A mmo doesn't need to have pvp to be a sandbox, but ow free pvp is a feature more "sandboxish" than restricted pvp.
A mmo can have ow pvp with full loot (the most sandboxish possible a pvp ruleset can be) but lack sandbox tools in another parts. Equally a mmo can be rich in sandboxes tools, but have less sandboxish pvp ruleset.
PVP/PVE ruleset are, however, much more outstanding features than terraform, housing, plantation and so on, because are related to combat (a almost constant action in mmos). So if a mmo lacks a sandboxish pvp ruleset, it will probably lose MUCH more points in the sandbox scale than if it lacks terraformation, since combat is a more omnipresent and outstanding feature than terraforming.
Originally posted by killahh Why is it that there is such a concerted effort by such a small oral minority here on the forums in regards to pvp hatred?
I fear you are trapped in a torment of your own creation.
Single Player games and Coop games sell very well,as do competitive PvP games.The market is saying that there is room for all of these games and combinations of them.Problem is when any of these features are tacked on to a game that had no focus on it for a marketing bullet point.To me this means the terribad single player campaigns tacked onto PvP games as well as tacked on PvP in many single player games.
The market is saying:
- SP games/co-op games sell welll (no disagreement here)
- competitive pvp games sell well (no disgreement here)
The market did not say a pve game with FFA world pvp will sell well. At best a game with a pvp server will sell well, but not one that have pve and FFA world pvp.
Whatever the reason, and you can speculate all you want ... this combo is dead in the market.
Single Player games and Coop games sell very well,as do competitive PvP games.The market is saying that there is room for all of these games and combinations of them.Problem is when any of these features are tacked on to a game that had no focus on it for a marketing bullet point.To me this means the terribad single player campaigns tacked onto PvP games as well as tacked on PvP in many single player games.
The market is saying:
- SP games/co-op games sell welll (no disagreement here)
- competitive pvp games sell well (no disgreement here)
The market did not say a pve game with FFA world pvp will sell well. At best a game with a pvp server will sell well, but not one that have pve and FFA world pvp.
Whatever the reason, and you can speculate all you want ... this combo is dead in the market.
I probably do personally agree with you that FFA world PvP is probably a niche but I agree with others that there has been no AAA budget title that has tried to convey it to the masses so there is still some question to whether tit could be successful on that scale.
However in this economic climate I don't see a company willing to risk that kind of investment on a unknown market variable.I know I wouldn't in their shoes no matter what my tastes personally run to.
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
Pretty much the exact fallacious attitude and arguments I talk about in the post.
there's nothing more fallacious than talking about the genre that epitomizes freedom (sandbox) and then trying to make a case for removing 50% of the content of MMOs (PvP)
so, it is freedom...but always under your conditions, right?
A mmo doesn't need to have pvp to be a sandbox, but ow free pvp is a feature more "sandboxish" than restricted pvp.
A mmo can have ow pvp with full loot (the most sandboxish possible a pvp ruleset can be) but lack sandbox tools in another parts. Equally a mmo can be rich in sandboxes tools, but have less sandboxish pvp ruleset.
PVP/PVE ruleset are, however, much more outstanding features than terraform, housing, plantation and so on, because are related to combat (a almost constant action in mmos). So if a mmo lacks a sandboxish pvp ruleset, it will probably lose MUCH more points in the sandbox scale than if it lacks terraformation, since combat is a more omnipresent and outstanding feature than terraforming.
Regarding freedom I'm of the opposite opinion.
On the surface it seems like more freedom however and this has been brought up before as well, complete freedom for one person means restrictions for another.
a ffa owpvp IMO restricts freedom for the majority of people playing more so than having optional pvp.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
As soon as someone in the game prevents me from doing what I was doing my freedom has been restricted. That person could prevent me from doing any number of things. The existance of some rules or limits actually increase freedom for the majority.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
On the surface it seems like more freedom however and this has been brought up before as well, complete freedom for one person means restrictions for another.
a ffa owpvp IMO restricts freedom for the majority of people playing more so than having optional pvp.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
As soon as someone in the game prevents me from doing what I was doing my freedom has been restricted. That person could prevent me from doing any number of things. The existance of some rules or limits actually increase freedom for the majority.
