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.
Which is the topic of this thread. People want a modern sandbox game where, for once, people aren't forced into a PvP gank fest in order to be able to enjoy the true sandbox aspects. Those same people stay away from FFA PvP games like darkfail or mortal online. They want something MORE thank just a glorified gank fest without rules.
No the purpose of this thread is to say to people who want PVP, stick to games you might dislike simply because they offer PVP. Don't ask for more of them, that you might actually like based on features, lore, etc...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Interesting I read the title and OP as saying, there are many pvp focused sandbox right now, we don`t need more of them. There are very few pve sandbox, we need more of them.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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?
Have you even read what I've written? I'm gonna blame it on your rather young age (26) that you are unable to understand what is said and that your vision is only either black or white. All the compromises proposed, even from the most fanatic PvE players in here, are way more tolerant than the total refusal of any compromise you and the few "harcore" FFA PvP proponents are displaying. What you want is very, very clear. You want a game that forced everybody playing into your play style, which is unlimited PvP where you can attack anyone, anywhere, without major consequences.
Anyway, time to stop arguing with a brick wall, specially one 20 years younger than me and without a clue about what tolerance and compromise can be without giving up your own beliefs in the process. I wish you will someday find that game you are looking forward to, where you can force everyone in your vision of what a sandbox should be while still retaining enough players to make the game viable. One thing I'm sure of, that won't be a mainstream AAA mmorpg. You may as well play DF:UW, because I'm afraid that's the best you're going to get for now.
Again, you assume that compromise is good in and of itself. What is wrong with wanting a game that would be perfect for me and people like me? PvE people can have a game that is perfect for them and people like them.
You keep using this word "force", why? Because the only way to make your point is to conjure up an inaccurate image of the type of game I'm proposing? Or an inaccurate image of me, like you've done before? Here's a crazy thought: every game ever has forced people to play a certain way. When I play sc2, I'm forced to play a top down rts game. What if I wanted to play sc2 like an fps? How can they be so thoughtless as to deny compromise? Just give me the ability to control a hydralisk in first person mode. COMPROMISEEEEE!
And there you go again, assuming stuff about me. You do your side (whatever side it is by the way... the side of just insulting people I guess?) such a disservice. I don't want to attack everybody, in fact I very rarely go out and attack anybody even in DF. The only time I do is when it's people of unfriendly clans. In UO I never did except for PKs or people I personally knew to be dickheads (noto pk's, griefers, etc). And I do want consequences for the people that do those things, but I DON'T want arbitrary restrictions because the developer can't think of a good way to do it. Show me where I've ever claimed otherwise. You won't, because I haven't. Won't stop you from saying these things about me. And now you bring up my age... you're just great.
Also, I never said I wanted a AAA mmo. In fact, I actively don't want one. They're prone to massive implosions. And just like in other genres (music, tv, movies) the big high budget ones are often a watered down disappointment.
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.
Really? Your counter to the mansion argument is that in the real world nobody can kill me when I'm buying it? I'm not the one building it. People don't often die when building houses in real life, but acts of God like tornadoes and hurricanes ruin people's houses all of the time. Also you can have risk-free house placement in games.
I never said you can't have NPC guards in an MMO. In fact I've said a few times that you can, and for the reasons you've mentioned. If it were feasible to have people on at all times to protect cities, then I'd prefer that. But it's not, so that's where the developers have to prop up the simulation.
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.
Eve has expansions because people wanted them and paid for them. I'm not sure how this helps your argument that sandbox games with pvp can't afford to exist.
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.
Really? Your counter to the mansion argument is that in the real world nobody can kill me when I'm buying it? I'm not the one building it. People don't often die when building houses in real life, but acts of God like tornadoes and hurricanes ruin people's houses all of the time. Also you can have risk-free house placement in games.
I never said you can't have NPC guards in an MMO. In fact I've said a few times that you can, and for the reasons you've mentioned. If it were feasible to have people on at all times to protect cities, then I'd prefer that. But it's not, so that's where the developers have to prop up the simulation.
Yes that is the argument. People cannot do that to you without significant consequences to them.
An act of god is uncontrollable, there is no point in even discussing that. It`s a red herring.
Great you can have house free placement, good thing that isn`t all I talked about. Building, crafting, exploring...
