Originally posted by Margulis *snip*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.
You are getting far too carried away with trying to define what a sandbox style game is, and especially way of track by trying to point to specific features that you feel "must" be included to meet your narrow definition.
Let's make it much easier, UO, EVE, SWG, Xyson, A Tale in the Desert, Ryzom, perhap even AC1 are all generally a accepted examples of a sandbox style MMORPG. There is considerable variation in the specific features each choose to include, and it is largely irrelevant which specific ones each has, all are still MMO sandbox games regardless how much anyone tries to say differently.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
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
You don't get the definition of sandbox do you? Sandbox does not mean "GANK GANK GANK KILL KILL KILL". You want to do only that? Go play Open world games made specially for you like Daggerfall where the main focus is PvP. Sandbox means you as player can have influence on the world. Something you cannot have in a themepark game. You tell people who don't like PvP but want to have any influence in the world to go play that one genre that doesn't let you have any influence at all. Why wouldn't it be able to have sandbox games without PvP? Maybe some people want to venture out in the world together and go start a settlement somewhere. The danger for them are the mobs out there, more then enough danger for them. You want PvP as main focus go play a Sandbox game with that as main focus. Or i can say the same "you want a pvp experience only, go play a theme park game on a pvp server". Really why can't there be different forms of sandbox games hm?
And a realistic setting? Well i as well would like to see pvp in a sandbox game, but what i don't want to see is a shameless gank fest. It is far from realistic in games. Hardly there is any Consequence, nor does it has a thing to do with skill in most games.
- In RL you die when you get killed or wounded that could lead to you not being able to fight any longer forever cause your arms are cut off or it gone infected, meaning you wouldn't just attack everyone. Anyway you would lose a lot, something you won't in a game.
- If you where a ruthless killer of peasants in RL you would face punishment when caught, this could be for the rest of your life into a jail rotting away under terrible circumstances or getting executed. Things to make many people think twice about crossing the law. In games hardly anything prevents you from becoming a mass murderer as there isn't any serious penalty to it beside having people call you names.
- In games they seldom keep in mind that their is weight behind your equipment. A plate armor protects you yes, it also makes you slow as a turtle. And not a little slower but much slower. You also can't move much around in them so your swings should be more hindered too. And to finish it, all games should be first person then and when wearing a helmet your vision should be narrowed accordingly. And running would be out of the question for you in heavy armor.
- Want it to be realistic? Add a fatigue meter in the game. And not a weak little stamina bar that refills in seconds. In RL a battle really drains your energy, especially when you wear the plate armors and run around with two handed swords. And so does shooting a longbow. You would have to rest for some time to fight again. If they would implant something like that, that would eliminate the gankfest a lot when you need to rest for a hour after a big battle.
But you always hear the same, people shout PvP is realistic, but it isn't unless my points are added and then suddenly people shout it goes to far and makes a game less fun. Why? Cause they just wanna gank without much in their way while they can do that in many games specially made for that. Ganking is just as much of a immersion breaker as having no pvp at all.
"you are not invincible" that only applies when a game has perma death in it. Making it a risk for everyone. Or do it like eve, have area's where people can be rather save and do their things with only NPC's that could attack, and have area's where PvPers rule the planes. But i often hear the same pvpers shout that that is carebearing and boohoo not as a sandbox game should be. Why not, if you take my earlyer points it makes perfect sense. In the medieval times you also have safe heavens where you where under the protection of the king and such.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already playing another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
I think Jorendo addressed the "realism" quite adequately. Read his post for more on realism. Most of us don't play games for "realism", we play for fun. We get enough "realism" in real life. Sandbox does NOT equal realism, that's not what it means at all.
People who think sandbox equals PvP just have their own agenda. They just need a server of their own where they can play gank and grief without people who don't want it.
We can fight this out to no avail. The developers know where the money is. They will produce what they want to. And all of us will play what WE want to.
I think Jorendo addressed the "realism" quite adequately. Read his post for more on realism. Most of us don't play games for "realism", we play for fun. We get enough "realism" in real life. Sandbox does NOT equal realism, that's not what it means at all.
People who think sandbox equals PvP just have their own agenda. They just need a server of their own where they can play gank and grief without people who don't want it.
We can fight this out to no avail. The developers know where the money is. They will produce what they want to. And all of us will play what WE want to.
Has nothing to do with ganking or griefing. There are plenty of ways to curb that without removing OWPvP. Its about having a world designed with player conflict in mind from the ground up, not tacked on at the end. Most griefing and ganking occurs on PvE games with PvP tacked on as an afterthought, because there are no systems in place to prevent it.
Not once did we kill each others at the sandbox when I was a kid, it was mostly building sandcastles and driving around toy trucks however we wanted.
Yeah I know, a "stupid" comparison, but I've always seen sandboxes more as games with less hand holding, do your thing, go where you want and find something to do, build stuff, etc. PvP is but ONE feature, to have a sandbox game does not mean that you ABSOLUTELY everytime need to have a FFA PvP. Really, why should it always be married with freedom and manipulating the world around you?
Those people who say "go play a themepark" - why the hell would I go play a themepark if I want freedom of exploration, building, manipulating the world, perhaps a freeform char creation, un restricted crafting, player made quests, no handholding + a ton of other NON PVP related SANDBOX features. The game DOES NOT NECCESSARILY NEED PVP TO HAVE THOSE SANDBOX FEATURES.