Send that letter to Sauron.
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/ **
It exists there just isn't a lot of companies that are willing to risk millions of dollars on something that isn't tried and tested. Something like a mix between minecraft and harvest moon with an open world, deep crafting, lots of skills, player housing, pet/animal system, rich economy, social events/interactions, and lots of other flufff would be hugely successful but no one has the guts to pull it off.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
That article 29 paragraph 2 is something many people who think "freedom = anarchy" should read and understand.
I probably do personally agree with you that FFA world PvP is probably a niche but I agree with others that there has been no AAA budget title that has tried to convey it to the masses so there is still some question to whether tit could be successful on that scale.
However in this economic climate I don't see a company willing to risk that kind of investment on a unknown market variable.I know I wouldn't in their shoes no matter what my tastes personally run to.
Plus, these companies do market research. Why we are only guessing if FFA world pvp is a niche, they may have focus group, or even some data (from games like Darkfall & Eve).
There are plenty of new things being tried (for example, MOBA was a new thing just a year or two back) and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
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.
seems to me you are flogging a dead horse. PvP in sandbox games isn't mandatory and even in EvE can be avoided if you so wish (yes yes I know all the stuff about you are never safe etc, but it's pretty hard to assassinate someone that never undocks)
Most single player games can looked at as an analogous to PvE sandboxes and as we know that alot of pve / carebear types (yes another stereotype) like these sort of games, I see no reason why a pve sandbox couldn't be successful (although as an EvE player I think it's ultimately pointless, it could still have alot of longevity).
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
seems to me you are flogging a dead horse. PvP in sandbox games isn't mandatory and even in EvE can be avoided if you so wish (yes yes I know all the stuff about you are never safe etc, but it's pretty hard to assassinate someone that never undocks)
There is a certain chutzpah in pitching *EvE* as a place for a PvP-averse player.
PvP in a sandbox can be alot of fun, only if you entire game is targeting PvP players.
You can't make a world for both playstyles and expect everyone to be get what they want. The flagging system of SWG was great, even if some PvP'ers will complain it takes away their freedom.
You can have a sandbox for either PvP or PvE, anyone that believes it MUST have one or the other exclusively is the exact reason the two camps don't get along. No one can win.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
That article 29 paragraph 2 is something many people who think "freedom = anarchy" should read and understand.
+1. A Picard-worthy line indeed.
You do understand that these *anarchy* horrors happens even in childrens bed time stories.
If the Evil Witch did not exists then it makes Valiant Knight obsolete.
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/ **
PvP in a sandbox can be alot of fun, only if you entire game is targeting PvP players.
You can't make a world for both playstyles and expect everyone to be get what they want. The flagging system of SWG was great, even if some PvP'ers will complain it takes away their freedom.
You can have a sandbox for either PvP or PvE, anyone that believes it MUST have one or the other exclusively is the exact reason the two camps don't get along. No one can win.
This ^^.
Original SWG was the most complete and "alive" virtual world so far (even more so than UO), and that game was not centered around PvP. PvP was just one of several playstyles that the game supported. If you wanted to PvP all the time, you could (and in the first couple years, there was ALWAYS medium - large scale PvP going on). If you never wanted to PvP, you never had to, and lost nothing by not doing so.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
That article 29 paragraph 2 is something many people who think "freedom = anarchy" should read and understand.
+1. A Picard-worthy line indeed.
You do understand that these *anarchy* horrors happens even in childrens bed time stories.
If the Evil Witch did not exists then it makes Valiant Knight obsolete.
