Very very few people argue that pvp is anything other than player combat with other players.
I would state the majority say it is player combat, that is the commonly referenced and accepted form.
As such unless the OP specfically stated some other form, it is reasonable to think he was talking about combat.
Talking about other forms of pvp, when the topic is about combat is a straw man aka irrelevant.
The limited definition is as much the problem as anything else here. A lot of anti-pvp players still end up making it all about pvp because that's they are emphasizing it, therefore the devs think that combat in its various forms is the most critical aspect to the game. A direct result is that even when developers try to implement other types of interactions, most players still usually end up breaking them down into combat eventually, even those who are ostensibly wanting the focus to be elsewhere. The only way to break through the barrier between those who want pvp and those who dont is to break the single minded focus on combat in general and in this discussion in particular.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
We are talking about combat pvp here.
If you include comparison .. there is no pve. You can always see if you have better gear than the next guy.
And you are missing my larger point that pvp is not just combat. Many people try to argue that they are against pvp and the competition it breeds, but they are comparing equipment in their next breath. If people are against pvp combat, they need to say combat, not competition. Some do, but many don't.
No they really don't. People need to stop trying to broaden well known terms into something they're not till it's so confusing for anyone trying to read what people are saying no one knows what anyone is talking about.
PvP is player vrs player combat. If you want to include competition between players come up with a different acronym for it. MMO has already been bastardized to the point of being meaningless, we don't need to do it to every gaming term.
Fair enough, until someone does though, PvP is pretty much the only one we have to work with. I don't care for that fact, but I can only work with what I have, as I am not in a position to get enough support for another term to a usable state.
but that option must always be there in the background.
"Must always" is where you are making your mistake - not all conflict resolution has to based around the threat of escalation.
It could be escalation, it could be loss, it could be something else, but risk must be present, and escalation and loss are the two easiest to create and replicate consistently, with some form of pvp, or at least the chance of it, being the easiest way to accomplish that. If you can find a better way to make this particular wheel, I'm all ears.
What's been made clear to me in this thread is that some people her elok at the saying "There more thna one way to skin a cat." and scream BS!!!!You have to skin a cat this way and it's the only way!!!!
but that option must always be there in the background.
"Must always" is where you are making your mistake - not all conflict resolution has to based around the threat of escalation.
It could be escalation, it could be loss, it could be something else, but risk must be present, and escalation and loss are the two easiest to create and replicate consistently, with some form of pvp, or at least the chance of it, being the easiest way to accomplish that. If you can find a better way to make this particular wheel, I'm all ears.
but that option must always be there in the background.
"Must always" is where you are making your mistake - not all conflict resolution has to based around the threat of escalation.
It could be escalation, it could be loss, it could be something else, but risk must be present, and escalation and loss are the two easiest to create and replicate consistently, with some form of pvp, or at least the chance of it, being the easiest way to accomplish that. If you can find a better way to make this particular wheel, I'm all ears.
UO Trammel. Minecraft. Second Life.
Istara, Ryzom, SWG if you never flagged...
edit - I guess if there ways are better thats opinion but they did manage it without the need for risk of escalation or loss of items
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Very very few people argue that pvp is anything other than player combat with other players.
I would state the majority say it is player combat, that is the commonly referenced and accepted form.
As such unless the OP specfically stated some other form, it is reasonable to think he was talking about combat.
Talking about other forms of pvp, when the topic is about combat is a straw man aka irrelevant.
Maan when someone gives names like Xxsuperkiller666xX to their character for example ,he is allready part of the MMORPG PvP.
When this guy asks in global chat "could someone help me with dungeon ,crafting" etc and he wont get help anywhere ,he is part of PvP in its purest form.
noone heals him in battlegrounds for example (if theres is such thing) etc.
And if someone ask for example from me
-Minsc "could you revive my pet ,he is hurt :< ? " and i revive him and give him also 50 000 000 credits.
Other side of the PvP coin.
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/ **
See my note above. When discussing "PvP", most people think of player combat, not player competition. Competition between players, whether required or not is going to exist in multiplayer games, even the cooperative ones. However, a single player game doesn't have player competition, and it's possible to have a single player sandbox. A popular one even. PvP, even using the expanded definition, isn't required for a sandbox game, though it's going to be an element of a multiplayer game, even if player combat is limited.
