Lets say that if PVP in this Sandbox doesnt deliver or aint present at all that its going to flop harder then Archeage in Korea.
PvP in a sandbox is mandatory for not only contend but for economy. Without good pvp this game is not even worth playing.
And it will be sandbox mmo # 190382103 that isnt worth mentioning.
Couldn't you possibly make a game very similar to minecraft where you build a character to help create establishments to defend off monsters? It may not have the potential that a pvp sandbox has but is pvp 100% mandatory?
It is impossible to say for sure.
If, hypothetically, a PVE sandbox game did come out and wasn't very good and wasn't very well received -- there would be people clamoring to push their agenda and make sure we all -know- the reason it failed was lack of PvP.
This is no different than the garbage pvp sandbox MMOs that get released and those with an agenda assure us the full loot open pvp is to blame (cleverly ignoring the game is pretty much utter garbage by every other standard).
either way, I personally think a game could work as a PVE or PVP based sandbox game. I have no good evidence though and i am absolutely sure the answer to either game isn't some short answer someone is going to write up in a post here on this forum any day soon.
edit: i particularly like your minecraft analogy.
edit #2: to address this thread directly, your stance and title OP seem ridiculous to me. We absolutely need more sandbox games with PVP that aren't total crap, and we absolutely need more PVE focused sandbox games. We need good developers making good games for you AND me and we shouldn't be fighting each other about who has better tastes.
As I said earlier in the thread I only really see PVE MMOs working if VR becomes advanced enough to provide actual player interfacing with the game... otherwise you're just talking themepark with a little sand in a box too small for everyone's castle (and no way to knock down anyone else's castle). With a VR component that advanced people would actually ( assuming an more advanced form of action combat) get good fights from the local fauna and the skill required to play the game would quite literally be the player's skill with the in-game weapons he/she choose to use. With an extra organic layer of player-based territory expansion (something Firefall was touting at one point but donno if they ever really got around to putting it in-game) with the possibility of uncovering new types of weapons or new styles of combat (without these being in any way better than each other, they would just fit some player's reaction times and style of play better than others) and of course new challenges. Also crafting and other such professions would be allot more hands on (if you pardon the pun).
That is the only, only way a sandbox PVE game would be worth creating for both the developer and the gamers and would live to see its initial investment returned in amounts similar to, if not exceeding, World of Warcraft.
Until such a day in which VR technology reaches that final threshold (we are about 5-10 years away from it at worse by the way) PVE sandboxes are shit compared to their PVP enabled brethren because you need sand for your castle and a sandbox mmo has a limited amount, without PVP and without a really good hook for players the game will die before any more sand is added.
The diffrence between minecraft and a tripple A mmo is production costs and investors. Where Minecraft is low budget development and not as complicated to maintain as a sandbox or themepark mmo, it has to deliver contend on fast pace before players get bored.
Yes its hard to tell if a sandbox mmo can do good without pvp, but you turn away so many people that would have at least tried it that you already lost a big chunk of money. There are only a few studio's able to support their own mmo's without investors Sqaure Enix / Blizzard a few years back (activision says hi) and CCP. They have zero presure to pay back investors or shareholders etc etc.
In todays market $$$ makes or break mmo's. Without pvp the number of people willing to pay for your product is realy stagering so they cant live without it. PvP is mandatory for a mmo's survivial wether you or me like it or not.
This accounts if you have a high budget mmo, not a low budget mmo offcourse.
well, I wouldn't necessarily say that pvp is necessarily mandatory for an MMO's survival, but I would definitely agree that it does increase the total potential players. My case in point being FFXI where the pvp was almost entirely an absolute joke and evidently as of 2009, they've hit a record of 2M subscribers, which isn't exactly something to sneeze at.
While they realistically would have gotten a larger player base had they also focused on PvP, the point is that a PvE centric MMORPG can prosper, albeit not to their fullest potential. As for whether or not a PvP only MMORPG can prosper, that I don't know
As for whether or not a PvP only MMORPG can prosper, that I don't know
I bet it could.
