Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Sandbox is not/has never been a term used solely for PvP centric games. It is how the world interacts with the player, non-linear progression, with many options to choose in which to advance. SWG was considered sandbox yet wasn't only PvP.
You want a good PvP sandbox, great but the sandbox mmo does belong to only PvP or PvE, it is what the devs want their world to be.
Now it needs a similar sandbox MMO NOT aimed for kids. And if you think the demand is not high enough you will have to explain two facts... why are PvE centrics MMOs hugely more successful than the forced PvP ones, and why is Ultima Online, the oldest "mainstream" MMORPG, still running despite it's totally obsolete isometric graphics and age old technology.
.
Explaining the two facts:
1) pve centric MMO huge more successful than forced pvp ones ... irrelevant to the demand of sandbox MMO. None of those successes are sandbox MMOs (and Eve is really not that successful, compared to non-sandbox)
2) UO is still running ... so what? Runescape is still running. Even Kingdom of Drakkar is still running. Old games can run with 5000 people because it is cheap. Planning anything major devs because some old games are still running .. does not seem to be a money making strategy to me.
Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Sandbox is not/has never been a term used solely for PvP centric games. It is how the world interacts with the player, non-linear progression, with many options to choose in which to advance. SWG was considered sandbox yet wasn't only PvP.
You want a good PvP sandbox, great but the sandbox mmo does belong to only PvP or PvE, it is what the devs want their world to be.
Now it needs a similar sandbox MMO NOT aimed for kids. And if you think the demand is not high enough you will have to explain two facts... why are PvE centrics MMOs hugely more successful than the forced PvP ones, and why is Ultima Online, the oldest "mainstream" MMORPG, still running despite it's totally obsolete isometric graphics and age old technology.
.
Explaining the two facts:
1) pve centric MMO huge more successful than forced pvp ones ... irrelevant to the demand of sandbox MMO. None of those successes are sandbox MMOs (and Eve is really not that successful, compared to non-sandbox)
2) UO is still running ... so what? Runescape is still running. Even Kingdom of Drakkar is still running. Old games can run with 5000 people because it is cheap. Planning anything major devs because some old games are still running .. does not seem to be a money making strategy to me.
Thank you for your opinion, now kindly step out of the conversation as you've tipped your hand at not wanting a sandbox.
Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
That doesn't make any sense. It's just like arguing there's no need for quality seafood restaurants in a town just because there are already dozens of quality meat serving ones.
I'm sure no theme park player would mind if there were more PvP centric games if in return they also had access to quality more PvE centric sandbox games which aren't mindless gank fests.
What we need are fewer half-assed, under funded, bugged to hell, indie MMOs (that charge the same full price as "real" MMOs do or did) in general. That several of these games are supposedly "sandboxes" (and yet have little sand) and are PvP centric is not as relevant as is the lack of quality. We have all had enough "bad" games.
Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a proponent of sandbox PvP (I am assuming FFA PvP where anything goes) is asking for fairness in the market where a lot of real PvP happens?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a proponent of sandbox PvP (I am assuming FFA PvP where anything goes) is asking for fairness in the market where a lot of real PvP happens?
Isn't it ironic that the WoW generation is trying to get in good with the EVE and UO generations?
Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a proponent of sandbox PvP (I am assuming FFA PvP where anything goes) is asking for fairness in the market where a lot of real PvP happens?
Isn't it ironic that the WoW generation is trying to get in good with the EVE and UO generations?
Originally posted by Dihoru Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by jdlamson75Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a proponent of sandbox PvP (I am assuming FFA PvP where anything goes) is asking for fairness in the market where a lot of real PvP happens?Isn't it ironic that the WoW generation is trying to get in good with the EVE and UO generations?
Even more ironic that I'm part of the "WoW Generation". :-)
Unless I'm reading this wrong. Heh.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a proponent of sandbox PvP (I am assuming FFA PvP where anything goes) is asking for fairness in the market where a lot of real PvP happens?
Isn't it ironic that the WoW generation is trying to get in good with the EVE and UO generations?
Only if you learn English from a song.
I can speak perfect english, english with any number of accents and regional idioms and I can quite easily translate meanings between english and my own native tongue at the drop of a hat (to say nothing of being able to act as translator between two people speak different dialects of english). If you wish to act in an superior manner you would do well not to get into debates you do not have a firm grasp of the subject matter, something you seem keen on not doing.
