Originally posted by Mr_Mechanical You don't see pro-Sandbox players ever saying nonsense like "There shouldn't be any PVE in sandboxes. Everyone should just log in and die."
Have you read DocBrody's posts lately?
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
Originally posted by Mr_Mechanical You don't see pro-Sandbox players ever saying nonsense like "There shouldn't be any PVE in sandboxes. Everyone should just log in and die."
Have you read DocBrody's posts lately?
A) don't know who that is. don't care.
I'm not one to subscribe to the "well, I have 1 exceptional example to try and bring down your entire argument that has to do with thousands or even millions of people outside of my 1 exception" tactic.
C) I don't follow people around spying on their posts to try and get ammunition on them. Forum games are disruptive and unproductive.
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
Yes you are right. PvPFFA in fact is realistic on the surface. In real life everyone is able to murder everyone anytime, but the good thing is that almost nobody ever does it. But in a game world its differed, if there is PvP FFA, players will use it, some more, some less and some all the time. Now picture this being real life again for a moment. What would happen if everyone would run amok all the time? Well, everyone was dead in a few days. And in RL there is no respawning as you might know. So a game with FFA PVP may seem more realistic but its implications actually make the game world very unrealistic. If it was possible to put FFA PvP into a game and at the same time ensure that it is used only very rarely, I'm in for it.
If you say that having no PvP makes a sandbox a themepark, does that mean that adding world PvP to a themepark turnes it into a sandbox? Is Call of Duty a sandbox game? It seems to me that you define the whole thing by a non essential part. Its like saying, if a car has no roof it is not a car and driving in a convertible is the same thing as walking.
I think if you say that whole thing is a mindset, you pretty much nail it. PvP FFA players indeed have a very special mindset. It is hard for me to see where the fun is coming from in FFA PvP. One could assume that it is coming from the constant treat and the unforgiving nature of the game. You have to take into consideration that the fights are almost never fair. The attacker has all the benefits, he can choose who and when to attack and no one would take on a fight that he is not likely to win. Most the time if you get killed it is like three guys jump you from behind when you don't expect it and are low on heath. Imagine what it would be like if a game would do that in PvE, randomly a high level mob would spawn right behind you and one-hit you and it also would take away all the progress you made in the last couple of hours. How frustrating would that be? No one would like that especially hardcore FFA PvP fans. The problem with the threat in PvP FFA is that it is unpredictable. I like hard games but you need to know when you put yourself in danger and when not.
So the fun is obviously not coming from the passive side of being killable by other players. That means it must solely come from killing other players and the benefit must be so great that it outweighs being looted oneself from time to time. Of course it is fun to succeed in a fair fight, but in FFA PvP its almost always ganking. I fail to see where all the fun of destroying other players progress is coming from. I would feel bad for doing this. But of course there is a group of people that take great fun out of damaging other players, we normally call them griefers. This also explains why the PvP FFA crowd is so small, there simply are not that many sadists. You are looking for a vulnerable person that you can jump from behind to rob and humiliate him or her? There is a very sinister motif going on here if you look at it from a psychological standpoint and I don't what to explain it any further.
that's not my definition of sandbox, it's my way of saying "stick with your theme parks"
Thing is that according to your own little personal concept, any game without FFA PvP is NOT a sandbox. Which is definitely wrong. You can repeat that any game without FFA PvP is a theme park until you're all red in the face, it won't change the fact that you are wrong.
Note that I'm not surprised, many people tend to see the world either white (what they think is right) or black (what everyone else thinks), refusing to acknowledge that the reality is mostly shades of grey. It's particularly true on Internet forums where people are anonymous, but it's also the greatest source of intolerance in the "real" world.
Sounds to me like it's you who's going red in a desperate attempt to convince us you're the one who's right.
You know it gose the other way just as much, when I tell you there is no reall sandbox without open world ffa pvp being a skeleton, a base of a system on which you than build on. Including various restrictions.
However once you go too far with restrictions and bypassing, you suddenly land in a Themepark, and yeah an mmorpg which nurses and protects you like mommy spoils her child, giving shortcuts and an "ïnvulnerable" shield, than you know you have landed in a Themepark and no ammount of fluffy options to trick your brain into what some players want to call FREEDOM of options will make your game more sandbox, or Sandbox at all.