I have seen what all of the whacko anarchy and far right-wing libertarians want: a place of total individual freedom where anyone can do anything, any time they want, to whomever they want and there are no taxes to pay and is no government control to stop anyone.
PvP in a sandbox can be alot of fun, only if you entire game is targeting PvP players.
You can't make a world for both playstyles and expect everyone to be get what they want. The flagging system of SWG was great, even if some PvP'ers will complain it takes away their freedom.
You can have a sandbox for either PvP or PvE, anyone that believes it MUST have one or the other exclusively is the exact reason the two camps don't get along. No one can win.
This ^^.
Original SWG was the most complete and "alive" virtual world so far (even more so than UO), and that game was not centered around PvP. PvP was just one of several playstyles that the game supported. If you wanted to PvP all the time, you could (and in the first couple years, there was ALWAYS medium - large scale PvP going on). If you never wanted to PvP, you never had to, and lost nothing by not doing so.
/endthread
Yes.
So was Anarchy online,tower wars was happening 24/7 but if people did not want to join then they just did not have to.
Of course they could join in many ways still,borrow gear to someone,buff people ,teleport people to near towers etc.
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/ **
There is zero need for PvP in a sandbox if there are enough PvE sandbox features. For example in Darkages there are colleges where players actually teach classes about the history of the lore of the game. There are also churches, and players can become priests and actually do their own sermons.
Things like that are the just one of the many features that a sandbox could have so PvP wasn't needed.
I probably do personally agree with you that FFA world PvP is probably a niche but I agree with others that there has been no AAA budget title that has tried to convey it to the masses so there is still some question to whether tit could be successful on that scale.
However in this economic climate I don't see a company willing to risk that kind of investment on a unknown market variable.I know I wouldn't in their shoes no matter what my tastes personally run to.
Plus, these companies do market research. Why we are only guessing if FFA world pvp is a niche, they may have focus group, or even some data (from games like Darkfall & Eve).
There are plenty of new things being tried (for example, MOBA was a new thing just a year or two back) and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
MOBAs are not a good example they were spawned from Defense of the Ancients which was a free Warcraft 3 mod that became insanely popular,only then did companies copy it and commercialize it.One could argue that DayZ is similarly an argument that FFA PvP could be profitable on a large scale too.
sandbox = a box filled with sand and alot of tools to do something
Tanslated: A sandbox game has alot of objects and alot of tools/mechanics to fiddle around with and create your own story and content.
Now... in every sandbox I've played in during kindergarden there were kids, who liked building castles, tunnels, etc, playing with little figures and cars and then there was those kids, who enjoyed crushing those newly build castles, etc or even hit the other kids with a shovel, smashing the little figures etc, etc, etc.
A sandbox has as little rules as possible, and that's why alot of people, like me, think that a sandbox MMO without open world FFA PvP is no sandbox. There needs to be consequences for misbehaviour ofcourse, but there shouldn't be a restriction to begin with, just like in the sandbox when we were kids.
EvE Online is a good example of how to make a sandbox work and have consequences and even a godlike police (CONCORD) to punish you for your misbehaviour, and it's aswell a good example of how to integrate allmost totally safe areas for those not interested in PvP, without making them 100% safe.
There are always rules. In grade school it was teachers and playground monitors that swept in and took the kid who stepped on your castles out of the sandbox. On the beach it was lifeguards, park security or cops that prevented bad behaviour. In sandcastle competition there are definite rules:
Yes those are competitions and so a bit different, they are still playing in the sand and they have definite rules.
Bad behaviour has really never been allowed or rewarded as it is in games.
Edit - The teachers, monitors, security, cops and game officials are would be akin to developer enforced rules not player made ones. The high sec space by Eve would be comparable.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
A mmo doesn't need to have pvp to be a sandbox, but ow free pvp is a feature more "sandboxish" than restricted pvp.
A mmo can have ow pvp with full loot (the most sandboxish possible a pvp ruleset can be) but lack sandbox tools in another parts. Equally a mmo can be rich in sandboxes tools, but have less sandboxish pvp ruleset.