Single player games are a different animal with different requirements and they provide a different function. They also have different expectations, so comparisons between them and mmos are limited at best. It's possible to make great single player sandboxes, but they will inherently have different strengths, weaknesses, and features than a sandbox mmo. And you will note that I'm going to great pains to make it clear that I despise the limited definition of pvp usually put out there.
In the end, player interaction is key to any multiplayer game, and completely removing the possibility of negative interactions without limiting the range of positive interactions is nigh impossible. It's not absolutely impossible, but functionally it may as well be. Rather than trying to fight the possibility of those negative reactions, its better to accept them and integrate them into the gameplay of a sandbox game; that makes it easier to control the excessive examples of it and to an extent turns them into a positive. Even if the devs try to say no pvp, players will still find a way to do it, so why not simply implement it from the start when everything else can be designed to deal with it? For a healthy sandbox, accepting and embracing competition of all kinds is functional necessity. Use whatever term you care to, but as much as I don't particularly care for the term PvP, its still the best one out there to describe the kind of elements needed.
Developers can turn on or off whatever they want. If developers tell the players they cannot PvP*, then they cannot PvP. They may compete, and they may grief each other, but they will be unable to PvP. That's not an issue.
We're not discussing "healthy" sandboxes, we're discussing sandboxes. In an MMORPG, PvP is not necessary for the sandbox to exist or function. There are examples in the wild of sandboxes that do not have PvP.
Everything about PvP is a preference. Whether it's optional, whether it involves full or partial loot to whether it's FFA or faction based. It's all a preference of the developer and players. There is no requirement for PvP or a particular kind of PvP for a sandbox game to exist or for that game to be successful.
* PvP as in combat between players. That's what the OP is on about, and that's what we're discussing here. If you want to have your own definition, fine, but you won't be having the same discussion that everyone else is having.
**
Just realized that the title of the thread doesn't say that sandboxes don't require PvP. That's an even easier discussion. If a sandbox doesn't require PvP to operate, then it certainly doesn't need PvP to be the primary mechanic of the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
* PvP as in combat between players. That's what the OP is on about, and that's what we're discussing here. If you want to have your own definition, fine, but you won't be having the same discussion that everyone else is having.
The reason that the thread gets derailed is that when you take away the "might is right" idea that a PvP-orientated game has, there is a legimate question of how to resolve disputes between players in a way that discourages escalation into "most creative griefing" as much as possible.
Originally posted by GrayKodiak 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.
Here's the problem: I don't feel the same way.
PvP option may be important for *your* immersion.
PvP completely destroys all immersion for me. Completely. Game over. I do not play MMOs to play *against* people.
The entire point of this thread is not everyone agrees with you and that non-PvP play does not automatically mean themepark. There exist people who would rather have a Trammel-only UO type game than a WoW type game. You may not be one of them, that's fine, but why on earth are you trying to convince people not to build the game that they want to play in? Why is the concept of such a game so threatening to you that you are posting in this thread
so discriminating between a human controlled character and a same looking, scripted mindless non-player character bot is NOT immersion breaking to you?.. because?
yeah totally makes sense. Totally lore explainable, those little itsy bitsy PvE-flags.
You PvE-only lot just constantly cracks me up.
Sandbox-> Realism. Get it in your heads.
You-> invincible-> BS immersion themepark style
Sandbox-> PvPvE, or as it's called PvALL, as intended in a sandbox, not PvE minus P for people who simply suck at player combat.
once more: theme parks -> THAT. WAY.
oh and by the way, the agenda you are playing of "the PvPer vs. the PvEer" -> ridiculous deception
I'm not a PvPer , I still play lots of PvE and I want both merged seamlessly. Your "PvPer" is a made up scapegoat and everyone knows there is no PvPer who is not a PvEer at the same time.
It's PvAll vs. PvE-only.
or PvPvE vs. Pve-only.
You're the ones opting out, my little special snowflakes.
Developers have given you WAY too much attention over the last years. Time to finally bring this to an end.
so discriminating between a human controlled character and a same looking stupid scripted mindless non-player character bot is NOT immersion breaking to you?