I'm NOT AGAINST PVP in sandbox games, but just like "you guys" say that why every game should be a PvE carebear world, I could say the same about your sandbox mentality, why every sandbox game has to have PvP, the truth is, it's just one sandbox feature among several others. If PvP is the prime sandbox feature, then why dont you go play WoW on a PvP server since it's obviously a sandbox game.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already pkaying another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO. I see it as just another medium to have conflict with other real people, no different than forum PvP. It has less of a real connection to the gameworld immersion than NPCs do. If you get too close to a enemy city, the guards don't attack you and spend the next hour with 20 of his buddys trying to camp you. I get the freedom aspect of full OWPvP but I think it's less realistic within the confines of the game.
The whole sanbox = PvP doesn't make any sense either because you're not throwing the sand into other people's faces. I take terms to thier literal meaning and a "sandbox" is just that, the freedom to CREATE as in not needing to be destroyed. "but how do you account for too much expansion?". You have heavy upkeep and degredation. Sorry, PvPers don't get "sandbox" all to themselves and not having PvP doesn't suddenly make it a themepark. Again, think of the literal meaning and it has nothing to do with PvP's inclusion or ommision. The "freedom" should be to each player to be who they want to be in a gameworld, not be concerned with that they can do to the person nect to them. Freedom wasted.
The problem with a lot of MMOs IMO hasn't been the lack of PvP making the game stale and cushy, it's been the ease of the PvE content itself. It's been way too faceroll and if it does change into something challenging along with penalties for dying all of those "PvP does..." bulletpoints all go away except for those that like conflict with real people behind computers. In fact, every benefit of PvP to the gameworld can be handled in game if the right systems are in place.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more. Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.If you can, you're already pkaying another theme park.You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
Actually what is hilarious is that is obvious that not only do you not understand what makes a sandbox style game, you really don't understand what design factors make a game a themepark. There have been MMOs that are sandbox style that have not included open world PVP just as there have been theme park style games that did have it. The style of PVP used has nothing to do with the final definition at the end of the day, well except apparently only to you perhaps.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already pkaying another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
Your skills in disucsions are amazing. Say mister wise guy, why don't you start to explain what your definition of SANDBOX is. All i see you shout is "FFA PVP IS A MUST YOU ARE ALL THEME PARK PLAYERS" yet you are not able to explain in a any detailed way what a sandbox game is. You shout Sandbox is all about immersion and realism. Yet when people explain in a good way what realism is you say that it isn't immersive. So can we assume you in RL are a murderer who kills everyone on the streets just because you can? Cause that is realism right? Killing others like a mad man? That's the only way a sandbox game works correct? So a game that offers nothing more then only FFA PvP is by your standards a sandbox game, but a game that offers no player levels, skill based gameplay, player runned economy, player made equipment (no npc vendors anymore all just being made by players), free to build anywhere you like, player controlled zones, save zones like capital cities against gankers, open pvp with ffa loot just not on every inch of the map wouldn't be a sandbox game?
Also maybe you need to get some reading skills. Many people aren't against PvP in a sandbox game, but they are against the pathetic gankfests cause there isn't any form of punishment/concequence, while you shout really loud it should be realistic. Punishment/concequence is realism. Yet you only want one part, if any one should go to a theme park game its you. Go play WoW and stay in the battlegrounds there or on a pvp server, all you have to do there is kill kill kill, and the rest is optional. That is your kind of game. Others think PvP adds to the immersion but it needs to be more balanced, there need to be concequences cause just like in RL murder doesn't go unpunished most of the time and in RL i don't walk on the streets fearing the first person i see is gonna shoot me just to strip me down from everything i wear.
You don't want concequences for pvp, you call me a theme parker for saying that they should add weight, endurance and concequences, even though you shout you want realism. I gave you points that you should cheer for if you if you really want realism in sandbox games.
Sue the devs from EVE cause they have false advertisement about their game being a sandbox game where you say its not? Well either you shut up or you now will tell exactly what a sandbox game is and where it says in the book of law what the definition of a sandbox game is. EVE is a sandbox game, it offers something for people who want to pvp and offers something for those who don't. But most of all, its a player driven universe. In RL you don't murder someone in front of the eyes of the police either and get away with it. EVE has such zones, where you can't kill others cause its exactly like killing someone in the middle of a police station. I would even dare to say you would be better off in battlefield or call of duty where only the kill matters.
And your reference too food is hilarious. You say i want a steak without killing the cow. The problem with you is, you want to kill all cows just for one steak (and not want the concequences that when all cows are dead we don't have cows to eat anymore and that the milk production suffers from it). In your eyes killing the cow is where the fun and taste is. A steak often comes with vegetables and sauce. Meaning that even with steak there is more then just the killing part. What you want is just a "All you can eat meat", to say it in your own words -> theme park is that way.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already playing another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO. I see it as just another medium to have conflict with other real people, no different than forum PvP. It has less of a real connection to the gameworld immersion than NPCs do. If you get too close to a enemy city, the guards don't attack you and spend the next hour with 20 of his buddys trying to camp you. I get the freedom aspect of full OWPvP but I think it's less realistic within the confines of the game.
The whole sanbox = PvP doesn't make any sense either because you're not throwing the sand into other people's faces. I take terms to thier literal meaning and a "sandbox" is just that, the freedom to CREATE as in not needing to be destroyed. "but how do you account for too much expansion?". You have heavy upkeep and degredation. Sorry, PvPers don't get "sandbox" all to themselves and not having PvP doesn't suddenly make it a themepark. Again, think of the literal meaning and it has nothing to do with PvP's inclusion or ommision. The "freedom" should be to each player to be who they want to be in a gameworld, not be concerned with that they can do to the person nect to them. Freedom wasted.