Originally posted by jdlamson75 Every themepark out there is primarily based around PvE. Now the PvE crowd wants dibs on the sandboxes, too. Want, want, want. Go raid a dragon lair or something and stay out of my sandbox. Thank you.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a proponent of sandbox PvP (I am assuming FFA PvP where anything goes) is asking for fairness in the market where a lot of real PvP happens?
Isn't it ironic that the WoW generation is trying to get in good with the EVE and UO generations?
Only if you learn English from a song.
I can speak perfect english, english with any number of accents and regional idioms and I can quite easily translate meanings between english and my own native tongue at the drop of a hat (to say nothing of being able to act as translator between two people speak different dialects of english). If you wish to act in an superior manner you would do well not to get into debates you do not have a firm grasp of the subject matter, something you seem keen on not doing.
And yet you didn't get the reference or why it was posted. I'd say you handled that well but....I wouldn't want to add any real irony to this.
Calling all PvP gamers griefers is no better than calling all PvE gamers carebears.
I like to game. I enjoy MMO games. I hate force questing as much as I hate forced PvP. I just don't like being told what to do. See?
And Nether do we. If i see you farming mobs for 2 hours out in the middle of no where i dont want some mechanic telling me i cant cut your head off and steal your pixels..... So see how that kinda goes both ways?
Calling all PvP gamers griefers is no better than calling all PvE gamers carebears.
I like to game. I enjoy MMO games. I hate force questing as much as I hate forced PvP. I just don't like being told what to do. See?
And Nether do we. If i see you farming mobs for 2 hours out in the middle of no where i dont want some mechanic telling me i cant cut your head off and steal your pixels..... So see how that kinda goes both ways?
It does goes both ways, yet here we are 7 pages later still arguing the stances of who's right and wrong, which can't possibly be resolved.
I think these discussions should have some ground rules set about what exactly you're arguing for/against. Obviously everybody is entitled to their own opinion and if you prefer a certain type of game, you're not wrong. So no hardcore full loot pvp sandbox proponent can tell an alleged "carebear" that they're wrong for liking a certain type of game.
That being said, us devious hardcore pvping jerkbags aren't typically trying to tell you what you do or don't like, we're trying to make an objective argument for why sandbox games are -IN GENERAL- better games. The main points we try to make are as follows:
1. They're less restrictive.
Simply put, there are less "imaginary walls." Be that literal in the case of instanced dungeons and zones etc or metaphorical by way of restrictions on crafting or fighting. Some of the biggest and most notable examples are non-instanced player housing, large scale city building/sieging, and of course ffa pvp/some form of looting.
2. Better gameplay.
In general sandbox games are much less about addictive, non-satisfying grinds and more about the gameplay every step of the way. I do not want to grind my way through boring pve quests (or any kind of boring pve) just to have "end game content." In sandbox games you can often participate in the same things your higher level friends can participate in, you just won't be quite as useful.
3. More satisfying!
This, for me, largely goes back to the ffa pvp/full loot aspect. Nobody WANTS to die and lose all of their stuff. They just don't. What a lot of people want to do is NOT die and lose all their stuff. That only happens in a world where it's at least possible to die and lose your stuff. This is a concept called risk/reward. The less risky it is, the less rewarding it is to overcome that risky situation.
Calling all PvP gamers griefers is no better than calling all PvE gamers carebears.
I like to game. I enjoy MMO games. I hate force questing as much as I hate forced PvP. I just don't like being told what to do. See?
And Nether do we. If i see you farming mobs for 2 hours out in the middle of no where i dont want some mechanic telling me i cant cut your head off and steal your pixels..... So see how that kinda goes both ways?
It does goes both ways, yet here we are 7 pages later still arguing the stances of who's right and wrong, which can't possibly be resolved.
It never will be I just dont understand how people who dont want FFA PvP haven't found a game already. They arent happy with whats on the market so maybe just maybe they need a taste of something new, something thrilling and more challenging and i can almost promise fighting another player is much harder then any Mob spawn (And yelds better loots).
Calling all PvP gamers griefers is no better than calling all PvE gamers carebears.
I like to game. I enjoy MMO games. I hate force questing as much as I hate forced PvP. I just don't like being told what to do. See?