Originally posted by maplestone Originally posted by lizardbones* PvP as in combat between players. That's what the OP is on about, and that's what we're discussing here. If you want to have your own definition, fine, but you won't be having the same discussion that everyone else is having.
The reason that the thread gets derailed is that when you take away the "might is right" idea that a PvP-orientated game has, there is a legimate question of how to resolve disputes between players in a way that discourages escalation into "most creative griefing" as much as possible.
I don't think that's what happened here. What happened here is somebody stumbled upon what they thought was a loophole in the discussion.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
so discriminating between a human controlled character and a same looking stupid scripted mindless non-player character bot is NOT immersion breaking to you?
"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. "
I agree that sandboxes do not need to have PvP. They need to be player driven and persistent.
PvP and the politics that revolve around it seem to be a more common way of delivering player driven combat and territorial control. But... it's not necessary.
Originally posted by DocBrody Originally posted by maplestoneOriginally posted by DocBrodyso discriminating between a human controlled character and a same looking stupid scripted mindless non-player character bot is NOT immersion breaking to you?
Correct.Theme Parks -> That way
That's odd. I wasn't aware that people could be directed out of a preference for sandboxes. Especially since "Sandbox" is a concept and not a fenced in yard or house.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
but that option must always be there in the background.
"Must always" is where you are making your mistake - not all conflict resolution has to based around the threat of escalation.
It could be escalation, it could be loss, it could be something else, but risk must be present, and escalation and loss are the two easiest to create and replicate consistently, with some form of pvp, or at least the chance of it, being the easiest way to accomplish that. If you can find a better way to make this particular wheel, I'm all ears.
UO Trammel. Minecraft. Second Life.
You can certainly have an mmo sandbox without PvP, whether or not you can have an MMORPG without PvP may be another point of debate.
To use your own examples, PvE griefing is very rampant in Trammel, it was actually one of my first experiences with it, you see it in any PvE themepark with mechanic abuse, I once had someone run around a quest area in WoW with his level 50 something making sure no one could complete the quests because he was killing all the mobs too fast (that may be more of an indictment over wow's combat/questing system than anything though).
Minecraft is not an RPG game, immersion isn't even an issue, it isn't even a true MMO it is just a multiplayer game, it is a sandbox but its use in this discussion is a bit odd as I don't think the OP or any person on the side of PvE only is suggesting a minecraft like experience. Or they could just find it in minecraft.
The second life is a sandbox and it is massive, it even has some lands dedicated to RP but a quick look at population and longevity will quickly show you that the most popular and best of those lands are all running PvP enabling add on systems. This isn't even something that can be argued one has to spend only a few minutes in that game to see this is the case. Because the grinder of real experience shows that this is what works in an MMORPG.
However,
PvP does not have to be in all MMO's, I imagine you could have a trading MMO or a world building MMO without PvP, they could probably be really good games, there are actually a few of those out right now just not AAA titles. Probably because such titles have a very niche appeal, maybe even less than full loot PvP MMORPG with permadeath, then again probably not.
PvP can be in the system and discouraged as well, Age of Wushu does this with its prison system but it could be done to make it even harsher. I have seen PvP in games that it is almost never used in, mostly old MuD style games that have a much higher GM to player ratio than current MMO's do. Gemstone IV has full on PvP and real death penalties but you never see people running around ganking lowbies because any PvP combat has to be Role Played out (and they have the GM to player ratio to go through the logs and see if it was or wasn't if someone reports an abuse) but again that brings us back to the RPG part of MMORPG.
You dismiss people who claim it breaks immersion and then point to games that either don't have that element or, as is the case with Second Life, only have that element in certain spots where there may in fact be a PvP element. You can not however deny the fact that 2 people rolling trolls and bunny hopping in circles around you naked while you try and plant some crops or have a conversation is immersion breaking in a role playing game.
If you really think Minecraft is an example of what you want go play that, or Tales of the Sun, go play that. Have fun.
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.
*snip*
The yellow is exactly what a themepark is.
With out any change to the world from players you are playing a themepark because the only change will come from developers adding more content.
Let me say this one more time for those that are so lost as to understand why PvP is required for a sandbox to be a sandbox.
The comment in the yellow is exactly what a themepark MMO is, you do scripted/group content until the developers make more for you.