I never said you couldn`t have npc guards either, in fact I stated earlier that that is a step in the right direction. If they have npc policeman that will go out and hunt them, all the better.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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.
Really? Your counter to the mansion argument is that in the real world nobody can kill me when I'm buying it? I'm not the one building it. People don't often die when building houses in real life, but acts of God like tornadoes and hurricanes ruin people's houses all of the time. Also you can have risk-free house placement in games.
I never said you can't have NPC guards in an MMO. In fact I've said a few times that you can, and for the reasons you've mentioned. If it were feasible to have people on at all times to protect cities, then I'd prefer that. But it's not, so that's where the developers have to prop up the simulation.
Forget it dude, he's not even listening, he's got a notion stuck in his head that everyone that wants a open world pvp game is either insane or highly suspect and I am beginning to suspect his motives for "compromises" which are anything but ( a compromise between PVEers and PVPers would be how to make open world PVP fun for both which guess what, is possible).
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.
Eve has expansions because people wanted them and paid for them. I'm not sure how this helps your argument that sandbox games with pvp can't afford to exist.
I didn`t say anything about that Eve not having or having expansions or people paying for them. You have a strange tendancy to argue something that wasn`t said.
I also didn`t state, ever, at all, not one single time, that sandbox games with pvp could not exist, that is a rediculous argument.
I stated Eve was crap when it released, and it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was profitable. I stated that if a game were to release like that today without the features that make it more safe for people, as Eve as done, I do not believe it would work today.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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.
Really? Your counter to the mansion argument is that in the real world nobody can kill me when I'm buying it? I'm not the one building it. People don't often die when building houses in real life, but acts of God like tornadoes and hurricanes ruin people's houses all of the time. Also you can have risk-free house placement in games.
I never said you can't have NPC guards in an MMO. In fact I've said a few times that you can, and for the reasons you've mentioned. If it were feasible to have people on at all times to protect cities, then I'd prefer that. But it's not, so that's where the developers have to prop up the simulation.
Forget it dude, he's not even listening, he's got a notion stuck in his head that everyone that wants a open world pvp game is either insane or highly suspect and I am beginning to suspect his motives for "compromises" which are anything but ( a compromise between PVEers and PVPers would be how to make open world PVP fun for both which guess what, is possible).
If your talking to me I`m not sure why would say that. That is not what I believe at all, nor have I stated or insinuated anything like that ever. I also never even mentioned the word compromises, however for a game to be successfull I do think there do need to be some compromises, even basic ones like eve has done with high-sec space.
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.
Which is the topic of this thread. People want a modern sandbox game where, for once, people aren't forced into a PvP gank fest in order to be able to enjoy the true sandbox aspects. Those same people stay away from FFA PvP games like darkfail or mortal online. They want something MORE thank just a glorified gank fest without rules.
No the purpose of this thread is to say to people who want PVP, stick to games you might dislike simply because they offer PVP. Don't ask for more of them, that you might actually like based on features, lore, etc...
And that's the greatest nonsense in this thread! You want something like that, yet you refuse the necessary compromises that would make such a game possible! Unrestricted PvP will ALWAYS result in PvP taking over the whole game and the game becoming not a sandbox, but a gankfest.
Want a great sandbox, with open PvP, but also lore, viable crafting and PvE play styles... you need those rules which harshly punish mindless ganking without a realy purpose. You need anti-psycho-killer rules. Then, your game may still be here with a decent player base in 17+ years like Ultima Online. Otherwise, your dream game will end in the same trashcan than darkfall and mortal.
Who ever said I want open FFA PVP? I prefer a controlled PVP environment over an FFA one even in a sandbox (SWG). Yet there have been far too many posts in this thread, basically saying there are enough PVP focused sandboxes on the market. That's the greatest nonsense in this thread. There are a couple options for that and each offers a distinct niche experience. IF you don't like the space theme EVE is not an option. IF you want turn-based combat Darkfall and MO are out of the picture. WHat does that leave? That's just two preferences and they rule out the main options for that game-play.
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.
Really? Your counter to the mansion argument is that in the real world nobody can kill me when I'm buying it? I'm not the one building it. People don't often die when building houses in real life, but acts of God like tornadoes and hurricanes ruin people's houses all of the time. Also you can have risk-free house placement in games.