The problem with a lot of MMOs IMO hasn't been the lack of PvP making the game stale and cushy, it's been the ease of the PvE content itself. It's been way too faceroll and if it does change into something challenging along with penalties for dying all of those "PvP does..." bulletpoints all go away except for those that like conflict with real people behind computers. In fact, every benefit of PvP to the gameworld can be handled in game if the right systems are in place.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already playing another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO. I see it as just another medium to have conflict with other real people, no different than forum PvP. It has less of a real connection to the gameworld immersion than NPCs do. If you get too close to a enemy city, the guards don't attack you and spend the next hour with 20 of his buddys trying to camp you. I get the freedom aspect of full OWPvP but I think it's less realistic within the confines of the game.
The whole sanbox = PvP doesn't make any sense either because you're not throwing the sand into other people's faces. I take terms to thier literal meaning and a "sandbox" is just that, the freedom to CREATE as in not needing to be destroyed. "but how do you account for too much expansion?". You have heavy upkeep and degredation. Sorry, PvPers don't get "sandbox" all to themselves and not having PvP doesn't suddenly make it a themepark. Again, think of the literal meaning and it has nothing to do with PvP's inclusion or ommision. The "freedom" should be to each player to be who they want to be in a gameworld, not be concerned with that they can do to the person nect to them. Freedom wasted.
The problem with a lot of MMOs IMO hasn't been the lack of PvP making the game stale and cushy, it's been the ease of the PvE content itself. It's been way too faceroll and if it does change into something challenging along with penalties for dying all of those "PvP does..." bulletpoints all go away except for those that like conflict with real people behind computers. In fact, every benefit of PvP to the gameworld can be handled in game if the right systems are in place.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already pkaying another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
Your skills in disucsions are amazing. Say mister wise guy, why don't you start to explain what your definition of SANDBOX is. All i see you shout is "FFA PVP IS A MUST YOU ARE ALL THEME PARK PLAYERS" yet you are not able to explain in a any detailed way what a sandbox game is. You shout Sandbox is all about immersion and realism. Yet when people explain in a good way what realism is you say that it isn't immersive. So can we assume you in RL are a murderer who kills everyone on the streets just because you can? Cause that is realism right? Killing others like a mad man? That's the only way a sandbox game works correct? So a game that offers nothing more then only FFA PvP is by your standards a sandbox game, but a game that offers no player levels, skill based gameplay, player runned economy, player made equipment (no npc vendors anymore all just being made by players), free to build anywhere you like, player controlled zones, save zones like capital cities against gankers, open pvp with ffa loot just not on every inch of the map wouldn't be a sandbox game?
Also maybe you need to get some reading skills. Many people aren't against PvP in a sandbox game, but they are against the pathetic gankfests cause there isn't any form of punishment/concequence, while you shout really loud it should be realistic. Punishment/concequence is realism. Yet you only want one part, if any one should go to a theme park game its you. Go play WoW and stay in the battlegrounds there or on a pvp server, all you have to do there is kill kill kill, and the rest is optional. That is your kind of game. Others think PvP adds to the immersion but it needs to be more balanced, there need to be concequences cause just like in RL murder doesn't go unpunished most of the time and in RL i don't walk on the streets fearing the first person i see is gonna shoot me just to strip me down from everything i wear.
You don't want concequences for pvp, you call me a theme parker for saying that they should add weight, endurance and concequences, even though you shout you want realism. I gave you points that you should cheer for if you if you really want realism in sandbox games.
Sue the devs from EVE cause they have false advertisement about their game being a sandbox game where you say its not? Well either you shut up or you now will tell exactly what a sandbox game is and where it says in the book of law what the definition of a sandbox game is. EVE is a sandbox game, it offers something for people who want to pvp and offers something for those who don't. But most of all, its a player driven universe. In RL you don't murder someone in front of the eyes of the police either and get away with it. EVE has such zones, where you can't kill others cause its exactly like killing someone in the middle of a police station. I would even dare to say you would be better off in battlefield or call of duty where only the kill matters.
And your reference too food is hilarious. You say i want a steak without killing the cow. The problem with you is, you want to kill all cows just for one steak (and not want the concequences that when all cows are dead we don't have cows to eat anymore and that the milk production suffers from it). In your eyes killing the cow is where the fun and taste is. A steak often comes with vegetables and sauce. Meaning that even with steak there is more then just the killing part. What you want is just a "All you can eat meat", to say it in your own words -> theme park is that way.
I won't reply in detail to you little paragraph of pure insinuation and hyperbole.
Next time use the quoting function to support your claims.
I made my reference to EvE yet you keep rambling about OMG PvP GANKFEST
Does EvE have consequences? Does EvE have high sec, low sec, null sec, police?
Didn't I say EvE is the gold standard, right above? There you go. Now think again what you got wrong.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already playing another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO. I see it as just another medium to have conflict with other real people, no different than forum PvP. It has less of a real connection to the gameworld immersion than NPCs do. If you get too close to a enemy city, the guards don't attack you and spend the next hour with 20 of his buddys trying to camp you. I get the freedom aspect of full OWPvP but I think it's less realistic within the confines of the game.
The whole sanbox = PvP doesn't make any sense either because you're not throwing the sand into other people's faces. I take terms to thier literal meaning and a "sandbox" is just that, the freedom to CREATE as in not needing to be destroyed. "but how do you account for too much expansion?". You have heavy upkeep and degredation. Sorry, PvPers don't get "sandbox" all to themselves and not having PvP doesn't suddenly make it a themepark. Again, think of the literal meaning and it has nothing to do with PvP's inclusion or ommision. The "freedom" should be to each player to be who they want to be in a gameworld, not be concerned with that they can do to the person nect to them. Freedom wasted.