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
Your first sentence makes no sense. If you want a sandbox without ffapvp go play a theme park? Why? If he wanted a theme park he would play a theme park. Instead he wants a sandbox pve game. In contrast to several PvP sandboxes, there hasn't been a sandbox pve game.
Sandbox has never meant PvP... ever. It has always only been a feature that can be used in sandbox. Some sandbox had OWPvP, some had optional PvP, some didn't have PvP at all. Yet most people and the industry consider them sandbox
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.
That article 29 paragraph 2 is something many people who think "freedom = anarchy" should read and understand.
Going from some of the posts here that is exactly what some people think. Anarchy = immersion. I will take my non-immersive industrialized nation over Somalia any day.
He isn't arguing with you. He's arguing with a man of straw.
And in some ways, judging by the original post, so are you.
You've both created sets, classes of people who think like...[x]. And each of you is telling members of this nebulous Opposition Class what they think, want and believe in.
You are both arguing with every other person you've ever assigned to the Opposition Class.
Originally posted by Margulis
You don't want FREEDOM, you want ANARCHY. You want a game world
Rest my case.
This does remind me of a political debate where the candidates don't ever actually speak to each other, they speak around each other.
Going from some of the posts here that is exactly what some people think. Anarchy = immersion. I will take my non-immersive industrialized nation over Somalia any day.
I do not think the idea is that anarchy= immersion, I believe it is more accurate to say complete freedom combined with invincibility = a break from immersion.
For instance lets say you are building a wall, the reason does not matter but this is a sandbox and you want a wall around your house or farm or girlfriend, so you have your lumber over in a pile you are making your little wall of glory and someone comes up and picks up all your lumber, someones alt a level 1 character just destroyed your dream of having the best wall in the world. Now in a PvP environment you would probably just kill this alt and keep going about your business but now it has become a immersion breaking head ache because this 20 minute old character has ruined your plans and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now someone will then go on and say "well that is easy enough to solve you just need the mechanics to stop that, people can not pick up other peoples lumber, problem solved", however it is never that simple, now you have made lumber an unmovable object, anyone who has ever player old UO will tell you unmovable objects are an item griefers love to use. But say the developers kept adding more and more mechanics to the lumber pile until they got it right. The more mechanics they add mind you the less realistic the scenario becomes, until your lumber is probably either kept on your inventory with zero weight or kept in some kind of unlockable ghost like container only you the player can see. The griefer can find other ways to stop your wall, lets say he just decides to stand in the place your next section of wall is going to be built. Once again your entire wall making day is ruined because you can't do anything about this little troll who rolled a temp character to annoy you. It isn't that turning off PvP turns off annoying people it just means they play with different tools, and unfortunately PvE trolls can be even more annoying than the PvP variety and a million times more immersion breaking.
It is understandable if ten annoying people come and kill me to stop the building of my wall, it is not always fun but at least I understand how and why that played out, it is mind blowingly frustrating when the mechanics allow two trolls on alts to stop 10 crafters from building a wall. In a world without PvP this isn't just a possibility it is a forgone conclusion, you will piss someone off in an MMO, maybe you stole "his" resources, maybe your wall blocks "her" view of the mountains, but for whatever reason it will eventually occur and you simply do not have enough mechanics to stop it and the more you put in to do so the less sandbox you will be.
There is a great player housing system where I could build my wall in a game called Rifts, I get my own little dimension and can build it however I wish in a very sandbox like manner, no one can come on the property to bother me and it will be just like I want it, but it is not and never will be a sandbox because the rules, the same rules that completely eliminate the fear of the above mentions trolls, define it as un sandbox in nature, it is an instance that gives complete control to the owner.
To go back to the above quote, it is not that anarchy=immersion, it is simply that the false walls required to herd the trolls in a PvE environment break the sandbox.
Going from some of the posts here that is exactly what some people think. Anarchy = immersion. I will take my non-immersive industrialized nation over Somalia any day.
I do not think the idea is that anarchy= immersion, I believe it is more accurate to say complete freedom combined with invincibility = a break from immersion.