I never said you can't have NPC guards in an MMO. In fact I've said a few times that you can, and for the reasons you've mentioned. If it were feasible to have people on at all times to protect cities, then I'd prefer that. But it's not, so that's where the developers have to prop up the simulation.
Yes that is the argument. People cannot do that to you without significant consequences to them.
An act of god is uncontrollable, there is no point in even discussing that. It`s a red herring.
Great you can have house free placement, good thing that isn`t all I talked about. Building, crafting, exploring...
I never said you couldn`t have npc guards either, in fact I stated earlier that that is a step in the right direction. If they have npc policeman that will go out and hunt them, all the better.
Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it??
The simulation ends at the city gates for 2 reasons:
It's reasonable to have player run guilds or just individual people who hunt down pks. You don't need npc detectives when you can have player run bounty systems and notoriety systems to let the players do these things.
There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.
I think Wushu should be required play before a person can form an opinion on FFA worlds, with no safe zones.
A civil FFA world? How can this be? This is where should it be required to DL age of wushu. You don't have to sub or play long term, but 1 week should be required.
`"Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it?"
Yes I agree it is getting silly.
The simulations are poor simulations.
Players running bounty systems IMO is not very effective because it requires the co-operation of someone else that may decide they don`t want to. `Yes I get which is why I think npc policeman would work better than people. I don't agree that it should end at the city gate, I do believe it should extend into the world.
"There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.":
That is the game you are looking for. That is not the sandbox game a pve sandbox fan is looking for, which is what the thread was about, a sandbox pve game.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
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.
Eve has expansions because people wanted them and paid for them. I'm not sure how this helps your argument that sandbox games with pvp can't afford to exist.
I didn`t say anything about that Eve not having or having expansions or people paying for them. You have a strange tendancy to argue something that wasn`t said.
I also didn`t state, ever, at all, not one single time, that sandbox games with pvp could not exist, that is a rediculous argument.
I stated Eve was crap when it released, and it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was profitable. I stated that if a game were to release like that today without the features that make it more safe for people, as Eve as done, I do not believe it would work today.
You replied to this quote from me:
"Why is it assumed that in order for a game to exist, it has to appeal to millions upon millions of people?"
That started this discussion. Re-read it if you like to get your bearings. You're making vague nebulous claims that are impossible to nail down. The point I was making in the above quote is in response to so many people claiming that a sandbox pvp game will never be a big AAA game. I'm saying, who cares if it's not a huge game?
I admit, I'm not a PvPer heavyweight who plays these games to gank...though I do find myself liking the occasional PvP scrum every now and then.
But just because I don't gank, that doesn't mean that ganking isn't fun for someone. Who am I to say they can't have the kind of game they want?
I don't know of one gamer here who hasn't been told, at one time or another, that they have no right to have the kind of MMO they want. That your roleplay is an irrelevant playstyle, or that your crafting needs to take a backseat to the needs of the loot crowd. Or that your raids ought to take a backseat to soloers.
If you think about it, nobody, NOBODY in this genre--who truly loves this genre--is getting the game they truly want.
Instead, we have to settle for something sub standard and unsatisfying in the long run, because in the attempt to not displease anyone, the games we have don't really please anyone, at least not for very long.
Yes, I hate getting ganked. Ganking is not my idea of a good time. But I would be willing to subject myself to the ganker's ganks from time to time if I had the sorts of things I want: an environment that respects and promotes roleplay. A game where crafters are central to the economy. A game with options. A game where someone doesn't have to stick a headset in their ear and join xXDEATHDEALERXx and his überclan in order to be somebody important. A game where creativity and meaning is indulged and rewarded. If I had those things, I wouldn't mind getting ganked from time to time. I'd be too busy having fun to care.
For too long, MMOers, we've stomped down our foot and said, "I don't like x, so I shouldn't have to have x in any game I am going to play." And we can go up and down the list of features we just don't have anymore because of this attitude, from crafting, to roleplay, to PvP, to raids and so on.
Because if you think about it, every argument that has been made against the gankers can be made--and has been made--to show why the thing you like ought not to be a feature. Instead of figuring out why we don't like FFA PvP, why don't we figure out the things we do like, but aren't getting, that would make us want to join a FFA PvP game?