And Nether do we. If i see you farming mobs for 2 hours out in the middle of no where i dont want some mechanic telling me i cant cut your head off and steal your pixels..... So see how that kinda goes both ways?
It does goes both ways, yet here we are 7 pages later still arguing the stances of who's right and wrong, which can't possibly be resolved.
Sure it can. It's called a pvp server and a pve server. Have a free for all server for all I or any other pve player cares. As long as I'm not forced into it fill your boots over there.
The real reason they argue is because with the option to go to a pve server they wont be free kills on their pvp server and that ruins the fun for them. Which says something about the argument they're trying to make.
It never will be I just dont understand how people who dont want FFA PvP haven't found a game already. They arent happy with whats on the market so maybe just maybe they need a taste of something new, something thrilling and more challenging and i can almost promise fighting another player is much harder then any Mob spawn (And yelds better loots).
I believe BOTH sides (PvPers & PvErs) are both wanting something new and fun. The problem now is finding the perfect one for each. If one existed, then we wouldn't be here discussing which is needed more...we'd be playing it.
I like PvP yet I also like cooperative play in accomplishing something big. I'm not at either extremes of the spectrum.
For me, the perfect balance will be probably even harder to find than those of you that only want either or but well done all the same.
Calling all PvP gamers griefers is no better than calling all PvE gamers carebears.
I like to game. I enjoy MMO games. I hate force questing as much as I hate forced PvP. I just don't like being told what to do. See?
And Nether do we. If i see you farming mobs for 2 hours out in the middle of no where i dont want some mechanic telling me i cant cut your head off and steal your pixels..... So see how that kinda goes both ways?
It does goes both ways, yet here we are 7 pages later still arguing the stances of who's right and wrong, which can't possibly be resolved.
Sure it can. It's called a pvp server and a pve server. Have a free for all server for all I or any other pve player cares. As long as I'm not forced into it fill your boots over there.
The real reason they argue is because with the option to go to a pve server they wont be free kills on their pvp server and that ruins the fun for them. Which says something about the argument they're trying to make.
No, it doesn't say something (negative) about the argument we're trying to make. Yes, crafters are "easy kills" for PK's in ffa pvp games. It's a profession, just like crafting is. The funny thing is in UO, the "carebear" professions like the crafters and pve characters were always the money makers.
So yes, in a sandbox game there is an eco system or a food chain. That's because sandbox games are better and more organic, so systems like that can form.
The main issue is it should be one or the other WHY?? Company's have to either hire 2 teams 1 team to make PVE and another to make PVP or convert PVE devs to develop PVP from a PVE based game which is stupid. Just put all your resources into one or the other to create a great game.
MMO company's can't do both at the same time and make it work well with no major issues. It also is a massive waste of development time being you have devs doing both PVE and PVP content when if you put them all on one or the other their production is doubled at the least let alone have to hire all the managers and admin to coordinate each team.
By focusing on one or the other you can sink more money into PVE or PVP content or new ideas instead of wasting it on management etc.
The best thing to do it PIck one and go after it to make the best game you can with the best new ideas you can create.
No, it doesn't say something (negative) about the argument we're trying to make. Yes, crafters are "easy kills" for PK's in ffa pvp games. It's a profession, just like crafting is. The funny thing is in UO, the "carebear" professions like the crafters and pve characters were always the money makers.
So yes, in a sandbox game there is an eco system or a food chain. That's because sandbox games are better and more organic, so systems like that can form.
I've always found an ecosystem required live bodies in it to actually be anything more than a dead world. what happened in UO when they split the servers into pvp and pve again....I kind of forget.
Sure it can. It's called a pvp server and a pve server. Have a free for all server for all I or any other pve player cares. As long as I'm not forced into it fill your boots over there.
The real reason they argue is because with the option to go to a pve server they wont be free kills on their pvp server and that ruins the fun for them. Which says something about the argument they're trying to make.
No, it doesn't say something (negative) about the argument we're trying to make. Yes, crafters are "easy kills" for PK's in ffa pvp games. It's a profession, just like crafting is. The funny thing is in UO, the "carebear" professions like the crafters and pve characters were always the money makers.
So yes, in a sandbox game there is an eco system or a food chain. That's because sandbox games are better and more organic, so systems like that can form.