The problem with a lot of MMOs IMO hasn't been the lack of PvP making the game stale and cushy, it's been the ease of the PvE content itself. It's been way too faceroll and if it does change into something challenging along with penalties for dying all of those "PvP does..." bulletpoints all go away except for those that like conflict with real people behind computers. In fact, every benefit of PvP to the gameworld can be handled in game if the right systems are in place.
Did I say PvP? DID I ? Where?
Your Dodge skill has increased (100)
Don't play coy with me
Fine, so you say
"I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO."
ok question,
Do godmode systems like PvE-only-flagging systems and invincible players make a gameworld more realistic?
PvPvE, PvAll as in exhibit A, the sandbox, defined by CCP's EvE
You want to opt out of one "P".
By all means, PLEASE do so! In your theme park of choice this is perfectly valid.
I think Jorendo addressed the "realism" quite adequately. Read his post for more on realism. Most of us don't play games for "realism", we play for fun. We get enough "realism" in real life. Sandbox does NOT equal realism, that's not what it means at all.
People who think sandbox equals PvP just have their own agenda. They just need a server of their own where they can play gank and grief without people who don't want it.
We can fight this out to no avail. The developers know where the money is. They will produce what they want to. And all of us will play what WE want to.
Has nothing to do with ganking or griefing. There are plenty of ways to curb that without removing OWPvP. Its about having a world designed with player conflict in mind from the ground up, not tacked on at the end. Most griefing and ganking occurs on PvE games with PvP tacked on as an afterthought, because there are no systems in place to prevent it.
I liked it in Warhammer online. I played on a PvE server, yet there where large PvP areas in the open world where you could fight, take over castles, etc etc. For those like me who like PvP in the open world but don't like being ganked all the time when you are in battle with mobs, this was the perfect design. PvPers could choose to play on a pvp servers or roam in the PvP areas and they could be really large and you felt very imersed as in those zones war really raged on. Those who didn't care for it could simply avoid it. Wished more games where designed like that, for all the flaws Warhammer online had, it did the pvp part very well, it offered more then battlegrounds only for pvp, real objectives and players could own the castles they conquered. I don't see why this wouldn't be able in a sandbox game, build a game up with every player in mind. Sure there will be people like Docsomething here who will always shout its not a real sandbox game cause its not focusing purely on their part of game style and would blame others that they wanna enforce their vision on it. But i think when you do it like EVE and Warhammer you can create great worlds where everyone has something they like and can avoid the parts they don't like. Does it mean none pvpers are restricted to some zones, yes. Is this a bad thing? No, cause they can do their thing and who knows they might venture into the dangerous pvp lands and find fun in it or get a escort with them with hardened pvpers who will protect them when exploring. Just like in RL where explorers often where joined by Soldiers when exploring into the unknown where laws of their country did not apply.
Sandboxes 'need' player interaction and conflict to last (since they rarely have "PVE-endgame", raids and whatnot).
Take away PVP and corporation conflict out of EVE and see how long it would last... i'd say about a week.
PVP does not mean FFA full loot, everytime someone mentions PVP and sandbox in the same sentence.
Flagging system PVP has and always will be a BAD way of going about it.
We can all pretty much agree upon that Minecraft is a pretty good milestone for the word "sandbox", but even when you play that with PVP turned off (or solo), you can only build so many houses and kill so many zombies/endermen untill it gets boring and have no purpose left to play again.
"I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO."
ok question,
Do godmode systems like PvE-only-flagging systems and invincible players make a gameworld more realistic?
PvPvE, PvAll as in exhibit A, the sandbox, defined by CCP's EvE
You want to opt out of one "P".
By all means, PLEASE do so! In your theme park of choice this is perfectly valid.
Question for you. Do you even know where the term theme park stand for? Or do you just wanna sound like the cool kid in class? I read your comments and i really see you have no clue what so ever what they mean at all. Theme park is that you hop from attraction to attraction, in WoW this would be doing the Dead mines or fight Arthas. You do quests and then you go to a instance to finish that zone before you repeat the whole thing again in a the next zone. Lots of the content is locked behind instances and those form the main attraction of the game (WoW is even very open compared to today's MMO's who don't have a huge world like WoW). That is what a theme park game is. Its a linear experience where you as player go from A to B to C, etc. and they are focused on getting the best gear possible so the rest of the days at highest lvl you can kill time by doing raids or pvp. It doesn't offer anything else as its focused to get you to the end game and that is that. People here are looking for more then that, without the focus being on PvP FFA loot so the game turns into a pure slaughter house (that's what happening to every FFA loot pvp having sandbox game atm).
And what sandbox game are you currently playing, cause there aren't so many out there.
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.
pick one.
We'll go with all three
a) you said it doesn't ever happen, but when someone points out it does, it's dismissed because that person is invalid to you?
b) I wasn't trying to bring down your overall argument at all. You said it never happens so pointed out where it does happen right here.
c) That you perceive the process of learning the views and stances of those you are having discussions with through the process of the discussions as 'following people around, spying on their posts' is interesting.
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 evilastro They don't have to be, but they sure are boring without it. Someone should make a game called 'Crafting Without Consequences' to cater to that market.
Too long of a name. Shorten it to something like.... ohh.... Minecraft?
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
Not once did we kill each others at the sandbox when I was a kid, it was mostly building sandcastles and driving around toy trucks however we wanted.
Yeah I know, a "stupid" comparison...