But like you said before, you lose so many players why bother.
I'm a fan of full loot fantasy open PVP sandbox games. I won't touch Darkfall though because i've been told theres no good PVE game to it. Then theres the fact that I almost always play games with the same guild and we have quite a few PVE only people (who still play on PVP servers with us).
They just lose so much not having a solid PVE game. Its a shame too because with all the trouble it takes to make an MMO why not at least try to put something there for us people who like to PVE.
As for whether or not a PvP only MMORPG can prosper, that I don't know
I bet it could.
But like you said before, you lose so many players why bother.
I'm a fan of full loot fantasy open PVP sandbox games. I won't touch Darkfall though because i've been told theres no good PVE game to it. Then theres the fact that I almost always play games with the same guild and we have quite a few PVE only people (who still play on PVP servers with us).
They just lose so much not having a solid PVE game. Its a shame too because with all the trouble it takes to make an MMO why not at least try to put something there for us people who like to PVE.
agreed. I'm more of a fan of PvE, but I've had many friends turn down games because the PvP was either grossly underdeveloped or non-existent. I realistically can't legitimize zero PvP in an MMORPG, because that is such a strong factor to a game with (typically) extremely loyal fans to it. I would love to see a sandbox MMO where PvE is viable/existent and PvP is viable/existent. If both things are balanced to be fair, I think it would be an absolutely ground breaking game.
So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
The consensus among a small part of those who played it, actually. They believe that so hard because they wish their "play style" is something many people enjoy.
Raph Koster himself, who was in charge back then, said that they had to do something to stop the player base from bleeding away because of the continual ganking. So they added Trammel, and it SAVED the game. UO would be long dead without Trammel. I don't make up numbers, I repeat what the lead designer of the game said back then. I was there, can't cheat me.
Another example... Darktide, the FFA PvP server of Asheron's Call, never passed more than 8% of the total player base during the prime years of that game.
PvP servers are fun for a niche, PvE servers (with optional PvP) make games earn money. And both can perfectly coexist in good games, as it has been proved many times in the past.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
You need more PvP games like EVE or DF?
Wait why aren't you playing DF or EVE then? Why do you need a third one?
Lets see, you recently got TERA, SWTOR, GW2, TSW and probably more.
And what did we get?? What PvP game did we get, that is like EVE or DF:UW????
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
I never played UO. I don't know what the Trammel patch did. Was Trammel's only change PvP/PvE?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Adalwulff Funny, I was just reading that thread.We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
You need more PvP games like EVE or DF?Wait why aren't you playing DF or EVE then? Why do you need a third one?
Lets see, you recently got TERA, SWTOR, GW2, TSW and probably more.And what did we get?? What PvP game did we get, that is like EVE or DF:UW????
First, none of the 4 games you mentioned are "sandbox" MMOs. Please do not mix MMO types to suit your needs.
Second, why do you not play, or are not happy with EVE or DF:UO, *your* 2 MMOs held up as standards. ("they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.")
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
I never played UO. I don't know what the Trammel patch did. Was Trammel's only change PvP/PvE?
Trammel added a mirror version of the world (exact copy) that is without forced PvP. Felucca, the old FFA PvP world, still existed too.
So what was the outcome of this change? Did one server flourish while the other struggled? Did they both succeed equally? Did they both struggle equally?
What is the point of this "Trammel killed UO" comment? Did it kill the PvP server?
I know you did not make the comment and I do appreciate your help in my understanding
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
To me sandbox games are wurm and not in any way would i consider EQ a sandbox game . WURM has pve server and it is great fun but terrible graphics,combat and lots of very bad bugs. EQ is a skill based mmo that was the first theampark mmo that was really successful . Then SWG was originally a sandbox until they made it more WOW like. Since then i haven't played any mmo sandbox except EVE which was fun but was also a terrible gank fest if you went into open territory with players camping jump gates ect.
There is lots of PVP sandbox games out there atm that are all gank fests and that why i wont play them.
So maybe the title should we need more pvp focused sandbox games that ain't gank fests.
To me sandbox games are wurm and not in any way would i consider EQ a sandbox game . WURM has pve server and it is great fun but terrible graphics,combat and lots of very bad bugs. EQ is a skill based mmo that was the first theampark mmo that was really successful . Then SWG was originally a sandbox until they made it more WOW like. Since then i haven't played any mmo sandbox except EVE which was fun but was also a terrible gank fest if you went into open territory with players camping jump gates ect.
There is lots of PVP sandbox games out there atm that are all gank fests and that why i wont play them.
So maybe the title should we need more pvp focused sandbox games that ain't gank fests.
That's half true in terms of EVE. Generally speaking you either go with a travel fit if going into low sec (2-3 stabs + non-inertial agility enhancers) or use a cloaky ship in 0.0 (where they can bubble the gates, having a covert ops frigate or a covert ops cruiser makes 0.0 as accessible as anywhere else and might I point out that CVA space is a NRDS area of open space? as long as you don't pirate other people you can go about your business in that patch of space with some player-provided protection from gankers and if you do get ganked in CVA space you report it and if the guy's still around, IE stupid, he'll get hunted down).
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
I never played UO. I don't know what the Trammel patch did. Was Trammel's only change PvP/PvE?
Trammel added a mirror version of the world (exact copy) that is without forced PvP. Felucca, the old FFA PvP world, still existed too.
So what was the outcome of this change? Did one server flourish while the other struggled? Did they both succeed equally? Did they both struggle equally?
What is the point of this "Trammel killed UO" comment? Did it kill the PvP server?
I know you did not make the comment and I do appreciate your help in my understanding
Many people choose to play on Trammel most of the times, which should ring a bell for those who claim FFA PvP is "popular". And many people who didn't like being ganked while crafting or simply standing at the bank did come back to the game, along with new people, restoring the lost population and ending more than doubling the previous highest population.
TLDR: Trammel stopped the population drop, restored and then doubled the player base of the game.
There was no population drop before Trammel. The UO population drop was after Trammel.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, Age of Wushu etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
I think that maybe we do but in that case the game have to be very different from earlier games. One Darkfall (or whatever game) is enough, but PvP really have countless possibilities.
Almost all genres have more PvP players than PvE nowadays but not MMOs, and I have a feeling that it is because MMOs mechanics just ain't good enough.
Real humans are more challenging than bots, that is a fact. So the question is why most MMO players don't think so (and frankly do I myself have more fun in PvE for most of the time myself).
We (or the devs) need to figure out how to make PvP more fun, and not just for a few players but or everyone. I think levels and the gap in power between players is part of the problem but far from everything.
For an instance I think Neverwinter nights home made dungeons have a huge PvP potential, let guilds run them with player controlled monsters and we would have a lot more challenging dungeons. Of course doing a good job taking down adventurers should give rewards to the guild in question and I would prefer if the guild weren't operating on the same server, maybe even not on the same region to stop cheating but there is huge potential in it even if no MMO seems to have thought about it.
There are many untried but interesting PvP options, but sadly is MMO more about copying other peoples ideas than to make a fun and different game.
It is true that PvE based MMOs outnumber PvP focused games but you don't ask why. And there we might have one of the most interesting questions about MMOs.
Originally posted by MargulisThere's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
not sure if t******* or r******... Market is literally flooded with PvE games. There is not a single high quality sandbox pvp based game out there, bar EvE who has rather unique setting (space and ships).
If anything it's about time we f*cking get one.
There are zero PvE based sandbox MMORPG out there, and more people are interested in PvE. Seems like the odds are more in favor of a PvE sandbox with PvP elements rather than the other way around.
Well.. there are PvE based sandbox MMORPGs out there.. but it is basicly the same with PvP sandbox mmorpgs.. not a lot of quality.
All of them do not have any pvp. And i don't know enough about Wakfu.. but do they have a lot pvp, or pvp at all?
Truth is.. of all sandbox games only EvE survived and is successful. I don't know how much Age of Wushu really is a sandbox or how successful it really will be in the west. That remain to be seen.
And.. just wait until August, and you maybe will get the first AAA PvE sandbox game.. EQN.
Originally posted by kuey Increase the difficulty and reduce the predictability in PvE engagements and you might see a resurgence of the PvE genre. The monotony of PvE at the moment is half the reason the PvP fanbase is steadily growing.
I must agree here if a sandbox PvE game is alot more challenging and focus on dangerous world you must survive i think many would have thare hands full on PvE and don't need the PvP excitement.
Now most PvE encounters have no risk are easy and very controlled safe eviroments. Maybe some have challenging encouters(bossfights) but never realy in danger.
Make a open world that provide alot challenge in dynamic world where you also need to survive all the dangerous beast and humanoids you can encouter on your travels also provide a real feel of survial adveture when you explore this world.
Stop SPOON FED this todays generation give them instead a harsh PvE world that can make them FEEL GOOD again:)
You guys can have silent rages all day long but it won't change the fact that your so called PvE sandboxes in reality are nothing but themeparks with loads of fluff which makes your mind happy inside all the available choices. However when it comes to social interaction you want easy routes, like avoiding confrontations at a press of a button. That alone is themepark trait. You cba with something so you want devs to give you instant gratification. It's quite ironic when on the other hand all you do is hate on themeparks which actually evolved into what they are exactly because of what you guys are.
Going this route, I swear some day internet will become sinonim for irony.
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
We need a fantasy based EVE online, where both PvE'ers and PvP'ers can both find what they are looking for in the same world. Where they can even work together and where clans have a PvP and a PvE side. PvE is for supplies and economic strength while the PvP'ers are there to guard and conquer the frontier.
If they can get a system like this where both can coexist then you will have the game most of us are looking for.
You guys can have silent rages all day long but it won't change the fact that your so called PvE sandboxes in reality are nothing but themeparks with loads of fluff which makes your mind happy inside all the available choices. However when it comes to social interaction you want easy routes, like avoiding confrontations at a press of a button. That alone is themepark trait. You cba with something so you want devs to give you instant gratification. It's quite ironic when on the other hand all you do is hate on themeparks which actually evolved into what they are exactly because of what you guys are.
Going this route, I swear some day internet will become sinonim for irony.
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
Do you have ANY sort of evidence that supports any of your blatant attacks on the community?
People like social interaction when it suits them, not when its forced upon them. Thats not some 'new age mamas boy lifestyle', thats just human nature. Even extroverts need a moment or two to get away from it all, coupled with introverts and people in between, and not everyone wants to be in a social interaction 24/7.
It's simple logic. When EVERYTHING requires a group, each additional person necessary multiplies the difficulty of said objective. Have you ever played a game where literally every single form of progression requires 5-30 OTHER people? It becomes extremely tiring just to get anything done. That doesn't mean people don't want to interact with each other, it means that a game that forces you to work with others becomes less game and more work. Allowing people to progress by themselves allows them to go at their own pace and pick and choose WHEN they want to interact with the MMO social environment.
First of all you can never please all that seems so obvious to me no doub about that.
Secondly with all the info you get upfront from games before release, do you still think you have the right you bloody complain about pvp or dificult encounters?
Bugs-exploits-cheats or extreme faults in the game(unbalanced or some impossible task) is something i understand you can complain about.
But but complain that people attack you in pvp is not one of them.
You guys can have silent rages all day long but it won't change the fact that your so called PvE sandboxes in reality are nothing but themeparks with loads of fluff which makes your mind happy inside all the available choices. However when it comes to social interaction you want easy routes, like avoiding confrontations at a press of a button. That alone is themepark trait. You cba with something so you want devs to give you instant gratification. It's quite ironic when on the other hand all you do is hate on themeparks which actually evolved into what they are exactly because of what you guys are.
Going this route, I swear some day internet will become sinonim for irony.
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
Do you have ANY sort of evidence that supports any of your blatant attacks on the community?
People like social interaction when it suits them, not when its forced upon them. Thats not some 'new age mamas boy lifestyle', thats just human nature. Even extroverts need a moment or two to get away from it all, coupled with introverts and people in between, and not everyone wants to be in a social interaction 24/7.
It's simple logic. When EVERYTHING requires a group, each additional person necessary multiplies the difficulty of said objective. Have you ever played a game where literally every single form of progression requires 5-30 OTHER people? It becomes extremely tiring just to get anything done. That doesn't mean people don't want to interact with each other, it means that a game that forces you to work with others becomes less game and more work. Allowing people to progress by themselves allows them to go at their own pace and pick and choose WHEN they want to interact with the MMO social environment.
Hmm.. in all honestly. Social interaction have to be forced some way or another. We do social interaction when it suits us, but just rather rarely.
Look at a game like GW2, there is no need for social interaction (except for dungeons) for whatever reason, and therefore the chat and any social interaction is really a rare breed in that game.
But if you force social interaction upon the player, like requirement of a group to do anything, or pvp, you will get a lot more social interaction. It is the nature of us humans, we always go the easiest route. And the easiest route is maybe not always the route with the most fun longterm.
We need a fantasy based EVE online, where both PvE'ers and PvP'ers can both find what they are looking for in the same world. Where they can even work together and where clans have a PvP and a PvE side. PvE is for supplies and economic strength while the PvP'ers are there to guard and conquer the frontier.
If they can get a system like this where both can coexist then you will have the game most of us are looking for.
Yeap, i agree wholeheartedy. EvE got that somwhat right. And EvE is not the once and for all solution.. i really think a lot could be improved. But the fundament is quite solid in EvE. It is a shame, that we don't got anything similar to EvE in a fantasy setting, or a setting with avatars at all.
You guys can have silent rages all day long but it won't change the fact that your so called PvE sandboxes in reality are nothing but themeparks with loads of fluff which makes your mind happy inside all the available choices. However when it comes to social interaction you want easy routes, like avoiding confrontations at a press of a button. That alone is themepark trait. You cba with something so you want devs to give you instant gratification. It's quite ironic when on the other hand all you do is hate on themeparks which actually evolved into what they are exactly because of what you guys are.
Going this route, I swear some day internet will become sinonim for irony.
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
Do you have ANY sort of evidence that supports any of your blatant attacks on the community?
People like social interaction when it suits them, not when its forced upon them. Thats not some 'new age mamas boy lifestyle', thats just human nature. Even extroverts need a moment or two to get away from it all, coupled with introverts and people in between, and not everyone wants to be in a social interaction 24/7.
It's simple logic. When EVERYTHING requires a group, each additional person necessary multiplies the difficulty of said objective. Have you ever played a game where literally every single form of progression requires 5-30 OTHER people? It becomes extremely tiring just to get anything done. That doesn't mean people don't want to interact with each other, it means that a game that forces you to work with others becomes less game and more work. Allowing people to progress by themselves allows them to go at their own pace and pick and choose WHEN they want to interact with the MMO social environment.
Hmm.. in all honestly. Social interaction have to be forced some way or another. We do social interaction when it suits us, but just rather rarely.
Look at a game like GW2, there is no need for social interaction (except for dungeons) for whatever reason, and therefore the chat and any social interaction is really a rare breed in that game.
But if you force social interaction upon the player, like requirement of a group to do anything, or pvp, you will get a lot more social interaction. It is the nature of us humans, we always go the easiest route. And the easiest route is maybe not always the route with the most fun longterm.
I don't disagree with you. There is a happy medium though. You allow everything to be single player mode and no one interacts as you have said. However if everything requires a group then people get frustrated easily. The best solution is to have certain things that require a group in order to accomplish, but other things that you can do alone that are still meaningful.
The way things are going and what i have been reading. This game will be either a huge dud or very successful. I don't see anything in between. After all this hype 'average' would be just as good as a huge failure.
But i feel good when i think that i will still have EQ2 to play.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
I don't disagree with you. There is a happy medium though. You allow everything to be single player mode and no one interacts as you have said. However if everything requires a group then people get frustrated easily. The best solution is to have certain things that require a group in order to accomplish, but other things that you can do alone that are still meaningful.
I agree. It is all a matter of balance. But as i already said.. we humans tend to go the easiest route. With that said, you have to balance the reward, too. For everything requiring social interaction, or more people you have to dish out a higher reward. And i don't talk about loot here. It is more about accomplishments. Alone you should be able to build a house, with a community you should be able to build a city.. and to be part of a city should be much more rewarding as to have a lonely house.
The same is true for pvp as soical interaction. If you face the difficulty and danger of pvp(even more as a pve player), you should be rewarded accordingly. EvE does a good job in that aspect, although the possibilities of solo players or smaller groups are there, but rather limited.
Comments
As I said earlier in the thread I only really see PVE MMOs working if VR becomes advanced enough to provide actual player interfacing with the game... otherwise you're just talking themepark with a little sand in a box too small for everyone's castle (and no way to knock down anyone else's castle). With a VR component that advanced people would actually ( assuming an more advanced form of action combat) get good fights from the local fauna and the skill required to play the game would quite literally be the player's skill with the in-game weapons he/she choose to use. With an extra organic layer of player-based territory expansion (something Firefall was touting at one point but donno if they ever really got around to putting it in-game) with the possibility of uncovering new types of weapons or new styles of combat (without these being in any way better than each other, they would just fit some player's reaction times and style of play better than others) and of course new challenges. Also crafting and other such professions would be allot more hands on (if you pardon the pun).
That is the only, only way a sandbox PVE game would be worth creating for both the developer and the gamers and would live to see its initial investment returned in amounts similar to, if not exceeding, World of Warcraft.
Until such a day in which VR technology reaches that final threshold (we are about 5-10 years away from it at worse by the way) PVE sandboxes are shit compared to their PVP enabled brethren because you need sand for your castle and a sandbox mmo has a limited amount, without PVP and without a really good hook for players the game will die before any more sand is added.
well, I wouldn't necessarily say that pvp is necessarily mandatory for an MMO's survival, but I would definitely agree that it does increase the total potential players. My case in point being FFXI where the pvp was almost entirely an absolute joke and evidently as of 2009, they've hit a record of 2M subscribers, which isn't exactly something to sneeze at.
While they realistically would have gotten a larger player base had they also focused on PvP, the point is that a PvE centric MMORPG can prosper, albeit not to their fullest potential. As for whether or not a PvP only MMORPG can prosper, that I don't know
I bet it could.
But like you said before, you lose so many players why bother.
I'm a fan of full loot fantasy open PVP sandbox games. I won't touch Darkfall though because i've been told theres no good PVE game to it. Then theres the fact that I almost always play games with the same guild and we have quite a few PVE only people (who still play on PVP servers with us).
They just lose so much not having a solid PVE game. Its a shame too because with all the trouble it takes to make an MMO why not at least try to put something there for us people who like to PVE.
agreed. I'm more of a fan of PvE, but I've had many friends turn down games because the PvP was either grossly underdeveloped or non-existent. I realistically can't legitimize zero PvP in an MMORPG, because that is such a strong factor to a game with (typically) extremely loyal fans to it. I would love to see a sandbox MMO where PvE is viable/existent and PvP is viable/existent. If both things are balanced to be fair, I think it would be an absolutely ground breaking game.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
Yes we do, we need a perfectly executed one. Take the sandbox part of EVE, seige and combat of DFUW and make it a game!!!!
I'm still very much looking forward to archeage even though it will be tab target hybrid combat and not aimed.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
Lets see, you recently got TERA, SWTOR, GW2, TSW and probably more.
And what did we get?? What PvP game did we get, that is like EVE or DF:UW????
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Second, why do you not play, or are not happy with EVE or DF:UO, *your* 2 MMOs held up as standards. ("they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.")
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
What is the point of this "Trammel killed UO" comment? Did it kill the PvP server?
I know you did not make the comment and I do appreciate your help in my understanding
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
To me sandbox games are wurm and not in any way would i consider EQ a sandbox game . WURM has pve server and it is great fun but terrible graphics,combat and lots of very bad bugs. EQ is a skill based mmo that was the first theampark mmo that was really successful . Then SWG was originally a sandbox until they made it more WOW like. Since then i haven't played any mmo sandbox except EVE which was fun but was also a terrible gank fest if you went into open territory with players camping jump gates ect.
There is lots of PVP sandbox games out there atm that are all gank fests and that why i wont play them.
So maybe the title should we need more pvp focused sandbox games that ain't gank fests.
That's half true in terms of EVE. Generally speaking you either go with a travel fit if going into low sec (2-3 stabs + non-inertial agility enhancers) or use a cloaky ship in 0.0 (where they can bubble the gates, having a covert ops frigate or a covert ops cruiser makes 0.0 as accessible as anywhere else and might I point out that CVA space is a NRDS area of open space? as long as you don't pirate other people you can go about your business in that patch of space with some player-provided protection from gankers and if you do get ganked in CVA space you report it and if the guy's still around, IE stupid, he'll get hunted down).
There was no population drop before Trammel. The UO population drop was after Trammel.
http://i.imgur.com/NmjiA.png
I think that maybe we do but in that case the game have to be very different from earlier games. One Darkfall (or whatever game) is enough, but PvP really have countless possibilities.
Almost all genres have more PvP players than PvE nowadays but not MMOs, and I have a feeling that it is because MMOs mechanics just ain't good enough.
Real humans are more challenging than bots, that is a fact. So the question is why most MMO players don't think so (and frankly do I myself have more fun in PvE for most of the time myself).
We (or the devs) need to figure out how to make PvP more fun, and not just for a few players but or everyone. I think levels and the gap in power between players is part of the problem but far from everything.
For an instance I think Neverwinter nights home made dungeons have a huge PvP potential, let guilds run them with player controlled monsters and we would have a lot more challenging dungeons. Of course doing a good job taking down adventurers should give rewards to the guild in question and I would prefer if the guild weren't operating on the same server, maybe even not on the same region to stop cheating but there is huge potential in it even if no MMO seems to have thought about it.
There are many untried but interesting PvP options, but sadly is MMO more about copying other peoples ideas than to make a fun and different game.
It is true that PvE based MMOs outnumber PvP focused games but you don't ask why. And there we might have one of the most interesting questions about MMOs.
Well.. there are PvE based sandbox MMORPGs out there.. but it is basicly the same with PvP sandbox mmorpgs.. not a lot of quality.
But.. there is Ryzom, Istaria and A Tale in the Desert (look for more details at this thread http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/349518/List-of-Sandbox-MMORPGs-Updated-December-18-2012.html )
All of them do not have any pvp. And i don't know enough about Wakfu.. but do they have a lot pvp, or pvp at all?
Truth is.. of all sandbox games only EvE survived and is successful. I don't know how much Age of Wushu really is a sandbox or how successful it really will be in the west. That remain to be seen.
And.. just wait until August, and you maybe will get the first AAA PvE sandbox game.. EQN.
I must agree here if a sandbox PvE game is alot more challenging and focus on dangerous world you must survive i think many would have thare hands full on PvE and don't need the PvP excitement.
Now most PvE encounters have no risk are easy and very controlled safe eviroments. Maybe some have challenging encouters(bossfights) but never realy in danger.
Make a open world that provide alot challenge in dynamic world where you also need to survive all the dangerous beast and humanoids you can encouter on your travels also provide a real feel of survial adveture when you explore this world.
Stop SPOON FED this todays generation give them instead a harsh PvE world that can make them FEEL GOOD again:)
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
We need a fantasy based EVE online, where both PvE'ers and PvP'ers can both find what they are looking for in the same world. Where they can even work together and where clans have a PvP and a PvE side. PvE is for supplies and economic strength while the PvP'ers are there to guard and conquer the frontier.
If they can get a system like this where both can coexist then you will have the game most of us are looking for.
Do you have ANY sort of evidence that supports any of your blatant attacks on the community?
People like social interaction when it suits them, not when its forced upon them. Thats not some 'new age mamas boy lifestyle', thats just human nature. Even extroverts need a moment or two to get away from it all, coupled with introverts and people in between, and not everyone wants to be in a social interaction 24/7.
It's simple logic. When EVERYTHING requires a group, each additional person necessary multiplies the difficulty of said objective. Have you ever played a game where literally every single form of progression requires 5-30 OTHER people? It becomes extremely tiring just to get anything done. That doesn't mean people don't want to interact with each other, it means that a game that forces you to work with others becomes less game and more work. Allowing people to progress by themselves allows them to go at their own pace and pick and choose WHEN they want to interact with the MMO social environment.
First of all you can never please all that seems so obvious to me no doub about that.
Secondly with all the info you get upfront from games before release, do you still think you have the right you bloody complain about pvp or dificult encounters?
Bugs-exploits-cheats or extreme faults in the game(unbalanced or some impossible task) is something i understand you can complain about.
But but complain that people attack you in pvp is not one of them.
Hmm.. in all honestly. Social interaction have to be forced some way or another. We do social interaction when it suits us, but just rather rarely.
Look at a game like GW2, there is no need for social interaction (except for dungeons) for whatever reason, and therefore the chat and any social interaction is really a rare breed in that game.
But if you force social interaction upon the player, like requirement of a group to do anything, or pvp, you will get a lot more social interaction. It is the nature of us humans, we always go the easiest route. And the easiest route is maybe not always the route with the most fun longterm.
Yeap, i agree wholeheartedy. EvE got that somwhat right. And EvE is not the once and for all solution.. i really think a lot could be improved. But the fundament is quite solid in EvE. It is a shame, that we don't got anything similar to EvE in a fantasy setting, or a setting with avatars at all.
I don't disagree with you. There is a happy medium though. You allow everything to be single player mode and no one interacts as you have said. However if everything requires a group then people get frustrated easily. The best solution is to have certain things that require a group in order to accomplish, but other things that you can do alone that are still meaningful.
The way things are going and what i have been reading. This game will be either a huge dud or very successful. I don't see anything in between. After all this hype 'average' would be just as good as a huge failure.
But i feel good when i think that i will still have EQ2 to play.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney
I agree. It is all a matter of balance. But as i already said.. we humans tend to go the easiest route. With that said, you have to balance the reward, too. For everything requiring social interaction, or more people you have to dish out a higher reward. And i don't talk about loot here. It is more about accomplishments. Alone you should be able to build a house, with a community you should be able to build a city.. and to be part of a city should be much more rewarding as to have a lonely house.
The same is true for pvp as soical interaction. If you face the difficulty and danger of pvp(even more as a pve player), you should be rewarded accordingly. EvE does a good job in that aspect, although the possibilities of solo players or smaller groups are there, but rather limited.