For instance lets say you are building a wall, the reason does not matter but this is a sandbox and you want a wall around your house or farm or girlfriend, so you have your lumber over in a pile you are making your little wall of glory and someone comes up and picks up all your lumber, someones alt a level 1 character just destroyed your dream of having the best wall in the world. Now in a PvP environment you would probably just kill this alt and keep going about your business but now it has become a immersion breaking head ache because this 20 minute old character has ruined your plans and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now someone will then go on and say "well that is easy enough to solve you just need the mechanics to stop that, people can not pick up other peoples lumber, problem solved", however it is never that simple, now you have made lumber an unmovable object, anyone who has ever player old UO will tell you unmovable objects are an item griefers love to use. But say the developers kept adding more and more mechanics to the lumber pile until they got it right. The more mechanics they add mind you the less realistic the scenario becomes, until your lumber is probably either kept on your inventory with zero weight or kept in some kind of unlockable ghost like container only you the player can see. The griefer can find other ways to stop your wall, lets say he just decides to stand in the place your next section of wall is going to be built. Once again your entire wall making day is ruined because you can't do anything about this little troll who rolled a temp character to annoy you. It isn't that turning off PvP turns off annoying people it just means they play with different tools, and unfortunately PvE trolls can be even more annoying than the PvP variety and a million times more immersion breaking.
It is understandable if ten annoying people come and kill me to stop the building of my wall, it is not always fun but at least I understand how and why that played out, it is mind blowingly frustrating when the mechanics allow two trolls on alts to stop 10 crafters from building a wall. In a world without PvP this isn't just a possibility it is a forgone conclusion, you will piss someone off in an MMO, maybe you stole "his" resources, maybe your wall blocks "her" view of the mountains, but for whatever reason it will eventually occur and you simply do not have enough mechanics to stop it and the more you put in to do so the less sandbox you will be.
There is a great player housing system where I could build my wall in a game called Rifts, I get my own little dimension and can build it however I wish in a very sandbox like manner, no one can come on the property to bother me and it will be just like I want it, but it is not and never will be a sandbox because the rules, the same rules that completely eliminate the fear of the above mentions trolls, define it as un sandbox in nature, it is an instance that gives complete control to the owner.
To go back to the above quote, it is not that anarchy=immersion, it is simply that the false walls required to herd the trolls in a PvE environment break the sandbox.
Sorry to be "that guy" but, this deserves an instant +1 and a bump.
Super kudos to you, GrayKodiak. I hope others read this and put some rational thought behind it before immediately trying to nullify your points for the sake of being "more right than you"
Posts like these are why TL;DR remarks sound incredibly ignorant.
Originally posted by niceguy3978Going from some of the posts here that is exactly what some people think. Anarchy = immersion. I will take my non-immersive industrialized nation over Somalia any day.
I do not think the idea is that anarchy= immersion, I believe it is more accurate to say complete freedom combined with invincibility = a break from immersion.
For instance lets say you are building a wall, the reason does not matter but this is a sandbox and you want a wall around your house or farm or girlfriend, so you have your lumber over in a pile you are making your little wall of glory and someone comes up and picks up all your lumber, someones alt a level 1 character just destroyed your dream of having the best wall in the world. Now in a PvP environment you would probably just kill this alt and keep going about your business but now it has become a immersion breaking head ache because this 20 minute old character has ruined your plans and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now someone will then go on and say "well that is easy enough to solve you just need the mechanics to stop that, people can not pick up other peoples lumber, problem solved", however it is never that simple, now you have made lumber an unmovable object, anyone who has ever player old UO will tell you unmovable objects are an item griefers love to use. But say the developers kept adding more and more mechanics to the lumber pile until they got it right. The more mechanics they add mind you the less realistic the scenario becomes, until your lumber is probably either kept on your inventory with zero weight or kept in some kind of unlockable ghost like container only you the player can see. The griefer can find other ways to stop your wall, lets say he just decides to stand in the place your next section of wall is going to be built. Once again your entire wall making day is ruined because you can't do anything about this little troll who rolled a temp character to annoy you. It isn't that turning off PvP turns off annoying people it just means they play with different tools, and unfortunately PvE trolls can be even more annoying than the PvP variety and a million times more immersion breaking.
It is understandable if ten annoying people come and kill me to stop the building of my wall, it is not always fun but at least I understand how and why that played out, it is mind blowingly frustrating when the mechanics allow two trolls on alts to stop 10 crafters from building a wall. In a world without PvP this isn't just a possibility it is a forgone conclusion, you will piss someone off in an MMO, maybe you stole "his" resources, maybe your wall blocks "her" view of the mountains, but for whatever reason it will eventually occur and you simply do not have enough mechanics to stop it and the more you put in to do so the less sandbox you will be.