PVP/PVE ruleset are, however, much more outstanding features than terraform, housing, plantation and so on, because are related to combat (a almost constant action in mmos). So if a mmo lacks a sandboxish pvp ruleset, it will probably lose MUCH more points in the sandbox scale than if it lacks terraformation, since combat is a more omnipresent and outstanding feature than terraforming.
Regarding freedom I'm of the opposite opinion.
On the surface it seems like more freedom however and this has been brought up before as well, complete freedom for one person means restrictions for another.
a ffa owpvp IMO restricts freedom for the majority of people playing more so than having optional pvp.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
As soon as someone in the game prevents me from doing what I was doing my freedom has been restricted. That person could prevent me from doing any number of things. The existance of some rules or limits actually increase freedom for the majority.
Freedom in a MMORPG.
Sandbox: The players has the freedom to take any actions the developers have allow them to take.
Themepark: The players has the freedom to take any actions the developers have allow them to take.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
There are always rules. In grade school it was teachers and playground monitors that swept in and took the kid who stepped on your castles out of the sandbox. On the beach it was lifeguards, park security or cops that prevented bad behaviour. In sandcastle competition there are definite rules:
Yes those are competitions and so a bit different, they are still playing in the sand and they have definite rules.
Bad behaviour has really never been allowed or rewarded as it is in games.
Edit - The teachers, monitors, security, cops and game officials are would be akin to developer enforced rules not player made ones. The high sec space by Eve would be comparable.
You are clearly starting to understand the importance of pvp.
Or what do you think,all of those seems to be PvP games.
Just like they use their tools and creativity to compete against each other is just like people does for example in mmo combat.
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/ **
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
Pretty much the exact fallacious attitude and arguments I talk about in the post.
The good news is...it doesn't really matter what he thinks. Devs don't make games for people who can argue the most on a forum. Games are based on what type of income they'll make. He can say whatever he wants as far as what a sandbox is. It will never change the fact that he's part of the less than %5 gamer population.
Once the game is made he can say it's not a sandbox because it doesn't have ffa pvp. It wont really change how much I enjoy it. Being part of the 95% has it's advantages.
100 % fallacy
You PvE-only lot have been catered to with hundreds of titles, your alleged 95% (fantasy number anyway) is scatterd across dozens of titles.
again, what you want is what YOU got, your dozens of theme parks are tailored to what YOU wanted, so better go play them.
Now you probably think sandboxes are the hip thing to play instead, so let's ruin the next sub genre of MMO and make it ultra carebear!
Well, No thanks.
Play WoW, Rift, Gw2 or whatever, what you are looking for is theme parks. Rift has housing btw.
THEME PARKS gave you the rules and little artificial barriers and restrictions you want and love so much.
SANDBOXES allow to do what ever you want and try to be realistic, that includes people attacking each other. Too scary? EvE too much? Well you know what type of games to play then. NOT SANDBOXES.
There are always rules. In grade school it was teachers and playground monitors that swept in and took the kid who stepped on your castles out of the sandbox. On the beach it was lifeguards, park security or cops that prevented bad behaviour. In sandcastle competition there are definite rules:
Yes those are competitions and so a bit different, they are still playing in the sand and they have definite rules.
Bad behaviour has really never been allowed or rewarded as it is in games.
Edit - The teachers, monitors, security, cops and game officials are would be akin to developer enforced rules not player made ones. The high sec space by Eve would be comparable.
You are clearly starting to understand the importance of pvp.
Or what do you think,all of those seems to be PvP games.
Just like they use their tools and creativity to compete against each other is just like people does for example in mmo combat.
I think you missed the point. The point wasn't pvp is or is not fun.