/endRant
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I think Wushu should be required play before a person can form an opinion on FFA worlds, with no safe zones.
A civil FFA world? How can this be? This is where should it be required to DL age of wushu. You don't have to sub or play long term, but 1 week should be required.
They have some good ideas.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think Wushu should be required play before a person can form an opinion on FFA worlds, with no safe zones.
A civil FFA world? How can this be? This is where should it be required to DL age of wushu. You don't have to sub or play long term, but 1 week should be required.
That would work if AoW was a sandbox - but despite its claims, it isn't, not even remotely close to one.
We are talking about sandbox games here, check the thread title.
Geez someone in a bad mood? It is (except to about 8 people on this site), but that's beside the point of my post.
My post is about what a FFA no safe zone world should look and play like. FFA does not mean anarchy and ganking. A civil world can be created with soft rules through risk, reward, and punishment. This is why it should be required play for those who have been given a bad impression by poorly designed FFA games.
After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
`"Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it?"
Yes I agree it is getting silly.
The simulations are poor simulations.
Players running bounty systems IMO is not very effective because it requires the co-operation of someone else that may decide they don`t want to. `Yes I get which is why I think npc policeman would work better than people. I don't agree that it should end at the city gate, I do believe it should extend into the world.
UO had many guilds that were dedicated to exactly that. In fact, until recently I was running one of the biggest guilds on a new UO server and I can tell you that you're very mistaken about the effectiveness of a player run system like this. You'd run into a group of reds in a dungeon, mention it to faction members in IRC and they would be at the dungeon in a few seconds. This wasn't an unusual occurrence.
That's fine that you think it should extend into the world, but do you see the point I'm making about freedom? In the real world, people are free to kill/grief/whatever, and we're free to fight back and create governments and laws. That's what freedom is. Freedom isn't an invisible force field saying nobody can touch me. Sandbox players want as much player control AS POSSIBLE. Obviously there are technical limitations and logisitical limitations.
"There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.":
That is the game you are looking for. That is not the sandbox game a pve sandbox fan is looking for, which is what the thread was about, a sandbox pve game.
The thread is about the difference between the two. Don't try and act like this thread is merely to discuss pve games.
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.
Eve has expansions because people wanted them and paid for them. I'm not sure how this helps your argument that sandbox games with pvp can't afford to exist.
I didn`t say anything about that Eve not having or having expansions or people paying for them. You have a strange tendancy to argue something that wasn`t said.
I also didn`t state, ever, at all, not one single time, that sandbox games with pvp could not exist, that is a rediculous argument.
I stated Eve was crap when it released, and it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was profitable. I stated that if a game were to release like that today without the features that make it more safe for people, as Eve as done, I do not believe it would work today.
You replied to this quote from me:
"Why is it assumed that in order for a game to exist, it has to appeal to millions upon millions of people?"
That started this discussion. Re-read it if you like to get your bearings. You're making vague nebulous claims that are impossible to nail down. The point I was making in the above quote is in response to so many people claiming that a sandbox pvp game will never be a big AAA game. I'm saying, who cares if it's not a huge game?
and I responded.
I'll respond again, very few people have ever stated it needs millions of players. However the more features a game has, the bigger audience it needs. I doubt a games ability to be successfull today without all the bells and whistles people have come to expect. If eve released today as it did in 2003 I doubt it's ability to survive.
"sandbox pvp game will never be a big AAA game. I'm saying, who cares if it's not a huge game" These two statements are not discussing the same point.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I admit, I'm not a PvPer heavyweight who plays these games to gank...though I do find myself liking the occasional PvP scrum every now and then.
But just because I don't gank, that doesn't mean that ganking isn't fun for someone. Who am I to say they can't have the kind of game they want?
I don't know of one gamer here who hasn't been told, at one time or another, that they have no right to have the kind of MMO they want. That your roleplay is an irrelevant playstyle, or that your crafting needs to take a backseat to the needs of the loot crowd. Or that your raids ought to take a backseat to soloers.
If you think about it, nobody, NOBODY in this genre--who truly loves this genre--is getting the game they truly want.