Actually, it's not a stupid comparison at all, as it highlights the rather alarming fact that a good number of gamers either cannot conceive of or do not want any form of conflict resolution outside of bludgeoning the other person to death. Compromise, cooperation, and collaboration have not once been brought up in the combined 200+ pages of posts on this topic over the past three days.
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
Take away PVP and corporation conflict out of EVE and see how long it would last... i'd say about a week.
EvE is a sanbox built and balanced entirely around PvP as the primary end-sink for resources and generator of news with 10 years of evolution in that direction. I think you could potentially replace PvP space with some other form of high-risk frontier and more large-scale events and get a perfectly playable, sustainable game, but the first few iterations would be an awful hackjob and the end-result would be appealing to a completely different audience, so of course it looks like a bad idea to current EvE players.
Originally posted by DocBrody Fine, so you say"I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO."ok question,Do godmode systems like PvE-only-flagging systems and invincible players make a gameworld more realistic? PvPvE, PvAll as in exhibit A, the sandbox, defined by CCP's EvEYou want to opt out of one "P".By all means, PLEASE do so! In your theme park of choice this is perfectly valid.
You still didn't explain how PvP makes a game world more realistic in an MMO.
Comparing most MMORPGs to the real world that I live in, I've been alive over forty years and have engaged in real world PvP a very limited number of times. Even in the Wild West, where there were few if any laws murders per capita were rare. Depending on who's statistics you look at, there was more gun control and fewer murders per capita than modern U.S. cities.
If the goal is making an MMORPG more realistic, limiting PvP far more than it's limited in any MMORPG to simulate the restraint that people usually have when walking around in the real world would be a more likely path to take.
MMORPGs aren't based in reality, and the behavior that players exhibit in MMORPGs don't usually occur outside of the game*, so the argument that PvP in an MMORPG makes it more realistic seems superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
* Repeatedly throwing oneself off a cliff to enhance a slow fall ability for instance.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
"I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO."
ok question,
Do godmode systems like PvE-only-flagging systems and invincible players make a gameworld more realistic?
PvPvE, PvAll as in exhibit A, the sandbox, defined by CCP's EvE
You want to opt out of one "P".
By all means, PLEASE do so! In your theme park of choice this is perfectly valid.
You still didn't explain how PvP makes a game world more realistic in an MMO.
Comparing most MMORPGs to the real world that I live in, I've been alive over forty years and have engaged in real world PvP a very limited number of times. Even in the Wild West, where there were few if any laws murders per capita were rare. Depending on who's statistics you look at, there was more gun control and fewer murders per capita than modern U.S. cities.
If the goal is making an MMORPG more realistic, limiting PvP far more than it's limited in any MMORPG to simulate the restraint that people usually have when walking around in the real world would be a more likely path to take.
MMORPGs aren't based in reality, and the behavior that players exhibit in MMORPGs don't usually occur outside of the game*, so the argument that PvP in an MMORPG makes it more realistic seems superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
* Repeatedly throwing oneself off a cliff to enhance a slow fall ability for instance.
First of all.. as a matter of fact i don't want to be involved in that topic. Because i don't think it is worth the hassle nor that anything from worth will come out of it. And as i said in post before, pve sandboxes are possible, they are not 100% sandboxes as no MMORPG sandbox as of date is, and they have a completely different approach to different things.
So, as now that is out of the way.
Why does PvP make a game world more realistic?
It is a rather simple question, and the answer is exactly the same simple.
Because if you have pvp allowed in your system, you will have a lot more options, alot more potential gameplay mechanics, which you couldn't realize in a system without pvp.
like
- commiting a crime (even if it is not combat it involves pvp)
- hunting criminals
- conquering territory
- destroying real estate
- Player War (territorial conflict, conflict about market dominance, conflict about whatever)
- player made laws
- player politics, resolving diplomacy/laws between different player nations
- and so on..
You will have a lot more gameplay options, a lot more options to handle player conflict with pvp as you would have without any pvp. And just because you actually do have more options, it will become more realistic. It really is that simple.
That of course does not mean that it will be "better", or that more people will like it, or whatever. Because finally this is just a matter of personal preference.
And about the real life reference. All the world conflict about rare resources, all the middle east drama. All the conflict about immigration. All the conflict about economic market. All that is pvp. You may not partake in pvp in your personal life(although there is a lot of conflict within families or between neighboors), but you are influenced by it in every day, in almost every decision.
Edit/PS: On a side note. MMORPGs don't have to be realistic, they are fantasy. But they better are rational to some extent.
Originally posted by Apraxis Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by DocBrodyFine, so you say"I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO."ok question,Do godmode systems like PvE-only-flagging systems and invincible players make a gameworld more realistic? PvPvE, PvAll as in exhibit A, the sandbox, defined by CCP's EvEYou want to opt out of one "P".By all means, PLEASE do so! In your theme park of choice this is perfectly valid.
You still didn't explain how PvP makes a game world more realistic in an MMO. Comparing most MMORPGs to the real world that I live in, I've been alive over forty years and have engaged in real world PvP a very limited number of times. Even in the Wild West, where there were few if any laws murders per capita were rare. Depending on who's statistics you look at, there was more gun control and fewer murders per capita than modern U.S. cities. If the goal is making an MMORPG more realistic, limiting PvP far more than it's limited in any MMORPG to simulate the restraint that people usually have when walking around in the real world would be a more likely path to take. MMORPGs aren't based in reality, and the behavior that players exhibit in MMORPGs don't usually occur outside of the game*, so the argument that PvP in an MMORPG makes it more realistic seems superficially plausible, but actually wrong. * Repeatedly throwing oneself off a cliff to enhance a slow fall ability for instance.First of all.. as a matter of fact i don't want to be involved in that topic. Because i don't think it is worth the hassle nor that anything from worth will come out of it. And as i said in post before, pve sandboxes are possible, they are not 100% sandboxes as no MMORPG sandbox as of date is, and they have a completely different approach to different things.