There is a great player housing system where I could build my wall in a game called Rifts, I get my own little dimension and can build it however I wish in a very sandbox like manner, no one can come on the property to bother me and it will be just like I want it, but it is not and never will be a sandbox because the rules, the same rules that completely eliminate the fear of the above mentions trolls, define it as un sandbox in nature, it is an instance that gives complete control to the owner.
To go back to the above quote, it is not that anarchy=immersion, it is simply that the false walls required to herd the trolls in a PvE environment break the sandbox.
PvP doesn't solve any of the issues you've created in your post. Trying to solve methods of griefing with a tool that can be used for griefing isn't a solution, it's an escalation. Once OW/FFA PvP is added, more rules need to be added in order for it to work. Players have to be marked as criminals, players have to have safe zones, systems have to be made to coax players into high risk pvp areas, etc. PvP is not a magic bullet.
Concerning wood and building, players must buy land or a land permit. This gives them the permission to build on a plot of land, and they can leave whatever they want laying around and nobody can take it. If they build on a plot of land they didn't buy and somebody takes the wood, tough luck. Don't leave things in the open world. PvP isn't required as a solution, and neither is the overly complex scenario you've outlined.
**
The simplest bit that I didn't think about while typing this up is that the level 1 troll doesn't have to be a level 1 troll. They could be a max level troll, while you are not a max level troll, in which case PvP doesn't solve that issue.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you want to pvp flag over and fight it out, take part in wars, territory gain, craft for the war effort, etc.....
If you don't want to pvp, don't flag over or gain agro from pvp aspects of the game.
Don't see why people are always wanting to obmit features they don't like, instead of working everything into the game and making both sides happy. SWG did that right in my opinion.
Its a sandbox, freedom and choice is the only thing that matters. If you start taking things out and obmitting things you dislike you just turn it into another lame themepark.
Yeah, I am relatively new to MMORPG games (Only been playing since Rift came out. So that is two years?) But it seems to me that the simple solution would be a PvP flag. I myself have only just started messing around with PvP in MMO games and I know I would not want to be killed every five minutes by some idiot who decides it is fun to camp respawn spots and chokepoint safe spots. Unfortunately, humanity sucks too much to have unregulated OWPvP.
I know I play Aion and people complain about ganking in that game. It seems to me that you should have a choice as to if you want to PvP in the open world or not. So, to me, a PvP flag seems to be the best possible solution. PvP people can do what they want and others can do what they want and choose to PvP or not.
Yeah, I am relatively new to MMORPG games (Only been playing since Rift came out. So that is two years?) But it seems to me that the simple solution would be a PvP flag. I myself have only just started messing around with PvP in MMO games and I know I would not want to be killed every five minutes by some idiot who decides it is fun to camp respawn spots and chokepoint safe spots. Unfortunately, humanity sucks too much to have unregulated OWPvP.
I know I play Aion and people complain about ganking in that game. It seems to me that you should have a choice as to if you want to PvP in the open world or not. So, to me, a PvP flag seems to be the best possible solution. PvP people can do what they want and others can do what they want and choose to PvP or not.
And don't apologize for your preference. MMORPGs are just games. Use them as you see fit.
Personally i don't play any game that mix pve with pvp. I would only play pvp if:
- they are in an instanced (arena/battleground), or
- the whole game is pvp (like PS2)
That is my preference, and if a game don't cater to me, i can always find other entertainment.
Yeah, I am relatively new to MMORPG games (Only been playing since Rift came out. So that is two years?) But it seems to me that the simple solution would be a PvP flag. I myself have only just started messing around with PvP in MMO games and I know I would not want to be killed every five minutes by some idiot who decides it is fun to camp respawn spots and chokepoint safe spots. Unfortunately, humanity sucks too much to have unregulated OWPvP.
I know I play Aion and people complain about ganking in that game. It seems to me that you should have a choice as to if you want to PvP in the open world or not. So, to me, a PvP flag seems to be the best possible solution. PvP people can do what they want and others can do what they want and choose to PvP or not.
And don't apologize for your preference. MMORPGs are just games. Use them as you see fit.