Instead, we have to settle for something sub standard and unsatisfying in the long run, because in the attempt to not displease anyone, the games we have don't really please anyone, at least not for very long.
Yes, I hate getting ganked. Ganking is not my idea of a good time. But I would be willing to subject myself to the ganker's ganks from time to time if I had the sorts of things I want: an environment that respects and promotes roleplay. A game where crafters are central to the economy. A game with options. A game where someone doesn't have to stick a headset in their ear and join xXDEATHDEALERXx and his überclan in order to be somebody important. A game where creativity and meaning is indulged and rewarded. If I had those things, I wouldn't mind getting ganked from time to time. I'd be too busy having fun to care.
For too long, MMOers, we've stomped down our foot and said, "I don't like x, so I shouldn't have to have x in any game I am going to play." And we can go up and down the list of features we just don't have anymore because of this attitude, from crafting, to roleplay, to PvP, to raids and so on.
Because if you think about it, every argument that has been made against the gankers can be made--and has been made--to show why the thing you like ought not to be a feature. Instead of figuring out why we don't like FFA PvP, why don't we figure out the things we do like, but aren't getting, that would make us want to join a FFA PvP game?
Originally posted by karat76 After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
Yeah, you need to DL Wushu, play it for a week then come back and post. You don't have to like it, just hang around for a week and see what a Civil FFA world with no safe zones, and next to no npc guards. Seems crazy I know.
`"Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it?"
Yes I agree it is getting silly.
The simulations are poor simulations.
Players running bounty systems IMO is not very effective because it requires the co-operation of someone else that may decide they don`t want to. `Yes I get which is why I think npc policeman would work better than people. I don't agree that it should end at the city gate, I do believe it should extend into the world.
UO had many guilds that were dedicated to exactly that. In fact, until recently I was running one of the biggest guilds on a new UO server and I can tell you that you're very mistaken about the effectiveness of a player run system like this. You'd run into a group of reds in a dungeon, mention it to faction members in IRC and they would be at the dungeon in a few seconds. This wasn't an unusual occurrence.
That's fine that you think it should extend into the world, but do you see the point I'm making about freedom? In the real world, people are free to kill/grief/whatever, and we're free to fight back and create governments and laws. That's what freedom is. Freedom isn't an invisible force field saying nobody can touch me. Sandbox players want as much player control AS POSSIBLE. Obviously there are technical limitations and logisitical limitations.
"There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.":
That is the game you are looking for. That is not the sandbox game a pve sandbox fan is looking for, which is what the thread was about, a sandbox pve game.
The thread is about the difference between the two. Don't try and act like this thread is merely to discuss pve games.
And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well.
This thread is about making a sandbox pve game, the op belives there are enough sandbox pve, but few sandbox pve. People have hijacked it to discuss their particular agenda.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by karat76 After reading through many of the posts on here it seems many of are pvpers want virtual prison yards. People are violent animals we need law and order with punishment to keep are true nature in check and even that does not work as some of us are too far gone. Virtual world with no real punishment lets most people be their true selves. Many people are little more than rabid dogs that happen to wear pants from time to time. Pvp is fine for competition or realm bragging rights but FFA is little more than a large prison yard with roving hordes raping and pillaging away with no guards to put them down .
This is a bit raw, but the sad truth. Anonymous + FFA PvP turns everyone into a bully.
You reality equals your truth. You still can be and in this case are wrong.
"Yeah, you need to DL Wushu, play it for a week then come back and post. You don't have to like it, just hang around for a week and see what a Civil FFA world with no safe zones, and next to no npc guards. Seems crazy I know."
repost reply to the person above who feels like you.
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.
Eve has expansions because people wanted them and paid for them. I'm not sure how this helps your argument that sandbox games with pvp can't afford to exist.
I didn`t say anything about that Eve not having or having expansions or people paying for them. You have a strange tendancy to argue something that wasn`t said.
I also didn`t state, ever, at all, not one single time, that sandbox games with pvp could not exist, that is a rediculous argument.
I stated Eve was crap when it released, and it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was profitable. I stated that if a game were to release like that today without the features that make it more safe for people, as Eve as done, I do not believe it would work today.
You replied to this quote from me:
"Why is it assumed that in order for a game to exist, it has to appeal to millions upon millions of people?"