The point was in all those examples there were rules to limit/stop bad behavior. This is lacking in many/most ffa pvp games. In many/most ffa pvp games bad behaviour is actually rewarded.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Sandbox = Freedom
A mmo doesn't need to have pvp to be a sandbox, but ow free pvp is a feature more "sandboxish" than restricted pvp.
A mmo can have ow pvp with full loot (the most sandboxish possible a pvp ruleset can be) but lack sandbox tools in another parts. Equally a mmo can be rich in sandboxes tools, but have less sandboxish pvp ruleset.
PVP/PVE ruleset are, however, much more outstanding features than terraform, housing, plantation and so on, because are related to combat (a almost constant action in mmos). So if a mmo lacks a sandboxish pvp ruleset, it will probably lose MUCH more points in the sandbox scale than if it lacks terraformation, since combat is a more omnipresent and outstanding feature than terraforming.
I fear you are trapped in a torment of your own creation.
The market is saying:
- SP games/co-op games sell welll (no disagreement here)
- competitive pvp games sell well (no disgreement here)
The market did not say a pve game with FFA world pvp will sell well. At best a game with a pvp server will sell well, but not one that have pve and FFA world pvp.
Whatever the reason, and you can speculate all you want ... this combo is dead in the market.
I probably do personally agree with you that FFA world PvP is probably a niche but I agree with others that there has been no AAA budget title that has tried to convey it to the masses so there is still some question to whether tit could be successful on that scale.
However in this economic climate I don't see a company willing to risk that kind of investment on a unknown market variable.I know I wouldn't in their shoes no matter what my tastes personally run to.
there's nothing more fallacious than talking about the genre that epitomizes freedom (sandbox) and then trying to make a case for removing 50% of the content of MMOs (PvP)
so, it is freedom...but always under your conditions, right?
Regarding freedom I'm of the opposite opinion.
On the surface it seems like more freedom however and this has been brought up before as well, complete freedom for one person means restrictions for another.
a ffa owpvp IMO restricts freedom for the majority of people playing more so than having optional pvp.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
Send that letter to Sauron.
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/ **
+1. A Picard-worthy line indeed.
Plus, these companies do market research. Why we are only guessing if FFA world pvp is a niche, they may have focus group, or even some data (from games like Darkfall & Eve).
There are plenty of new things being tried (for example, MOBA was a new thing just a year or two back) and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
seems to me you are flogging a dead horse. PvP in sandbox games isn't mandatory and even in EvE can be avoided if you so wish (yes yes I know all the stuff about you are never safe etc, but it's pretty hard to assassinate someone that never undocks)
Most single player games can looked at as an analogous to PvE sandboxes and as we know that alot of pve / carebear types (yes another stereotype) like these sort of games, I see no reason why a pve sandbox couldn't be successful (although as an EvE player I think it's ultimately pointless, it could still have alot of longevity).
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
There is a certain chutzpah in pitching *EvE* as a place for a PvP-averse player.
PvP in a sandbox can be alot of fun, only if you entire game is targeting PvP players.
You can't make a world for both playstyles and expect everyone to be get what they want. The flagging system of SWG was great, even if some PvP'ers will complain it takes away their freedom.
You can have a sandbox for either PvP or PvE, anyone that believes it MUST have one or the other exclusively is the exact reason the two camps don't get along. No one can win.
You do understand that these *anarchy* horrors happens even in childrens bed time stories.
If the Evil Witch did not exists then it makes Valiant Knight obsolete.
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/ **
This ^^.
Original SWG was the most complete and "alive" virtual world so far (even more so than UO), and that game was not centered around PvP. PvP was just one of several playstyles that the game supported. If you wanted to PvP all the time, you could (and in the first couple years, there was ALWAYS medium - large scale PvP going on). If you never wanted to PvP, you never had to, and lost nothing by not doing so.
/endthread
I have seen what all of the whacko anarchy and far right-wing libertarians want: a place of total individual freedom where anyone can do anything, any time they want, to whomever they want and there are no taxes to pay and is no government control to stop anyone.