If you had the choice to choose a PvP or PvE server of the same game then those crafters on the PvP server know what they are getting into. I don't see how this absolves the argument that is going on, and on, and on. lol
No, it doesn't say something (negative) about the argument we're trying to make. Yes, crafters are "easy kills" for PK's in ffa pvp games. It's a profession, just like crafting is. The funny thing is in UO, the "carebear" professions like the crafters and pve characters were always the money makers.
So yes, in a sandbox game there is an eco system or a food chain. That's because sandbox games are better and more organic, so systems like that can form.
I've always found an ecosystem required live bodies in it to actually be anything more than a dead world. what happened in UO when they split the servers into pvp and pve again....I kind of forget.
Not only is this changing the topic, it also hurts your case. UO was quickly and steadily increasing in population until they introduced Trammel. Within a year or 2 of trammel being released, the population started falling and hasn't really stopped.
Thanks for bringing that point up because it's one I failed to mention in my post. Non-sandbox games often have huge bursts of activity in the beginning and then quickly die off. This is because people get addicted to the grind, but are ultimately disappointed with the actual game.
pvp players cannot think of pve other than WoW formula (redoing dungeons and raids over and over again) and they jump to the conclusion that it is deadly boring
pve players cannot think of pvp other than "hurr durr I will kill you while you are taking a shit in the middle of the woods and steal all your grind lewt" and they yell at everyone that does pvp to play a moba (dumb argument)
And sometimes , it is the other way around
Both are right and wrong
Balance is impossible with the current pattern of mmos (EvE gets pretty close tho, but that game is not for everyone)
"It has potential" -Second most used phrase on existence "It sucks" -Most used phrase on existence
Comments
Sandbox is not/has never been a term used solely for PvP centric games. It is how the world interacts with the player, non-linear progression, with many options to choose in which to advance. SWG was considered sandbox yet wasn't only PvP.
You want a good PvP sandbox, great but the sandbox mmo does belong to only PvP or PvE, it is what the devs want their world to be.
Explaining the two facts:
1) pve centric MMO huge more successful than forced pvp ones ... irrelevant to the demand of sandbox MMO. None of those successes are sandbox MMOs (and Eve is really not that successful, compared to non-sandbox)
2) UO is still running ... so what? Runescape is still running. Even Kingdom of Drakkar is still running. Old games can run with 5000 people because it is cheap. Planning anything major devs because some old games are still running .. does not seem to be a money making strategy to me.
Thank you. I've never played UO
Thank you for your opinion, now kindly step out of the conversation as you've tipped your hand at not wanting a sandbox.
Eww seafood. Yuck.
Does it strike anyone as odd that a proponent of sandbox PvP (I am assuming FFA PvP where anything goes) is asking for fairness in the market where a lot of real PvP happens?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Isn't it ironic that the WoW generation is trying to get in good with the EVE and UO generations?
Only if you learn English from a song.
Isn't it ironic that the WoW generation is trying to get in good with the EVE and UO generations?
Even more ironic that I'm part of the "WoW Generation". :-)
Unless I'm reading this wrong. Heh.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I can speak perfect english, english with any number of accents and regional idioms and I can quite easily translate meanings between english and my own native tongue at the drop of a hat (to say nothing of being able to act as translator between two people speak different dialects of english). If you wish to act in an superior manner you would do well not to get into debates you do not have a firm grasp of the subject matter, something you seem keen on not doing.
And yet you didn't get the reference or why it was posted. I'd say you handled that well but....I wouldn't want to add any real irony to this.
PvP is good.
FFA PvP is bad.
Calling all PvP gamers griefers is no better than calling all PvE gamers carebears.
I like to game. I enjoy MMO games. I hate force questing as much as I hate forced PvP. I just don't like being told what to do. See?
And Nether do we. If i see you farming mobs for 2 hours out in the middle of no where i dont want some mechanic telling me i cant cut your head off and steal your pixels..... So see how that kinda goes both ways?
It does goes both ways, yet here we are 7 pages later still arguing the stances of who's right and wrong, which can't possibly be resolved.
I think these discussions should have some ground rules set about what exactly you're arguing for/against. Obviously everybody is entitled to their own opinion and if you prefer a certain type of game, you're not wrong. So no hardcore full loot pvp sandbox proponent can tell an alleged "carebear" that they're wrong for liking a certain type of game.