The PvP dosn't need to be strictly killing each other or raiding others houses, it can be economic, political, etc. but PvP of all types including killing of others is required for a sandbox to be a sandbox. A true sandbox game has very little developer created content in the grand scheme of it. The game is essentially a world for people to interact in and participate in.
If the game world never changes based on player interaction with out developer input then the game is a themepark no matter how you slice it.
If players can't destroy what is created then it is a themepark. You are still doing the exact same thing you do in WoW with gear grinding, but now your only House Building Grinding, or Farming Building Grinding.
If something can be built one minute but can't be destroyed the next then the game is not a sandbox it is only a themepark with side goals.
I totally disagree. If all PvP players played according to fair set rules, I might agree. But people who will only play PvE have just had it with griefers and gankers. Forget prisons and oversight to avoid that. It doesn't work well enough.
Theme park leads you through the game with set quests and events. Sandbox gives you an open world to find your own adventure, your own way to enjoy the game. It doesn't require PvP at all, except for those players who think they have to have it.
Once more, SWG was the most fun for me of any game I've played. It was easy to meet people, easy to group, fun to adventure. People loved the style of crafting and selling. I don't know why it failed, IF it failed before Sony changed the whole game. I'm sure there were lots of players who preferred being led by a Theme park type of game.
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.
*snip*
The yellow is exactly what a themepark is.
With out any change to the world from players you are playing a themepark because the only change will come from developers adding more content.
Let me say this one more time for those that are so lost as to understand why PvP is required for a sandbox to be a sandbox.
The comment in the yellow is exactly what a themepark MMO is, you do scripted/group content until the developers make more for you.
The PvP dosn't need to be strictly killing each other or raiding others houses, it can be economic, political, etc. but PvP of all types including killing of others is required for a sandbox to be a sandbox. A true sandbox game has very little developer created content in the grand scheme of it. The game is essentially a world for people to interact in and participate in.
If the game world never changes based on player interaction with out developer input then the game is a themepark no matter how you slice it.
If players can't destroy what is created then it is a themepark. You are still doing the exact same thing you do in WoW with gear grinding, but now your only House Building Grinding, or Farming Building Grinding.
If something can be built one minute but can't be destroyed the next then the game is not a sandbox it is only a themepark with side goals.
Its nice of you to share your idea of a sandbox to everyone else and in a sense claim that your view on the subject is in fact the "word of god" with regards to player created content.
How positively impossibly self centered of you.
Apparently building something brick by brick is meaningless to EVERYONE and doesn't count as a sandbox feature unless it can be destroyed at will by someone else.
Thanks for sharing what you consider to be an important "game feature". Because that's all it is, a feature that can be added or removed and is not the core component of a sandbox game.
So to sum it up what your also saying is there has never been a single player SANDBOX game ever, because there is no one around to destroy the stuff you made. ........okay sure.
Comments
"Must always" is where you are making your mistake - not all conflict resolution has to based around the threat of escalation.
The limited definition is as much the problem as anything else here. A lot of anti-pvp players still end up making it all about pvp because that's they are emphasizing it, therefore the devs think that combat in its various forms is the most critical aspect to the game. A direct result is that even when developers try to implement other types of interactions, most players still usually end up breaking them down into combat eventually, even those who are ostensibly wanting the focus to be elsewhere. The only way to break through the barrier between those who want pvp and those who dont is to break the single minded focus on combat in general and in this discussion in particular.
Fair enough, until someone does though, PvP is pretty much the only one we have to work with. I don't care for that fact, but I can only work with what I have, as I am not in a position to get enough support for another term to a usable state.
It could be escalation, it could be loss, it could be something else, but risk must be present, and escalation and loss are the two easiest to create and replicate consistently, with some form of pvp, or at least the chance of it, being the easiest way to accomplish that. If you can find a better way to make this particular wheel, I'm all ears.
UO Trammel. Minecraft. Second Life.
Istara, Ryzom, SWG if you never flagged...
edit - I guess if there ways are better thats opinion but they did manage it without the need for risk of escalation or loss of items
Maan when someone gives names like Xxsuperkiller666xX to their character for example ,he is allready part of the MMORPG PvP.