Personally i don't play any game that mix pve with pvp. I would only play pvp if:
- they are in an instanced (arena/battleground), or
- the whole game is pvp (like PS2)
That is my preference, and if a game don't cater to me, i can always find other entertainment.
Yeah, I must admit Aion is a new branch for me. Not sure if I will like it yet as I am like you. I would rather just have instanced PvP.
Yeah, I am relatively new to MMORPG games (Only been playing since Rift came out. So that is two years?) But it seems to me that the simple solution would be a PvP flag. I myself have only just started messing around with PvP in MMO games and I know I would not want to be killed every five minutes by some idiot who decides it is fun to camp respawn spots and chokepoint safe spots. Unfortunately, humanity sucks too much to have unregulated OWPvP.
I know I play Aion and people complain about ganking in that game. It seems to me that you should have a choice as to if you want to PvP in the open world or not. So, to me, a PvP flag seems to be the best possible solution. PvP people can do what they want and others can do what they want and choose to PvP or not.
A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic. EVE is a very good example of a system that works well; the players often ignore the full intent of the system and turn into combat only effectively, but that doesnt change the fact that the system is designed to be as much about control and market share as it is about combat, and the differing security levels provides opportunities for a wide range of players.
Originally posted by sunshadow21 A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic.
Nah .. there are plenty of alternatives for loss. You can always have a NPC takes your armor away.
Originally posted by sunshadow21 A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic.
^this
Theres plenty of people against PvP but still they are doing PvP all the time and they like it,when they dont know it but if you tell it to them ,well what happens then.
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/ **
Originally posted by sunshadow21 A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic.
Nah .. there are plenty of alternatives for loss. You can always have a NPC takes your armor away.
You really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat.
Originally posted by sunshadow21 A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic.
Nah .. there are plenty of alternatives for loss. You can always have a NPC takes your armor away.
You really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat.
I am just pointing out that you don't need pvp to have loss.
All these other stuff about interaction is moot if the players don't like pvp in the first place.
Originally posted by sunshadow21 Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by sunshadow21 A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic.
Nah .. there are plenty of alternatives for loss. You can always have a NPC takes your armor away.You really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat.
If loss is the key mechanic, losing it to an NPC, losing it to a player or losing it to general decay all result in pretty much the same thing. PvP isn't required to remove things from the world.
The other interactions come down to preference. For someone who isn't interested in PvP, tracking the person down who killed them and took their armor isn't fun. Tracking an NPC down who took their armor might be fun. But it comes down to preference, not necessity.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Have you read DocBrody's posts lately?
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
A) don't know who that is. don't care.
C) I don't follow people around spying on their posts to try and get ammunition on them. Forum games are disruptive and unproductive.
pick one.
Yes you are right. PvP FFA in fact is realistic on the surface. In real life everyone is able to murder everyone anytime, but the good thing is that almost nobody ever does it. But in a game world its differed, if there is PvP FFA, players will use it, some more, some less and some all the time. Now picture this being real life again for a moment. What would happen if everyone would run amok all the time? Well, everyone was dead in a few days. And in RL there is no respawning as you might know. So a game with FFA PVP may seem more realistic but its implications actually make the game world very unrealistic. If it was possible to put FFA PvP into a game and at the same time ensure that it is used only very rarely, I'm in for it.
If you say that having no PvP makes a sandbox a themepark, does that mean that adding world PvP to a themepark turnes it into a sandbox? Is Call of Duty a sandbox game?
It seems to me that you define the whole thing by a non essential part. Its like saying, if a car has no roof it is not a car and driving in a convertible is the same thing as walking.
I think if you say that whole thing is a mindset, you pretty much nail it. PvP FFA players indeed have a very special mindset.
It is hard for me to see where the fun is coming from in FFA PvP. One could assume that it is coming from the constant treat and the unforgiving nature of the game. You have to take into consideration that the fights are almost never fair. The attacker has all the benefits, he can choose who and when to attack and no one would take on a fight that he is not likely to win. Most the time if you get killed it is like three guys jump you from behind when you don't expect it and are low on heath.
Imagine what it would be like if a game would do that in PvE, randomly a high level mob would spawn right behind you and one-hit you and it also would take away all the progress you made in the last couple of hours. How frustrating would that be? No one would like that especially hardcore FFA PvP fans.
The problem with the threat in PvP FFA is that it is unpredictable. I like hard games but you need to know when you put yourself in danger and when not.