That started this discussion. Re-read it if you like to get your bearings. You're making vague nebulous claims that are impossible to nail down. The point I was making in the above quote is in response to so many people claiming that a sandbox pvp game will never be a big AAA game. I'm saying, who cares if it's not a huge game?
and I responded.
I'll respond again, very few people have ever stated it needs millions of players. However the more features a game has, the bigger audience it needs. I doubt a games ability to be successfull today without all the bells and whistles people have come to expect. If eve released today as it did in 2003 I doubt it's ability to survive.
"sandbox pvp game will never be a big AAA game. I'm saying, who cares if it's not a huge game" These two statements are not discussing the same point.
A lot of people have made the point that the type of game the hardcore players want wouldn't be a huge success. Maybe only a few have used the term AAA or mentioned the word "millions" but the point is the same. I'm simply saying: who cares if the game is huge?
Also, as a response to your point: games don't necessarily need additional content or large amounts of features. That's the point of a sandbox: you give the players the tools and they create the "content." You say eve is an exception and I say that exception happened organically. They didn't have to start out a big expensive game, it just grew into it naturally because it could afford it, because people played it.
Standards have changed and technology has changed. It's unreasonable to think that a new sandbox game would have the same deficiencies as eve when it first started out. But I think the bigger problem is that people's standards have changed. They're used to high polish that shitty themepark games have because that's how they made their money. Their whole purpose was to make it easy for people to dive in. It artificially inflated people's expectations of things like UI and intuitiveness in a game.
Comments
No the purpose of this thread is to say to people who want PVP, stick to games you might dislike simply because they offer PVP. Don't ask for more of them, that you might actually like based on features, lore, etc...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Again, you assume that compromise is good in and of itself. What is wrong with wanting a game that would be perfect for me and people like me? PvE people can have a game that is perfect for them and people like them.
You keep using this word "force", why? Because the only way to make your point is to conjure up an inaccurate image of the type of game I'm proposing? Or an inaccurate image of me, like you've done before? Here's a crazy thought: every game ever has forced people to play a certain way. When I play sc2, I'm forced to play a top down rts game. What if I wanted to play sc2 like an fps? How can they be so thoughtless as to deny compromise? Just give me the ability to control a hydralisk in first person mode. COMPROMISEEEEE!
And there you go again, assuming stuff about me. You do your side (whatever side it is by the way... the side of just insulting people I guess?) such a disservice. I don't want to attack everybody, in fact I very rarely go out and attack anybody even in DF. The only time I do is when it's people of unfriendly clans. In UO I never did except for PKs or people I personally knew to be dickheads (noto pk's, griefers, etc). And I do want consequences for the people that do those things, but I DON'T want arbitrary restrictions because the developer can't think of a good way to do it. Show me where I've ever claimed otherwise. You won't, because I haven't. Won't stop you from saying these things about me. And now you bring up my age... you're just great.
Also, I never said I wanted a AAA mmo. In fact, I actively don't want one. They're prone to massive implosions. And just like in other genres (music, tv, movies) the big high budget ones are often a watered down disappointment.
Really? Your counter to the mansion argument is that in the real world nobody can kill me when I'm buying it? I'm not the one building it. People don't often die when building houses in real life, but acts of God like tornadoes and hurricanes ruin people's houses all of the time. Also you can have risk-free house placement in games.
I never said you can't have NPC guards in an MMO. In fact I've said a few times that you can, and for the reasons you've mentioned. If it were feasible to have people on at all times to protect cities, then I'd prefer that. But it's not, so that's where the developers have to prop up the simulation.
Eve has expansions because people wanted them and paid for them. I'm not sure how this helps your argument that sandbox games with pvp can't afford to exist.
Yes that is the argument. People cannot do that to you without significant consequences to them.
An act of god is uncontrollable, there is no point in even discussing that. It`s a red herring.
Great you can have house free placement, good thing that isn`t all I talked about. Building, crafting, exploring...
I never said you couldn`t have npc guards either, in fact I stated earlier that that is a step in the right direction. If they have npc policeman that will go out and hunt them, all the better.