It is called Afghanistan.
And you don't want it.
Yes.
So was Anarchy online,tower wars was happening 24/7 but if people did not want to join then they just did not have to.
Of course they could join in many ways still,borrow gear to someone,buff people ,teleport people to near towers etc.
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/ **
There is zero need for PvP in a sandbox if there are enough PvE sandbox features. For example in Darkages there are colleges where players actually teach classes about the history of the lore of the game. There are also churches, and players can become priests and actually do their own sermons.
Things like that are the just one of the many features that a sandbox could have so PvP wasn't needed.
Smile
MOBAs are not a good example they were spawned from Defense of the Ancients which was a free Warcraft 3 mod that became insanely popular,only then did companies copy it and commercialize it.One could argue that DayZ is similarly an argument that FFA PvP could be profitable on a large scale too.
sandbox = a box filled with sand and alot of tools to do something
Tanslated: A sandbox game has alot of objects and alot of tools/mechanics to fiddle around with and create your own story and content.
Now... in every sandbox I've played in during kindergarden there were kids, who liked building castles, tunnels, etc, playing with little figures and cars and then there was those kids, who enjoyed crushing those newly build castles, etc or even hit the other kids with a shovel, smashing the little figures etc, etc, etc.
A sandbox has as little rules as possible, and that's why alot of people, like me, think that a sandbox MMO without open world FFA PvP is no sandbox.
There needs to be consequences for misbehaviour ofcourse, but there shouldn't be a restriction to begin with, just like in the sandbox when we were kids.
EvE Online is a good example of how to make a sandbox work and have consequences and even a godlike police (CONCORD) to punish you for your misbehaviour, and it's aswell a good example of how to integrate allmost totally safe areas for those not interested in PvP, without making them 100% safe.
That is the funny thing about the defintion.
There are always rules. In grade school it was teachers and playground monitors that swept in and took the kid who stepped on your castles out of the sandbox. On the beach it was lifeguards, park security or cops that prevented bad behaviour. In sandcastle competition there are definite rules:
http://www.taftbeach.com/official_rules.html
https://www.beach-fun.com/sandcastle-contest.html
http://www.oceanpark.org/programs/events/sand/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_art_and_play
http://www.worldchampionshipofsandsculpting.com/
Yes those are competitions and so a bit different, they are still playing in the sand and they have definite rules.
Bad behaviour has really never been allowed or rewarded as it is in games.
Edit - The teachers, monitors, security, cops and game officials are would be akin to developer enforced rules not player made ones. The high sec space by Eve would be comparable.
Freedom in a MMORPG.
Sandbox: The players has the freedom to take any actions the developers have allow them to take.
Themepark: The players has the freedom to take any actions the developers have allow them to take.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
You are clearly starting to understand the importance of pvp.
Or what do you think,all of those seems to be PvP games.
Just like they use their tools and creativity to compete against each other is just like people does for example in mmo combat.
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/ **
100 % fallacy
You PvE-only lot have been catered to with hundreds of titles, your alleged 95% (fantasy number anyway) is scatterd across dozens of titles.
again, what you want is what YOU got, your dozens of theme parks are tailored to what YOU wanted, so better go play them.
Now you probably think sandboxes are the hip thing to play instead, so let's ruin the next sub genre of MMO and make it ultra carebear!
Well, No thanks.
Play WoW, Rift, Gw2 or whatever, what you are looking for is theme parks. Rift has housing btw.
THEME PARKS gave you the rules and little artificial barriers and restrictions you want and love so much.
SANDBOXES allow to do what ever you want and try to be realistic, that includes people attacking each other. Too scary? EvE too much? Well you know what type of games to play then. NOT SANDBOXES.
I think you missed the point. The point wasn't pvp is or is not fun.
The point was in all those examples there were rules to limit/stop bad behavior. This is lacking in many/most ffa pvp games. In many/most ffa pvp games bad behaviour is actually rewarded.