So, as now that is out of the way.
Why does PvP make a game world more realistic?
It is a rather simple question, and the answer is exactly the same simple.
Because if you have pvp allowed in your system, you will have a lot more options, alot more potential gameplay mechanics, which you couldn't realize in a system without pvp.
like
- commiting a crime (even if it is not combat it involves pvp)
- hunting criminals
- conquering territory
- destroying real estate
- Player War (territorial conflict, conflict about market dominance, conflict about whatever)
- player made laws
- player politics, resolving diplomacy/laws between different player nations
- and so on..
You will have a lot more gameplay options, a lot more options to handle player conflict with pvp as you would have without any pvp. And just because you actually do have more options, it will become more realistic. It really is that simple.
That of course does not mean that it will be "better", or that more people will like it, or whatever. Because finally this is just a matter of personal preference.
And about the real life reference. All the world conflict about rare resources, all the middle east drama. All the conflict about immigration. All the conflict about economic market. All that is pvp. You may not partake in pvp in your personal life(although there is a lot of conflict within families or between neighboors), but you are influenced by it in every day, in almost every decision.
Edit/PS: On a side note. MMORPGs don't have to be realistic, they are fantasy. But they better are rational to some extent.
Can't argue with a lot of that. I would only say that in regards to the topic of the discussion, preferring something doesn't mean it's required. The OP's thread title at least is spot on. PvP is not required to exist in a sandbox game, and it's certainly not necessary for PvP to be the central feature of the game. So long as we're talking about Combat PvP. Which is what the thread OP is on about.
Off the topic, having PvP in any of its many forms in a multiplayer game is unavoidable. Players will compete, even in cooperative games. In that regard, PvP isn't a requirement, it's a base feature or effect of having more than one person in the game's world. The developer can add features to take advantage of that or not, and they can do so in ways that aren't combat based. It's really up to the developer and what players will buy.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sandboxes 'need' player interaction and conflict to last (since they rarely have "PVE-endgame", raids and whatnot).
Take away PVP and corporation conflict out of EVE and see how long it would last... i'd say about a week.
PVP does not mean FFA full loot, everytime someone mentions PVP and sandbox in the same sentence.
Flagging system PVP has and always will be a BAD way of going about it.
We can all pretty much agree upon that Minecraft is a pretty good milestone for the word "sandbox", but even when you play that with PVP turned off (or solo), you can only build so many houses and kill so many zombies/endermen untill it gets boring and have no purpose left to play again.
actually i am pretty sure there is at least as many people who do play mincraft w/o pvp at least as long as longest playing pvper, so no - it just mean that it is boring to you, not that it is boring to everyone else.
Comments
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.
You are getting far too carried away with trying to define what a sandbox style game is, and especially way of track by trying to point to specific features that you feel "must" be included to meet your narrow definition.Let's make it much easier, UO, EVE, SWG, Xyson, A Tale in the Desert, Ryzom, perhap even AC1 are all generally a accepted examples of a sandbox style MMORPG. There is considerable variation in the specific features each choose to include, and it is largely irrelevant which specific ones each has, all are still MMO sandbox games regardless how much anyone tries to say differently.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You don't get the definition of sandbox do you? Sandbox does not mean "GANK GANK GANK KILL KILL KILL". You want to do only that? Go play Open world games made specially for you like Daggerfall where the main focus is PvP. Sandbox means you as player can have influence on the world. Something you cannot have in a themepark game. You tell people who don't like PvP but want to have any influence in the world to go play that one genre that doesn't let you have any influence at all. Why wouldn't it be able to have sandbox games without PvP? Maybe some people want to venture out in the world together and go start a settlement somewhere. The danger for them are the mobs out there, more then enough danger for them. You want PvP as main focus go play a Sandbox game with that as main focus. Or i can say the same "you want a pvp experience only, go play a theme park game on a pvp server". Really why can't there be different forms of sandbox games hm?
And a realistic setting? Well i as well would like to see pvp in a sandbox game, but what i don't want to see is a shameless gank fest. It is far from realistic in games. Hardly there is any Consequence, nor does it has a thing to do with skill in most games.
- In RL you die when you get killed or wounded that could lead to you not being able to fight any longer forever cause your arms are cut off or it gone infected, meaning you wouldn't just attack everyone. Anyway you would lose a lot, something you won't in a game.
- If you where a ruthless killer of peasants in RL you would face punishment when caught, this could be for the rest of your life into a jail rotting away under terrible circumstances or getting executed. Things to make many people think twice about crossing the law. In games hardly anything prevents you from becoming a mass murderer as there isn't any serious penalty to it beside having people call you names.
- In games they seldom keep in mind that their is weight behind your equipment. A plate armor protects you yes, it also makes you slow as a turtle. And not a little slower but much slower. You also can't move much around in them so your swings should be more hindered too. And to finish it, all games should be first person then and when wearing a helmet your vision should be narrowed accordingly. And running would be out of the question for you in heavy armor.
- Want it to be realistic? Add a fatigue meter in the game. And not a weak little stamina bar that refills in seconds. In RL a battle really drains your energy, especially when you wear the plate armors and run around with two handed swords. And so does shooting a longbow. You would have to rest for some time to fight again. If they would implant something like that, that would eliminate the gankfest a lot when you need to rest for a hour after a big battle.