When this guy asks in global chat "could someone help me with dungeon ,crafting" etc and he wont get help anywhere ,he is part of PvP in its purest form.
noone heals him in battlegrounds for example (if theres is such thing) etc.
And if someone ask for example from me
-Minsc "could you revive my pet ,he is hurt :< ? " and i revive him and give him also 50 000 000 credits.
Other side of the PvP coin.
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/ **
Pal 18, don't mean to offend you, and If I do I apologize.
I have no idea what you saying or the point, or counterpoint, or argument you are making a good portion of the time. You elude me
Hehe theres no counterpoints or arguments whatsoever ,the point is that PvP is everywhere.
Well not in *this* conversation yet
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/ **
Developers can turn on or off whatever they want. If developers tell the players they cannot PvP*, then they cannot PvP. They may compete, and they may grief each other, but they will be unable to PvP. That's not an issue.
We're not discussing "healthy" sandboxes, we're discussing sandboxes. In an MMORPG, PvP is not necessary for the sandbox to exist or function. There are examples in the wild of sandboxes that do not have PvP.
Everything about PvP is a preference. Whether it's optional, whether it involves full or partial loot to whether it's FFA or faction based. It's all a preference of the developer and players. There is no requirement for PvP or a particular kind of PvP for a sandbox game to exist or for that game to be successful.
* PvP as in combat between players. That's what the OP is on about, and that's what we're discussing here. If you want to have your own definition, fine, but you won't be having the same discussion that everyone else is having.
**
Just realized that the title of the thread doesn't say that sandboxes don't require PvP. That's an even easier discussion. If a sandbox doesn't require PvP to operate, then it certainly doesn't need PvP to be the primary mechanic of the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The reason that the thread gets derailed is that when you take away the "might is right" idea that a PvP-orientated game has, there is a legimate question of how to resolve disputes between players in a way that discourages escalation into "most creative griefing" as much as possible.
so discriminating between a human controlled character and a same looking, scripted mindless non-player character bot is NOT immersion breaking to you?.. because?
yeah totally makes sense. Totally lore explainable, those little itsy bitsy PvE-flags.
You PvE-only lot just constantly cracks me up.
Sandbox-> Realism. Get it in your heads.
You-> invincible-> BS immersion themepark style
Sandbox-> PvPvE, or as it's called PvALL, as intended in a sandbox, not PvE minus P for people who simply suck at player combat.
once more: theme parks -> THAT. WAY.
oh and by the way, the agenda you are playing of "the PvPer vs. the PvEer" -> ridiculous deception
I'm not a PvPer , I still play lots of PvE and I want both merged seamlessly. Your "PvPer" is a made up scapegoat and everyone knows there is no PvPer who is not a PvEer at the same time.
It's PvAll vs. PvE-only.
or PvPvE vs. Pve-only.
You're the ones opting out, my little special snowflakes.
Developers have given you WAY too much attention over the last years. Time to finally bring this to an end.
Correct.
I don't think that's what happened here. What happened here is somebody stumbled upon what they thought was a loophole in the discussion.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Theme Parks -> That way
"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. "
Amen! The only game I miss is SWG.
I agree that sandboxes do not need to have PvP. They need to be player driven and persistent.
PvP and the politics that revolve around it seem to be a more common way of delivering player driven combat and territorial control. But... it's not necessary.
Theme Parks -> That way
That's odd. I wasn't aware that people could be directed out of a preference for sandboxes. Especially since "Sandbox" is a concept and not a fenced in yard or house.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You can certainly have an mmo sandbox without PvP, whether or not you can have an MMORPG without PvP may be another point of debate.
To use your own examples, PvE griefing is very rampant in Trammel, it was actually one of my first experiences with it, you see it in any PvE themepark with mechanic abuse, I once had someone run around a quest area in WoW with his level 50 something making sure no one could complete the quests because he was killing all the mobs too fast (that may be more of an indictment over wow's combat/questing system than anything though).
Minecraft is not an RPG game, immersion isn't even an issue, it isn't even a true MMO it is just a multiplayer game, it is a sandbox but its use in this discussion is a bit odd as I don't think the OP or any person on the side of PvE only is suggesting a minecraft like experience. Or they could just find it in minecraft.