Forget it dude, he's not even listening, he's got a notion stuck in his head that everyone that wants a open world pvp game is either insane or highly suspect and I am beginning to suspect his motives for "compromises" which are anything but ( a compromise between PVEers and PVPers would be how to make open world PVP fun for both which guess what, is possible).
I didn`t say anything about that Eve not having or having expansions or people paying for them. You have a strange tendancy to argue something that wasn`t said.
I also didn`t state, ever, at all, not one single time, that sandbox games with pvp could not exist, that is a rediculous argument.
I stated Eve was crap when it released, and it took many years and many changes to reach a point it was profitable. I stated that if a game were to release like that today without the features that make it more safe for people, as Eve as done, I do not believe it would work today.
If your talking to me I`m not sure why would say that. That is not what I believe at all, nor have I stated or insinuated anything like that ever. I also never even mentioned the word compromises, however for a game to be successfull I do think there do need to be some compromises, even basic ones like eve has done with high-sec space.
Who ever said I want open FFA PVP? I prefer a controlled PVP environment over an FFA one even in a sandbox (SWG). Yet there have been far too many posts in this thread, basically saying there are enough PVP focused sandboxes on the market. That's the greatest nonsense in this thread. There are a couple options for that and each offers a distinct niche experience. IF you don't like the space theme EVE is not an option. IF you want turn-based combat Darkfall and MO are out of the picture. WHat does that leave? That's just two preferences and they rule out the main options for that game-play.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it??
The simulation ends at the city gates for 2 reasons:
It's reasonable to have player run guilds or just individual people who hunt down pks. You don't need npc detectives when you can have player run bounty systems and notoriety systems to let the players do these things.
There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.
I think Wushu should be required play before a person can form an opinion on FFA worlds, with no safe zones.
A civil FFA world? How can this be? This is where should it be required to DL age of wushu. You don't have to sub or play long term, but 1 week should be required.
`"Dear lord this is getting silly. I explained that the systems in sandbox games are just simulations of the steps that humans have taken to protect people. I said a system that relies on people to form their own in-game government etc is too complex so they put rules in to SIMULATE the rules we have in the real world.
Then you for some reason said that wouldn't work because people won't be online all the time and the in-game cops won't take their jobs seriously or whatever. But I never said the in-game cops have to be humans. That's the whole point! Where the system becomes too complex for it to exist in a game is where the developers should prop it up: npc guards, etc. Get it?"
Yes I agree it is getting silly.
The simulations are poor simulations.
Players running bounty systems IMO is not very effective because it requires the co-operation of someone else that may decide they don`t want to. `Yes I get which is why I think npc policeman would work better than people. I don't agree that it should end at the city gate, I do believe it should extend into the world.
"There SHOULD be danger, criminals, vigilantes to make the game more fun. If the goal were to just live a successful and peaceful life (like it is in the real world), then yes the developers should snap their fingers and give everybody invulnerability and infinite resources. But we don't want that. We want a challenge and we want depth to our games.":
That is the game you are looking for. That is not the sandbox game a pve sandbox fan is looking for, which is what the thread was about, a sandbox pve game.
You replied to this quote from me:
"Why is it assumed that in order for a game to exist, it has to appeal to millions upon millions of people?"
That started this discussion. Re-read it if you like to get your bearings. You're making vague nebulous claims that are impossible to nail down. The point I was making in the above quote is in response to so many people claiming that a sandbox pvp game will never be a big AAA game. I'm saying, who cares if it's not a huge game?
I admit, I'm not a PvPer heavyweight who plays these games to gank...though I do find myself liking the occasional PvP scrum every now and then.
But just because I don't gank, that doesn't mean that ganking isn't fun for someone. Who am I to say they can't have the kind of game they want?
I don't know of one gamer here who hasn't been told, at one time or another, that they have no right to have the kind of MMO they want. That your roleplay is an irrelevant playstyle, or that your crafting needs to take a backseat to the needs of the loot crowd. Or that your raids ought to take a backseat to soloers.
If you think about it, nobody, NOBODY in this genre--who truly loves this genre--is getting the game they truly want.
Instead, we have to settle for something sub standard and unsatisfying in the long run, because in the attempt to not displease anyone, the games we have don't really please anyone, at least not for very long.