But you always hear the same, people shout PvP is realistic, but it isn't unless my points are added and then suddenly people shout it goes to far and makes a game less fun. Why? Cause they just wanna gank without much in their way while they can do that in many games specially made for that. Ganking is just as much of a immersion breaker as having no pvp at all.
"you are not invincible" that only applies when a game has perma death in it. Making it a risk for everyone. Or do it like eve, have area's where people can be rather save and do their things with only NPC's that could attack, and have area's where PvPers rule the planes. But i often hear the same pvpers shout that that is carebearing and boohoo not as a sandbox game should be. Why not, if you take my earlyer points it makes perfect sense. In the medieval times you also have safe heavens where you where under the protection of the king and such.
Sandbox doesn't discriminate NPC from PC, in a silly immersion breaking theme parkish way with no logical explanation for invincible god mode.
EvE is the sandbox gold standard. Break the formula, fine, but then a dev should be sued for false advertising if they call it sandbox.
You want to eat T-Bone steak because you think it's the new hip thing to eat, but you don't want to kill the cow. So much for demonstrating the hilarious absurdity of this thread once more.
Again there is only a PvAll vs. PvE-only discussion, in a sandbox you can't opt out of realism.
If you can, you're already playing another theme park.
You don't even want sandbox, you want theme park with more fluff. This thread is hilariously misleading.
I think Jorendo addressed the "realism" quite adequately. Read his post for more on realism. Most of us don't play games for "realism", we play for fun. We get enough "realism" in real life. Sandbox does NOT equal realism, that's not what it means at all.
People who think sandbox equals PvP just have their own agenda. They just need a server of their own where they can play gank and grief without people who don't want it.
We can fight this out to no avail. The developers know where the money is. They will produce what they want to. And all of us will play what WE want to.
Has nothing to do with ganking or griefing. There are plenty of ways to curb that without removing OWPvP. Its about having a world designed with player conflict in mind from the ground up, not tacked on at the end. Most griefing and ganking occurs on PvE games with PvP tacked on as an afterthought, because there are no systems in place to prevent it.
Not once did we kill each others at the sandbox when I was a kid, it was mostly building sandcastles and driving around toy trucks however we wanted.
Yeah I know, a "stupid" comparison, but I've always seen sandboxes more as games with less hand holding, do your thing, go where you want and find something to do, build stuff, etc. PvP is but ONE feature, to have a sandbox game does not mean that you ABSOLUTELY everytime need to have a FFA PvP. Really, why should it always be married with freedom and manipulating the world around you?
Those people who say "go play a themepark" - why the hell would I go play a themepark if I want freedom of exploration, building, manipulating the world, perhaps a freeform char creation, un restricted crafting, player made quests, no handholding + a ton of other NON PVP related SANDBOX features. The game DOES NOT NECCESSARILY NEED PVP TO HAVE THOSE SANDBOX FEATURES.
I'm NOT AGAINST PVP in sandbox games, but just like "you guys" say that why every game should be a PvE carebear world, I could say the same about your sandbox mentality, why every sandbox game has to have PvP, the truth is, it's just one sandbox feature among several others. If PvP is the prime sandbox feature, then why dont you go play WoW on a PvP server since it's obviously a sandbox game.
I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO. I see it as just another medium to have conflict with other real people, no different than forum PvP. It has less of a real connection to the gameworld immersion than NPCs do. If you get too close to a enemy city, the guards don't attack you and spend the next hour with 20 of his buddys trying to camp you. I get the freedom aspect of full OWPvP but I think it's less realistic within the confines of the game.
The whole sanbox = PvP doesn't make any sense either because you're not throwing the sand into other people's faces. I take terms to thier literal meaning and a "sandbox" is just that, the freedom to CREATE as in not needing to be destroyed. "but how do you account for too much expansion?". You have heavy upkeep and degredation. Sorry, PvPers don't get "sandbox" all to themselves and not having PvP doesn't suddenly make it a themepark. Again, think of the literal meaning and it has nothing to do with PvP's inclusion or ommision. The "freedom" should be to each player to be who they want to be in a gameworld, not be concerned with that they can do to the person nect to them. Freedom wasted.
The problem with a lot of MMOs IMO hasn't been the lack of PvP making the game stale and cushy, it's been the ease of the PvE content itself. It's been way too faceroll and if it does change into something challenging along with penalties for dying all of those "PvP does..." bulletpoints all go away except for those that like conflict with real people behind computers. In fact, every benefit of PvP to the gameworld can be handled in game if the right systems are in place.
Actually what is hilarious is that is obvious that not only do you not understand what makes a sandbox style game, you really don't understand what design factors make a game a themepark. There have been MMOs that are sandbox style that have not included open world PVP just as there have been theme park style games that did have it. The style of PVP used has nothing to do with the final definition at the end of the day, well except apparently only to you perhaps."True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Your skills in disucsions are amazing. Say mister wise guy, why don't you start to explain what your definition of SANDBOX is. All i see you shout is "FFA PVP IS A MUST YOU ARE ALL THEME PARK PLAYERS" yet you are not able to explain in a any detailed way what a sandbox game is. You shout Sandbox is all about immersion and realism. Yet when people explain in a good way what realism is you say that it isn't immersive. So can we assume you in RL are a murderer who kills everyone on the streets just because you can? Cause that is realism right? Killing others like a mad man? That's the only way a sandbox game works correct? So a game that offers nothing more then only FFA PvP is by your standards a sandbox game, but a game that offers no player levels, skill based gameplay, player runned economy, player made equipment (no npc vendors anymore all just being made by players), free to build anywhere you like, player controlled zones, save zones like capital cities against gankers, open pvp with ffa loot just not on every inch of the map wouldn't be a sandbox game?