That being said, us devious hardcore pvping jerkbags aren't typically trying to tell you what you do or don't like, we're trying to make an objective argument for why sandbox games are -IN GENERAL- better games. The main points we try to make are as follows:
1. They're less restrictive.
Simply put, there are less "imaginary walls." Be that literal in the case of instanced dungeons and zones etc or metaphorical by way of restrictions on crafting or fighting. Some of the biggest and most notable examples are non-instanced player housing, large scale city building/sieging, and of course ffa pvp/some form of looting.
2. Better gameplay.
In general sandbox games are much less about addictive, non-satisfying grinds and more about the gameplay every step of the way. I do not want to grind my way through boring pve quests (or any kind of boring pve) just to have "end game content." In sandbox games you can often participate in the same things your higher level friends can participate in, you just won't be quite as useful.
3. More satisfying!
This, for me, largely goes back to the ffa pvp/full loot aspect. Nobody WANTS to die and lose all of their stuff. They just don't. What a lot of people want to do is NOT die and lose all their stuff. That only happens in a world where it's at least possible to die and lose your stuff. This is a concept called risk/reward. The less risky it is, the less rewarding it is to overcome that risky situation.
It never will be I just dont understand how people who dont want FFA PvP haven't found a game already. They arent happy with whats on the market so maybe just maybe they need a taste of something new, something thrilling and more challenging and i can almost promise fighting another player is much harder then any Mob spawn (And yelds better loots).
Sure it can. It's called a pvp server and a pve server. Have a free for all server for all I or any other pve player cares. As long as I'm not forced into it fill your boots over there.
The real reason they argue is because with the option to go to a pve server they wont be free kills on their pvp server and that ruins the fun for them. Which says something about the argument they're trying to make.
I believe BOTH sides (PvPers & PvErs) are both wanting something new and fun. The problem now is finding the perfect one for each. If one existed, then we wouldn't be here discussing which is needed more...we'd be playing it.
I like PvP yet I also like cooperative play in accomplishing something big. I'm not at either extremes of the spectrum.
For me, the perfect balance will be probably even harder to find than those of you that only want either or but well done all the same.
No, it doesn't say something (negative) about the argument we're trying to make. Yes, crafters are "easy kills" for PK's in ffa pvp games. It's a profession, just like crafting is. The funny thing is in UO, the "carebear" professions like the crafters and pve characters were always the money makers.
So yes, in a sandbox game there is an eco system or a food chain. That's because sandbox games are better and more organic, so systems like that can form.
The main issue is it should be one or the other WHY?? Company's have to either hire 2 teams 1 team to make PVE and another to make PVP or convert PVE devs to develop PVP from a PVE based game which is stupid. Just put all your resources into one or the other to create a great game.
MMO company's can't do both at the same time and make it work well with no major issues. It also is a massive waste of development time being you have devs doing both PVE and PVP content when if you put them all on one or the other their production is doubled at the least let alone have to hire all the managers and admin to coordinate each team.
By focusing on one or the other you can sink more money into PVE or PVP content or new ideas instead of wasting it on management etc.
The best thing to do it PIck one and go after it to make the best game you can with the best new ideas you can create.
I've always found an ecosystem required live bodies in it to actually be anything more than a dead world. what happened in UO when they split the servers into pvp and pve again....I kind of forget.
If you had the choice to choose a PvP or PvE server of the same game then those crafters on the PvP server know what they are getting into. I don't see how this absolves the argument that is going on, and on, and on. lol
Not only is this changing the topic, it also hurts your case. UO was quickly and steadily increasing in population until they introduced Trammel. Within a year or 2 of trammel being released, the population started falling and hasn't really stopped.
Thanks for bringing that point up because it's one I failed to mention in my post. Non-sandbox games often have huge bursts of activity in the beginning and then quickly die off. This is because people get addicted to the grind, but are ultimately disappointed with the actual game.
The problem is
pvp players cannot think of pve other than WoW formula (redoing dungeons and raids over and over again) and they jump to the conclusion that it is deadly boring
pve players cannot think of pvp other than "hurr durr I will kill you while you are taking a shit in the middle of the woods and steal all your grind lewt" and they yell at everyone that does pvp to play a moba (dumb argument)
And sometimes , it is the other way around
Both are right and wrong
Balance is impossible with the current pattern of mmos (EvE gets pretty close tho, but that game is not for everyone)
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence