Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The biggest current fallacy in MMOs - Sandboxes must be PvP oriented
Margulis
Member CommonPosts: 1,614
There has been more and more discussion about sandboxes lately and it seems to be the mmo buzzword. There are a lot of different opinions on what a sandbox is, what defines it, and what a game must contain in order to qualify to be sandbox, that's for sure. But I've seen one trending belief system over and over that I believe to be completely false - the idea that a sandbox MUST contain PvP (free for all PvP usually) in order to be a sandbox.
First of all, my point here is NOT whether a sandbox should or shouldn't contain PvP - it's that it is not a MUST in order to have a worthwhile sandbox to play. Personally I enjoy pvping from time to time and like the option, but I'm seeing consistent talk from a lot of pvpers that there is no point to a sandbox without a heavy pvp focus. To me, that is an extremely narrow minded and arrogant approach, to believe that if a game does not have your game play style it could not even qualify as a worthwhile game to play or even qualify to be a certain type of game (sandbox).
Let's take an analogy here and look at a sandbox like a supermarket. Both have a lot of things that make up the bigger whole and there is no exact definition. In a sandbox some features that could make it up would be things like a large non-instanced world, ability to be whatever class or play style you want without being pidgeon-holed, heavy crafting focus perhaps, fun side things to do like entertainment classes, farming, building houses, no restrictions so you can go where you want when you want, not a quest-hub style questing system, sailing, fishing, open world FFA pvp could be a part of this also and is in most sandboxes, among many other things. But what about the supermarket? Of course you would expect things like bread, eggs, chips, etc. Lots of foods. But here is the thing - if that supermarket does not sell one component - bread - would you no longer call it a supermarket? Of course you still would, you would just say that supermarket doesn't carry bread. If an MMO has all the typical features of a sandbox, but does not have open world ffa pvp, or even pvp at all - is it still a sandbox? Yes, of course it is! That one component does not DEFINE a sandbox!
Let's take a look now at some of the arguments that have come up regarding sandboxes and pvp:
"There is no point to a sandbox if it isn't pvp focused, you may as well be playing a single player game like Skyrim"
- Again, completely narrow minded and arrogant point of view. Taking one component out of a sandbox does not negate all of the rest of the components that make it enjoyable for people to play. Not everyone has a desire to kill each other and a very large part of the community likes working together to form an economy, take on world challenges, build, or just be social together. There is ZERO NECESSITY for pvp to be one of the main focuses of a sandbox world for it to a desirable place to play. And for many, it wouldn't have to be in the game at all for it to be desirable to play, although I think many like myself would like an option.
"All PvE sandbox games have failed which goes to show there is no point in making one"
- It seems SWG is pointed to a lot with this point, but is it true? Was SWG not ridiculously successful until the NGE completely changed the face of that game and people left in droves? And what other PvE sandboxes do we have to compare to? Sure there have been a few sandparks like Vanguard and Fallen Earth, but how many real PvE focused sandboxes have we had over the last 10 years minus SWG? Mabinogi and Free Realms could TECHNICALLY qualify, but do they really? Both definitely don't fit the high fantasy bill that many mmo players enjoy like Darkfall, Mortal, or even EVE and Age of Wushu. Personally I think if anything SWG showed a sandbox can be very successful without a huge pvp focus and that there hasn't been enough games similar to really judge it since. It could even be argued there haven't been any since SWG.
"PvE players are just greedy and want everything, leave my sandbox alone"
- I've actually seen this statement made a few times by PvP only players and it's ridiculous. Who is being greedy making a comment like this? There is nothing greedy about either PvP or PvE focused gamers wanting a sandbox, or any type of game to play. It's extremely greedy, grandiose, and entitled for either party to think they should have something and can't allow the other to enjoy something similar. Everyone should have options to play what they want.
The ultimate point is that people, and developers, need to let go of this belief that if you're going to make a sandbox world you have to put PvP at the forefront. PvP does not MAKE or DEFINE a sandbox, it is one potential feature of many that encompass what a sandbox is. Currently the market has a lot of games created in this fashion already and there are more coming down the pipeline also, most of them FFA PVP sandboxes. Why? There is no reason we can't have both options out there for both playstyles, and we should have that.
Comments
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
btw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
Pretty much the exact fallacious attitude and arguments I talk about in the post.
I agree, PVP is not something to be enforced into a sandbox game.
It can, however be open for some interesting interactions IF the PVP is implemented well, but one thing does not imply the other in any other way. If a sandbox is to have enforced PVP, the game is obviously needs to be designed and balanced around it - something that won't please everyone. You can't just take a game and throw out pvp and expect it to be playable or enjoyable... I think a lot of players don't understand this. IMO, games like DF could have a better approach (mainly structure) to how pvp works there.
That is a great logical argument there.. totally ignore the fact that PvP has nothing to do with "sandbox" and /rant on.
Hamburger by definition kinda has to include the meat.
Sandbox by definition ONLY includes PvP if the creator.. adds it in.
There are exactly ZERO sandbox MMO's with PvP because there has never been an actual "sandbox" MMO. You need a world where every single thing can be created by the user and the only place I've seen that is second life. UO and EvE have never been sandboxes.. tho they often have the term applied. *edit note* I like to use Second Life as an example because if you have the skill set you can create everything. The issue is that paying $1000 for a sim and the $300 a month fee are quite a barrier and then of course even full sims only support so many users before lag is insane.
Now if you want to discuss the lack of well supported PvP MMO's.. yep I entirely agree. However, that comes down to convincing a developer to finance one... more than anything.
PvE can be so many things in rpg.
for example if you roll a cook then you only can do fishing and hunt animals and cook food.
and if you roll a berzerker barbarian grunt,then your avatar attacks people automatically even when you dont press buttons (PvP lfg finder v0.1)
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
A Tale in the Desert
Completely sandbox based on crafting and social interaction.
Not only is there no pvp, but there is also no combat in any form.
All die, so die well.
[mod edit]
Now that the theme park safemoders see sandboxes on the rise the very first thing that comes to their mind is turning sandboxes into theme parks. Not working buddy.
Get used to sandbox style PvPvE / PvAll or don't play sandbox MMOs. Simple.
NGE sucked by the way
Actually, according to this developer the game was not ridiculously successful even pre NGE.
http://rubenfield.com/?p=86
BS.
PvPvE is not a "feature" it's a mindset.
Sandbox = Immersion and realism.
You are there, you are not invincible to anything or anyone, no matter if player or NPC bot.
"oh but I only want to be attackable by scripted robot AI, not the real players around me in a multiplayer environment"
Yep... theme parks are -> that way
the very definition of the PvE-only player mindset. Need to keep this fake dumbed down pseudo burger photo for reference.
So for immersion and REALISM, everybody needs to be able to kill each other? Because that's immersive and real? Interesting but I was out in the world yesterday and didn't have a desire to kill anybody and I felt pretty immersed in the environment I was in, chatted with a few people, enjoyed the day. Pretty real experience and nobody wanted to kill each other at all.
Also, based on your statements all sandboxes must be heavily PvP. There can't be any other option for some people to have games tailored to their play style? All sandboxes must fit your playstyle? You don't think that's selfish and arrogant at all?
Don't expect much more than tirades like this, OP. ---^
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
@Margulis ; -- Excellent post, well stated.
@DocBrady -- Sandbox doesn't have a clear, concise definition like you seem to believe. Just ask any cat and you'll get a completely different answer.
@Loktofeit -- Agreed. Another thread on PvP isn't very constructive, and just invites the same diatribes and rants as you have pointed out. There isn't a consensus on the topic, and likely isn't going to be one.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Sandbox's have nothing to do with pvp, pvp is a side thing. Sandbox's are about creating, exploration, social aspects, and much more. With the freedom to pvp and more, but not pvp orientated. Sure some so called sandbox's try to do the pvp as a major theme, and those games suffer from not having worked on the other major aspects of a sandbox first.
Should sandbox's have meaningful pvp (territory control, etc)? Sure yes, freedom and choice.
Should pvp come before everything else? No! Crafting, exploration, group interaction, strong pve elements, business aspect, player creativity, features to allow player created content, more features than your average themepark, the freedom and choice to go anywhere and do anything is what makes a sandbox a sandbox.
But as the op said, its a misconception to think sandbox = ffa full loot pvp. Its just not what a sandbox is designed for.
200-300 k has been the talked about subs for SWG, and at that time that was pretty darn good. Even in this era, name me one of the FFA PVP sandbox mmo's, which of there are a decent few, that have those numbers minus EVE. So if SWG could pull that before the WOW craze / during it - I think it says more positive than negative about the potential of PvE focused sandboxes
Nice write OP, I wish I had the stamina and skill to write long well written posts like that. Unfortunately there will be the usual narrowminded bombardment of Your statements that pve is themepark and pvp is sandbox, and freedom is to dominate other players. Black and White and grey is nonexistant.
I really really hope for the sake of mmorpgs that those guys making ExNext still remember what EQ was and what RP means. That pvp adds some freedom, but also takes away as much; That we will see a real sandbox and not some single minded world only driven by player conflict.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Thank you OP. I was having this exact conversation with my husband this morning. PVP can definitely be present and can easily be the focus; however a pvp-less sandbox is perfectly viable. Personally I don't find it immersive in the least to think every other player is constantly trying to kill me, this just doesn't match how real worlds work.
I do however enjoy other aspects of a sandbox world: the crafting, the economy, the open non-hub based questing. classless systems, horizontal progression, etc.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
I've talked to a lot of people, in RL and in a lot of games, and it seems that people have a lot of different things in mind when they use the word "sandbox" to describe a game. No instancing. No restrictions on travel. No linear progression. No class/role pigeonholing. A lot of little details go into everyone's idea of a "sandbox" and there are a lot of different mixtures in there.