The second life is a sandbox and it is massive, it even has some lands dedicated to RP but a quick look at population and longevity will quickly show you that the most popular and best of those lands are all running PvP enabling add on systems. This isn't even something that can be argued one has to spend only a few minutes in that game to see this is the case. Because the grinder of real experience shows that this is what works in an MMORPG.
However,
PvP does not have to be in all MMO's, I imagine you could have a trading MMO or a world building MMO without PvP, they could probably be really good games, there are actually a few of those out right now just not AAA titles. Probably because such titles have a very niche appeal, maybe even less than full loot PvP MMORPG with permadeath, then again probably not.
PvP can be in the system and discouraged as well, Age of Wushu does this with its prison system but it could be done to make it even harsher. I have seen PvP in games that it is almost never used in, mostly old MuD style games that have a much higher GM to player ratio than current MMO's do. Gemstone IV has full on PvP and real death penalties but you never see people running around ganking lowbies because any PvP combat has to be Role Played out (and they have the GM to player ratio to go through the logs and see if it was or wasn't if someone reports an abuse) but again that brings us back to the RPG part of MMORPG.
You dismiss people who claim it breaks immersion and then point to games that either don't have that element or, as is the case with Second Life, only have that element in certain spots where there may in fact be a PvP element. You can not however deny the fact that 2 people rolling trolls and bunny hopping in circles around you naked while you try and plant some crops or have a conversation is immersion breaking in a role playing game.
If you really think Minecraft is an example of what you want go play that, or Tales of the Sun, go play that. Have fun.
It does not break my immersion.
Of course anyone who tries to disagree with this statement is going to be dismissed, because they aren't me.
I have not said it's not going to break *YOUR* immersion.I have not said YOUR sandbox needs to be PvP-free.
I want MY sandbox to be PvP-free.
You and I are different people.
It might be a crazy concept to you, but it's possible we will end up playing different games.
The yellow is exactly what a themepark is.
With out any change to the world from players you are playing a themepark because the only change will come from developers adding more content.
Let me say this one more time for those that are so lost as to understand why PvP is required for a sandbox to be a sandbox.
The comment in the yellow is exactly what a themepark MMO is, you do scripted/group content until the developers make more for you.
The PvP dosn't need to be strictly killing each other or raiding others houses, it can be economic, political, etc. but PvP of all types including killing of others is required for a sandbox to be a sandbox. A true sandbox game has very little developer created content in the grand scheme of it. The game is essentially a world for people to interact in and participate in.
If the game world never changes based on player interaction with out developer input then the game is a themepark no matter how you slice it.
If players can't destroy what is created then it is a themepark. You are still doing the exact same thing you do in WoW with gear grinding, but now your only House Building Grinding, or Farming Building Grinding.
If something can be built one minute but can't be destroyed the next then the game is not a sandbox it is only a themepark with side goals.
So UO housing is themepark by your definition? I don't think I can support that act of linguistic contortion.
( I can't stop you if you are bound and determined to use that definition when you speak, but it's going to make it hard to communicate )
I totally disagree. If all PvP players played according to fair set rules, I might agree. But people who will only play PvE have just had it with griefers and gankers. Forget prisons and oversight to avoid that. It doesn't work well enough.
Theme park leads you through the game with set quests and events. Sandbox gives you an open world to find your own adventure, your own way to enjoy the game. It doesn't require PvP at all, except for those players who think they have to have it.
Once more, SWG was the most fun for me of any game I've played. It was easy to meet people, easy to group, fun to adventure. People loved the style of crafting and selling. I don't know why it failed, IF it failed before Sony changed the whole game. I'm sure there were lots of players who preferred being led by a Theme park type of game.
Its nice of you to share your idea of a sandbox to everyone else and in a sense claim that your view on the subject is in fact the "word of god" with regards to player created content.
How positively impossibly self centered of you.
Apparently building something brick by brick is meaningless to EVERYONE and doesn't count as a sandbox feature unless it can be destroyed at will by someone else.
Thanks for sharing what you consider to be an important "game feature". Because that's all it is, a feature that can be added or removed and is not the core component of a sandbox game.
So to sum it up what your also saying is there has never been a single player SANDBOX game ever, because there is no one around to destroy the stuff you made. ........okay sure.