Yes, I hate getting ganked. Ganking is not my idea of a good time. But I would be willing to subject myself to the ganker's ganks from time to time if I had the sorts of things I want: an environment that respects and promotes roleplay. A game where crafters are central to the economy. A game with options. A game where someone doesn't have to stick a headset in their ear and join xXDEATHDEALERXx and his überclan in order to be somebody important. A game where creativity and meaning is indulged and rewarded. If I had those things, I wouldn't mind getting ganked from time to time. I'd be too busy having fun to care.
For too long, MMOers, we've stomped down our foot and said, "I don't like x, so I shouldn't have to have x in any game I am going to play." And we can go up and down the list of features we just don't have anymore because of this attitude, from crafting, to roleplay, to PvP, to raids and so on.
Because if you think about it, every argument that has been made against the gankers can be made--and has been made--to show why the thing you like ought not to be a feature. Instead of figuring out why we don't like FFA PvP, why don't we figure out the things we do like, but aren't getting, that would make us want to join a FFA PvP game?
/endRant
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
They have some good ideas.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Geez someone in a bad mood? It is (except to about 8 people on this site), but that's beside the point of my post.
My post is about what a FFA no safe zone world should look and play like. FFA does not mean anarchy and ganking. A civil world can be created with soft rules through risk, reward, and punishment. This is why it should be required play for those who have been given a bad impression by poorly designed FFA games.
UO had many guilds that were dedicated to exactly that. In fact, until recently I was running one of the biggest guilds on a new UO server and I can tell you that you're very mistaken about the effectiveness of a player run system like this. You'd run into a group of reds in a dungeon, mention it to faction members in IRC and they would be at the dungeon in a few seconds. This wasn't an unusual occurrence.
That's fine that you think it should extend into the world, but do you see the point I'm making about freedom? In the real world, people are free to kill/grief/whatever, and we're free to fight back and create governments and laws. That's what freedom is. Freedom isn't an invisible force field saying nobody can touch me. Sandbox players want as much player control AS POSSIBLE. Obviously there are technical limitations and logisitical limitations.
The thread is about the difference between the two. Don't try and act like this thread is merely to discuss pve games.
and I responded.
I'll respond again, very few people have ever stated it needs millions of players. However the more features a game has, the bigger audience it needs. I doubt a games ability to be successfull today without all the bells and whistles people have come to expect. If eve released today as it did in 2003 I doubt it's ability to survive.
"sandbox pvp game will never be a big AAA game. I'm saying, who cares if it's not a huge game" These two statements are not discussing the same point.
ftfy
Yeah, you need to DL Wushu, play it for a week then come back and post. You don't have to like it, just hang around for a week and see what a Civil FFA world with no safe zones, and next to no npc guards. Seems crazy I know.
And many consider UO pre trammel to be a horrible gankfest, therefore in their minds the anti-pk guilds were ineffective. In the real world we agree to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to have longer, more successfull and more enjoyable lives. In a game players policing themselves (so far) imo have not worked very well.
This thread is about making a sandbox pve game, the op belives there are enough sandbox pve, but few sandbox pve. People have hijacked it to discuss their particular agenda.
You reality equals your truth. You still can be and in this case are wrong.
"Yeah, you need to DL Wushu, play it for a week then come back and post. You don't have to like it, just hang around for a week and see what a Civil FFA world with no safe zones, and next to no npc guards. Seems crazy I know."
repost reply to the person above who feels like you.
A lot of people have made the point that the type of game the hardcore players want wouldn't be a huge success. Maybe only a few have used the term AAA or mentioned the word "millions" but the point is the same. I'm simply saying: who cares if the game is huge?
Also, as a response to your point: games don't necessarily need additional content or large amounts of features. That's the point of a sandbox: you give the players the tools and they create the "content." You say eve is an exception and I say that exception happened organically. They didn't have to start out a big expensive game, it just grew into it naturally because it could afford it, because people played it.
Standards have changed and technology has changed. It's unreasonable to think that a new sandbox game would have the same deficiencies as eve when it first started out. But I think the bigger problem is that people's standards have changed. They're used to high polish that shitty themepark games have because that's how they made their money. Their whole purpose was to make it easy for people to dive in. It artificially inflated people's expectations of things like UI and intuitiveness in a game.