But the one thing people all agree on is that "sandbox" means a game that lets you do what you want to do when you want to do it without restricting you to a specific playstyle or activity. And here is where the argument starts. If what you want to do is FFAPvP, then a game without that is not a "sandbox" game to you. If what you want to do is crafting and building and the game does not offer it, then it is not a "sandbox" game to you.
No game will ever be able to provide all options to all people. A game with FFAPvP will never be a "sandbox" to those who do not want to PvP because they are being forced into a playstyle they don't want. A game without FFAPvP will never be a "sandbox" to those who want it because they, too, are being restricted in their playstyle. You can't both have and not have open world FFAPvP in the same game, so no matter what you do, the opposite camps will never agree on whether or not the game is a "sandbox" in the first place, regardless of whether or not it has all of the other features.
An FFAPvP game can certain be a sandbox. A PvE game can also be a sandbox. The trick is to pick the sandbox title that provides you with the options to do what you want to do.
I have nothing against the PvP crowd, or even the FFAPvP crowd. I personally don't enjoy FFAPvP, but I also don't enjoy FPSers. Who am I to say that because I don't like that style of game they shouldn't make it? Obviously there is money in FPS titles, or there wouldn't be so damn many of them. And therein lies the rub for FFAPvP. There doesn't seem to be a lot of sustainable revenue in FFAPvP titles, which is why the big developers tend to stay away from them. It would be nice to see the FFAPvPers get some love from a game (after all, you are my brothers in nerd-dom), but I think it will come from an indie developer and not one of the big ones.
....but with the run of bad luck on FFAPvP titles lately, odds are it will be an EA title.....
I meant in terms of how they were losing 10k subs a month, which is why they changed it. I don't know if that can be considered successful.
Haha, what are all you people going to do when they make a sandbox game where PVP is a CHOICE?
You want to FFA PVP, then toggle yourself ON to FFA PVP. If you dont want PVP, toggle yourself OFF to FFA.
Obviously, SWG did this the best, as far as PVP goes. I cant wait till developers start taking this approach to open world PVP. No need for PVP servers.
Then we can stop having this debate about FFA PVP, because if you dont want to FFA PVP , then YOU DONT HAVE TOO! You can go harvest some rescources or something. Thast why they call it a sandbox, you can choose to do what you want.
Played:SWG(pre NGE/CU sucked)Yep its true, anyone who quit SWG because of the NGE/CU missed out on a much better combat system. DCUO, Fallen Earth, STO, The Secret World. Battlefield series. Planetside 2. Still playing SWG.
Agreed completely,
but would also like to add that SWG worked the best when it had a "TEF" system (The Enemy Flag).
You got TEF on you when you attacked NPCs of one of the two factions - Rebels and Imperials. So, if someone wanted to "farm" stormtrooper NPCs for any reason, he got FLAGGED (temporarely) as the enemy of the Empire and players allied with Empire could choose to attack him on sight.
That way nobody could "eat the cake and have it too". You can't stay out of the PvP if you attack the faction's NPCs.
NEW IDEAS that can refresh the STALE state of MMORPGs
The problem is conflict resolution.
Every way in which two people can influence the world is a potential source of conflict and a potential weapon for lashing out at another people - even if it's arranging blocks to spell out an offensive message. The problem that non-PvP sandboxes eventually have to face as populations grow and the number of interactions between players increase is how to resolve the worst conflicts in a way that doesn't force the publisher to have manually police the worst conflicts.
Themeparks avoid this by simply taking away the sand - aside from kill-stealing or jumping around in someone's face, there's not a lot left that allows one player can do that's going to get on another player's nerves. PvP solves it by just throwing the ball into players' hands. Minecraft solves the problem by giving you control of your own private instance (which tends to create distracting arguments over whether this mix of private and public games really belongs in the same genre).
Immersion doesn't necessarily mean realism, but okay, let's say it is, and immersion is therefore an important part of the sandbox experience, and that FFAPvP is essential to this immersion. In a realistic environment, people aren't generally out to kill other people, so while we aren't invincible, we are pretty damn close because murder is extremely rare. And most of those who DO get murdered, get murdered because of gang-related activity, or something to that effect. Most people don't get murdered simply because someone thinks it is "fun" to kill them. And if a sandbox were to be realistic, there would be consequences for your actions as well. Kill someone unprovoked? You either get the death penalty or spend a life-time in prison. Fact is, most hardcore, FFAPvP advocates do NOT want consequences for their ganking, they only want "realism" when it suits them.
Anyway, there is a great sandbox MMO for you out there if you want a 100% realistic experience...it's called LIFE. Go play that!
I'm NOT against PvP, I love PvP myself, but I want to consent to PvP either through battlegrounds or going on to a PvP server where I KNOW that I might get ganked. I do not believe for one second that a sandbox, or a themepark for that matter, HAS TO HAVE free-for-all, full loot PvP. There are games out there that have that, and guess what? They suck!