So the fun is obviously not coming from the passive side of being killable by other players. That means it must solely come from killing other players and the benefit must be so great that it outweighs being looted oneself from time to time.
Of course it is fun to succeed in a fair fight, but in FFA PvP its almost always ganking.
I fail to see where all the fun of destroying other players progress is coming from. I would feel bad for doing this. But of course there is a group of people that take great fun out of damaging other players, we normally call them griefers. This also explains why the PvP FFA crowd is so small, there simply are not that many sadists.
You are looking for a vulnerable person that you can jump from behind to rob and humiliate him or her? There is a very sinister motif going on here if you look at it from a psychological standpoint and I don't what to explain it any further.
Sounds to me like it's you who's going red in a desperate attempt to convince us you're the one who's right.
You know it gose the other way just as much, when I tell you there is no reall sandbox without open world ffa pvp being a skeleton, a base of a system on which you than build on. Including various restrictions.
However once you go too far with restrictions and bypassing, you suddenly land in a Themepark, and yeah an mmorpg which nurses and protects you like mommy spoils her child, giving shortcuts and an "ïnvulnerable" shield, than you know you have landed in a Themepark and no ammount of fluffy options to trick your brain into what some players want to call FREEDOM of options will make your game more sandbox, or Sandbox at all.
Your first sentence makes no sense. If you want a sandbox without ffapvp go play a theme park? Why? If he wanted a theme park he would play a theme park. Instead he wants a sandbox pve game. In contrast to several PvP sandboxes, there hasn't been a sandbox pve game.
Sandbox has never meant PvP... ever. It has always only been a feature that can be used in sandbox. Some sandbox had OWPvP, some had optional PvP, some didn't have PvP at all. Yet most people and the industry consider them sandbox
Going from some of the posts here that is exactly what some people think. Anarchy = immersion. I will take my non-immersive industrialized nation over Somalia any day.
This does remind me of a political debate where the candidates don't ever actually speak to each other, they speak around each other.
I do not think the idea is that anarchy= immersion, I believe it is more accurate to say complete freedom combined with invincibility = a break from immersion.
For instance lets say you are building a wall, the reason does not matter but this is a sandbox and you want a wall around your house or farm or girlfriend, so you have your lumber over in a pile you are making your little wall of glory and someone comes up and picks up all your lumber, someones alt a level 1 character just destroyed your dream of having the best wall in the world. Now in a PvP environment you would probably just kill this alt and keep going about your business but now it has become a immersion breaking head ache because this 20 minute old character has ruined your plans and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now someone will then go on and say "well that is easy enough to solve you just need the mechanics to stop that, people can not pick up other peoples lumber, problem solved", however it is never that simple, now you have made lumber an unmovable object, anyone who has ever player old UO will tell you unmovable objects are an item griefers love to use. But say the developers kept adding more and more mechanics to the lumber pile until they got it right. The more mechanics they add mind you the less realistic the scenario becomes, until your lumber is probably either kept on your inventory with zero weight or kept in some kind of unlockable ghost like container only you the player can see. The griefer can find other ways to stop your wall, lets say he just decides to stand in the place your next section of wall is going to be built. Once again your entire wall making day is ruined because you can't do anything about this little troll who rolled a temp character to annoy you. It isn't that turning off PvP turns off annoying people it just means they play with different tools, and unfortunately PvE trolls can be even more annoying than the PvP variety and a million times more immersion breaking.
It is understandable if ten annoying people come and kill me to stop the building of my wall, it is not always fun but at least I understand how and why that played out, it is mind blowingly frustrating when the mechanics allow two trolls on alts to stop 10 crafters from building a wall. In a world without PvP this isn't just a possibility it is a forgone conclusion, you will piss someone off in an MMO, maybe you stole "his" resources, maybe your wall blocks "her" view of the mountains, but for whatever reason it will eventually occur and you simply do not have enough mechanics to stop it and the more you put in to do so the less sandbox you will be.
There is a great player housing system where I could build my wall in a game called Rifts, I get my own little dimension and can build it however I wish in a very sandbox like manner, no one can come on the property to bother me and it will be just like I want it, but it is not and never will be a sandbox because the rules, the same rules that completely eliminate the fear of the above mentions trolls, define it as un sandbox in nature, it is an instance that gives complete control to the owner.
