because we're not simply looking to fight all of the time. We won't open world pvp with consequences (preferably some kind of looting) so the game has a sense of risk/reward.
It's a common misconception that the sandbox pvp crowd simply want to be able to fight people. If that were the case, we would be playing games like WoW that has matchmaking arenas and everything delivered to us on a silver platter.
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
Hey at least he didn't say "If you disagree with my opinion it must mean you're intellectually inferior to me"
.
Define meaningful PVP because right now you don't sound like someone who'd like EVE for example, you'd like something like DAoC.
So kind of like Eve Online then.
But with less incest and more man-love.
That has been made quite obvious in this thread.
What they want is force everyone into their play style, fight them when they are at a disadvantage or when they play an innocent crafting character with little fighting abilities, loot them dry, and then camp their corpse, all this without any serious consequences for them. No matter if they just wasted the 2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore, they don't want to have their own time wasted in return. Reward without risk, and hopefully ruining some "carebear's" day in the process, that's what they want.
This has been true since Ultima Online beta (and most likely before).
It's amazing how many inaccuracies and falsehoods you can cram into one small post!
1. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. That's like saying it's forcing you to play a video game. Turns out there are multiple types of games for multiple types of people.
2. You're lying about what I want. I don't jump people when they're at a disadvantage and I don't jump crafters, I don't camp corpses. Also, I do want a game with consequences for people who do.
3. You mention the "2 hours that miner character used to mine some ore." This is a stupid thing to say for a couple different reasons. First, as I've pointed out, in games like UO the non-pk characters were the ones making all of the money and the pk's were really not making much off of their kills. So the only person "wasting their time" would be the pk's. Second, if you're mining for 2 hours straight without banking, it means you're playing too greedy. Having ow pvp with loot makes people play safer and it gives more of a feeling of reward when you do profit from your work.
4. How in the hell could a game with full loot pvp be reward without risk? Depending on the game PK's are often risking more than the typical reward because they're wearing decent gear.
How can you manage to be so blatantly wrong about so much? Also, why are you assuming so much about me? Is it because your entire point hinges on me being an asshole in games?
I'm only making the logical deduction based on the refusal of any compromise by the FFA PvP fans in the thread.
It's not hard to notice that all those proposing compromises are either the pure PvE players (I'm not part of) who would like things like different servers or PvP areas, or the PvE/PvP players like me who want rules so that the game is about meaningful PvP and not mindless and unpunished ganking like in the recent failed pseudo-sandbox games. The answer from most FFA PvP proponents is to dismiss any compromise and insist to enforce their play style on everyone else. You even have nonsense answers like "the guy who just mined 2 hours", or hell, 1 hours, or whatever, and who got ganked and looted dry, didn't waste his time.
Make me change my mind, make propositions for compromises that permit all play styles to have fun. Until then, the only possible conclusion is pretty obvious: FFA PvP proponents want to force their play style on everybody else, without compromises.
Where are you getting this idea that compromise is a good thing? Why would I want a watered down game that "appeals to everybody? Why don't you have your game and I have my game? Again, nobody is forcing you to play anything.Regarding the miner scenario: it's an important point. Why is harvesting better if you can haul your ass out into the wilderness, fill your packs and have no risk of losing it? It's a lot more interesting and satisfying to include actual danger.
Also, we have very different ideas of what meaningful pvp means if you think zones or instances or opt-in systems will offer it better than a well made ow pvp game.
There is no reason for players to compromise. There is one reason for developers to compromise $$$$. I doubt SOE is making a game to hold some form of MMORPG high ground, they want the cash and they aren't going to get it by making a straight up FFA PVP game. Its not going to be fantasy EVE.
There will be a PVP ruleset server, and PVE rulest severs. The PVE servers will most likely have some form of flagging mechanic so they can PVP when they want to.
Perma-death. Heavy voice-over and non-combat activities. It makes a great tv show, but as a game, i will pass.
I disagree, freedom means exactly that, freedom from somthing. Someone actually posted the definition, "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." In this case a crafter, explorer... is being hindered or restrained from doing that activity by the actions of the pvp person.
There are some very obvious things to be free from, freedom from oppression is what this is all about.
Best way I can think of:
Train counter-gankers
.
This line of thinking only makes sense if they're trying to make an enormous, wildly successful mmo. I'm not asking for a sandbox version of WoW. Every other medium of entertainment works in a similar way. You have watered down crap that appeals to the largest amount of people (WoW), and then you have niche stuff that is completely sustainable that appeals to specific groups. Look at music, TV, movies, everything. Why is it assumed that in order for a game to exist, it has to appeal to millions upon millions of people?
I'm right on all of the points except where I misunderstood your position, which happens to be the most minor point... but this is arguing on the internet after all. So that means most of the stuff I say gets filtered down into whatever you think you can argue against and the rest is lost forever. Fine, if you're not arguing for zones, instances or opt-in systems, then what exactly are you arguing AGAINST? Like I said, I haven't seen anybody in this thread arguing for a system with 0 rules. I myself have mentioned the opposite a couple of times. Maybe you'll be able to dredge through the 50+ pages and find one or two, but they are in no way indicative of the whole group.