To go back to the above quote, it is not that anarchy=immersion, it is simply that the false walls required to herd the trolls in a PvE environment break the sandbox.
Sorry to be "that guy" but, this deserves an instant +1 and a bump.
Super kudos to you, GrayKodiak. I hope others read this and put some rational thought behind it before immediately trying to nullify your points for the sake of being "more right than you"
Posts like these are why TL;DR remarks sound incredibly ignorant.
PvP doesn't solve any of the issues you've created in your post. Trying to solve methods of griefing with a tool that can be used for griefing isn't a solution, it's an escalation. Once OW/FFA PvP is added, more rules need to be added in order for it to work. Players have to be marked as criminals, players have to have safe zones, systems have to be made to coax players into high risk pvp areas, etc. PvP is not a magic bullet.
Concerning wood and building, players must buy land or a land permit. This gives them the permission to build on a plot of land, and they can leave whatever they want laying around and nobody can take it. If they build on a plot of land they didn't buy and somebody takes the wood, tough luck. Don't leave things in the open world. PvP isn't required as a solution, and neither is the overly complex scenario you've outlined.
**
The simplest bit that I didn't think about while typing this up is that the level 1 troll doesn't have to be a level 1 troll. They could be a max level troll, while you are not a max level troll, in which case PvP doesn't solve that issue.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Simple solution, flagged pvp.
If you want to pvp flag over and fight it out, take part in wars, territory gain, craft for the war effort, etc.....
If you don't want to pvp, don't flag over or gain agro from pvp aspects of the game.
Don't see why people are always wanting to obmit features they don't like, instead of working everything into the game and making both sides happy. SWG did that right in my opinion.
Its a sandbox, freedom and choice is the only thing that matters. If you start taking things out and obmitting things you dislike you just turn it into another lame themepark.
Not surprising. No one is being convinced on the Internet. It is about scoring witty argument on the other guy.
The true decision-making is the market, which decides if and what MMOs to produce. Everything here is just talk for entertainment.
Yeah, I am relatively new to MMORPG games (Only been playing since Rift came out. So that is two years?) But it seems to me that the simple solution would be a PvP flag. I myself have only just started messing around with PvP in MMO games and I know I would not want to be killed every five minutes by some idiot who decides it is fun to camp respawn spots and chokepoint safe spots. Unfortunately, humanity sucks too much to have unregulated OWPvP.
I know I play Aion and people complain about ganking in that game. It seems to me that you should have a choice as to if you want to PvP in the open world or not. So, to me, a PvP flag seems to be the best possible solution. PvP people can do what they want and others can do what they want and choose to PvP or not.
And don't apologize for your preference. MMORPGs are just games. Use them as you see fit.
Personally i don't play any game that mix pve with pvp. I would only play pvp if:
- they are in an instanced (arena/battleground), or
- the whole game is pvp (like PS2)
That is my preference, and if a game don't cater to me, i can always find other entertainment.
Yeah, I must admit Aion is a new branch for me. Not sure if I will like it yet as I am like you. I would rather just have instanced PvP.
The good news is that there are plenty of instanced pvp. In fact, you may also try some instanced pvp only games (with no pve, or even a world).
Star Control, World of Tanks, .... some are pretty good games.
http://anarchyonline.wikia.com/wiki/PvP 1 pretty good system.
now ,some dev out there, try to develope it even further.
Like 50 hour black flag from kill murdering.
Whole org(guild) gets flagged if some player does something crazy etc.
Red player names lootable.....
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/ **
Nah .. there are plenty of alternatives for loss. You can always have a NPC takes your armor away.
^this
Theres plenty of people against PvP but still they are doing PvP all the time and they like it,when they dont know it but if you tell it to them ,well what happens then.
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 really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat.
I am just pointing out that you don't need pvp to have loss.
All these other stuff about interaction is moot if the players don't like pvp in the first place.
You really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat.
If loss is the key mechanic, losing it to an NPC, losing it to a player or losing it to general decay all result in pretty much the same thing. PvP isn't required to remove things from the world.
The other interactions come down to preference. For someone who isn't interested in PvP, tracking the person down who killed them and took their armor isn't fun. Tracking an NPC down who took their armor might be fun. But it comes down to preference, not necessity.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Yeah, well I am more of a PvE person actually. However, I am trying new things and keeping an open mind. Things like that. :-)