New made-up thing by you: Darkfall and MO failed/will fail because of the ow pvp. I don't play MO so I won't speak to that, but if you think DF1 failed because of ow pvp or DFUW may fail because of the same thing, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If DFUW fails, it will be because of all the things the players complain about. Bugs, bad UI, lack of things to fight for, etc. The game could easily sustain itself on its current population or maybe a bit more. When people leave, it's because of the things I mentioned. You can close your eyes and pretend like it's because of ow pvp, but you'd be wrong.
Unanswered points:
1. You never explained why compromise is a good thing. You claim that the hardcore crowd are the only ones not willing to "compromise" but really what compromise means in that context is the non-pvp crowd gets what they want. Do you understand that what I want is in direct conflict with what they want? They want pure safety. No amount of natural measures like notoriety or guards or bounty systems or good-guy protection clans will give them what they want. And that's fine, no game can please everybody. I never claimed to want a game that appeals to masses.
2. Your idea of what the hardcore players want is an idiotic ad hominem attack. Saying what we want is to gank, loot and bind camp people is bullshit and wastes everybody's time. Nobody seems to acknowledge that having a harsher world makes for deeper gameplay, or even that this position exists. Everytime the topic is brought up, people like you wreck the entire discussion and say it's because I want to gank people. I don't want to go out and harvest for 1, 2, 3, however many hours and know that I'm in no danger. There should be setbacks. It will be a boring grind if I'm never in any danger, as opposed to an exhilerating success when I DON'T get killed.
3. You claim that a system like that leaves the PK's with rewards but no risks. I explained to you that the opposite is the case. PvE characters were the money makers in UO. PKs rolled around with better gear, risking way more than some naked miner.
So what? Sandbox games need a good concept and good implementation, not expensive "content" like in themeparks. The fact that EVE exists and UO existed (before watering down EXACTLY the way the pve crowd wanted) shows that you're wrong. Games like that can and have existed.
No, you're horribly incorrect. You're free to fight back, you're free to join a crafting guild for protection, you're free to harvest/craft at off hours to avoid pk's.
Also, why did you ignore my example about the mansion? Am I less free because I can't afford the things I want? That damn bank won't give me money, they're killing my freedom! You're just wrong about the word, plain and simple. This is an important point, which I'm sure is why you ignored it. Your definition of the word freedom means literally nothing.
Think of it like this: in the real world, everybody is free to do whatever the want. They're free to rape and pillage and murder. They can do those things. However, we're also free to set up mutually beneficial governments/laws to stop people from doing bad things to us. The natural restrictions in games (notoriety, guards, etc) are just SIMULATING the real world steps that were taken by people simply because creating a world where the players could set something like that up themselves would be too difficult and complex to make... otherwise they would do it!
Trust me, they're not there. Even now you're ignoring my points about DF/MO, yet you claim to not be ignoring things I'm saying.... ok.
Re: compromise: I like how you slip in "....as long as it's mutually beneficial of course" Before it was just "you guys aren't talking about compromise, pve guys are." But as it turns out the compromises from the pve folks weren't mututally beneficial, yet you praise them for their compromises. Their compromises are exactly what we don't want: zones, instances, opt-ins. So how is that mutually beneficial?
And I'm not arguing about EQN at all, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You may want to re-read my posts, because you're confused. But I'm not surprised you're pulling the "scoreboard" approach. I'm not here to claim that any company will do anything, and I'm not here to claim that sandbox pvp games will be the next WoW. I'm here to claim that you CAN have sandbox games with open world pvp/full loot that are successful. Also a more subjective (but not totally) claim of mine personally is that they're just better games, if done well.
No it doesn`t. Some in the industry have argued that the systems and content (yes they still need content as Eve has shown) that sandbox games need are more expensive thatteh conent that themeparks need.
And when Eve released it was crap, it too many years to develop the systems and change the game to reach a point where there was a decent population and they could make money. Eve also released at a time when people were more accepting of bad systems, bad coding and implementatino. I do not believe that would work today.
You're forgetting one simple fact, you're free to play the games you want and pass on the ones you don't. IF you don't want to be subject to FFA PVP stay away from games that offer it. The people playing FFA pvp games do not look at it like this at all. They want that experience that feels like you have to fight for survival. They want that anarchy. It's a big part of what makes the experience what it is.
SO to answer all of your questions, There's no ruining each others experiences, at least between like minded players in a FFA environment. The crafter finds a safe spot to craft, asks for protection from friends when they're in harms way etc.. Again this is all part of the experience. Those who do not want this stay away from such games/servers. Which pretty much renders these points you're making moot.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I guess this where we disagree. I think you are horribly wrong. If I`m building something and someone attacks me they have limited my ability to build that structure at that time.
Your mansion is irrelevant. You are free to build the mansion provide you have the resources. In the game I may have the resources but someone may be stopping me from building it by constantly killing me or destroying what I have built.
The games are not simulating those things. Yes like the real world people would need to stop it, however unlike the real world, there may not always be people there within a reasonable amount of time or they may decide not to pursue it, or may decide it isn`t worth their time. A cop in the real world earns is income (a good income) by catching those bad guys, he is there on a regular schedule and when he is not there, other people are. A game does not simulate that environment. That person playing the cop may be doing other things, he is not obligated to be there or do anything.
It is not a very good simulation at all.
And then of course the reason we are playing games is because we don`t want ot simulate it exactly. We want it better.