Also maybe you need to get some reading skills. Many people aren't against PvP in a sandbox game, but they are against the pathetic gankfests cause there isn't any form of punishment/concequence, while you shout really loud it should be realistic. Punishment/concequence is realism. Yet you only want one part, if any one should go to a theme park game its you. Go play WoW and stay in the battlegrounds there or on a pvp server, all you have to do there is kill kill kill, and the rest is optional. That is your kind of game. Others think PvP adds to the immersion but it needs to be more balanced, there need to be concequences cause just like in RL murder doesn't go unpunished most of the time and in RL i don't walk on the streets fearing the first person i see is gonna shoot me just to strip me down from everything i wear.
You don't want concequences for pvp, you call me a theme parker for saying that they should add weight, endurance and concequences, even though you shout you want realism. I gave you points that you should cheer for if you if you really want realism in sandbox games.
Sue the devs from EVE cause they have false advertisement about their game being a sandbox game where you say its not? Well either you shut up or you now will tell exactly what a sandbox game is and where it says in the book of law what the definition of a sandbox game is. EVE is a sandbox game, it offers something for people who want to pvp and offers something for those who don't. But most of all, its a player driven universe. In RL you don't murder someone in front of the eyes of the police either and get away with it. EVE has such zones, where you can't kill others cause its exactly like killing someone in the middle of a police station. I would even dare to say you would be better off in battlefield or call of duty where only the kill matters.
And your reference too food is hilarious. You say i want a steak without killing the cow. The problem with you is, you want to kill all cows just for one steak (and not want the concequences that when all cows are dead we don't have cows to eat anymore and that the milk production suffers from it). In your eyes killing the cow is where the fun and taste is. A steak often comes with vegetables and sauce. Meaning that even with steak there is more then just the killing part. What you want is just a "All you can eat meat", to say it in your own words -> theme park is that way.
Did I say PvP? DID I ? Where?
Your Dodge skill has increased (100)
Don't play coy with me
I won't reply in detail to you little paragraph of pure insinuation and hyperbole.
Next time use the quoting function to support your claims.
I made my reference to EvE yet you keep rambling about OMG PvP GANKFEST
Does EvE have consequences? Does EvE have high sec, low sec, null sec, police?
Didn't I say EvE is the gold standard, right above? There you go. Now think again what you got wrong.
Fine, so you say
"I don't get how PvP makes a gameworld more realistic in an MMO."
ok question,
Do godmode systems like PvE-only-flagging systems and invincible players make a gameworld more realistic?
PvPvE, PvAll as in exhibit A, the sandbox, defined by CCP's EvE
You want to opt out of one "P".
By all means, PLEASE do so! In your theme park of choice this is perfectly valid.
I liked it in Warhammer online. I played on a PvE server, yet there where large PvP areas in the open world where you could fight, take over castles, etc etc. For those like me who like PvP in the open world but don't like being ganked all the time when you are in battle with mobs, this was the perfect design. PvPers could choose to play on a pvp servers or roam in the PvP areas and they could be really large and you felt very imersed as in those zones war really raged on. Those who didn't care for it could simply avoid it. Wished more games where designed like that, for all the flaws Warhammer online had, it did the pvp part very well, it offered more then battlegrounds only for pvp, real objectives and players could own the castles they conquered. I don't see why this wouldn't be able in a sandbox game, build a game up with every player in mind. Sure there will be people like Docsomething here who will always shout its not a real sandbox game cause its not focusing purely on their part of game style and would blame others that they wanna enforce their vision on it. But i think when you do it like EVE and Warhammer you can create great worlds where everyone has something they like and can avoid the parts they don't like. Does it mean none pvpers are restricted to some zones, yes. Is this a bad thing? No, cause they can do their thing and who knows they might venture into the dangerous pvp lands and find fun in it or get a escort with them with hardened pvpers who will protect them when exploring. Just like in RL where explorers often where joined by Soldiers when exploring into the unknown where laws of their country did not apply.
Sandboxes 'need' player interaction and conflict to last (since they rarely have "PVE-endgame", raids and whatnot).
Take away PVP and corporation conflict out of EVE and see how long it would last... i'd say about a week.
PVP does not mean FFA full loot, everytime someone mentions PVP and sandbox in the same sentence.
Flagging system PVP has and always will be a BAD way of going about it.
We can all pretty much agree upon that Minecraft is a pretty good milestone for the word "sandbox", but even when you play that with PVP turned off (or solo), you can only build so many houses and kill so many zombies/endermen untill it gets boring and have no purpose left to play again.
Question for you. Do you even know where the term theme park stand for? Or do you just wanna sound like the cool kid in class? I read your comments and i really see you have no clue what so ever what they mean at all. Theme park is that you hop from attraction to attraction, in WoW this would be doing the Dead mines or fight Arthas. You do quests and then you go to a instance to finish that zone before you repeat the whole thing again in a the next zone. Lots of the content is locked behind instances and those form the main attraction of the game (WoW is even very open compared to today's MMO's who don't have a huge world like WoW). That is what a theme park game is. Its a linear experience where you as player go from A to B to C, etc. and they are focused on getting the best gear possible so the rest of the days at highest lvl you can kill time by doing raids or pvp. It doesn't offer anything else as its focused to get you to the end game and that is that. People here are looking for more then that, without the focus being on PvP FFA loot so the game turns into a pure slaughter house (that's what happening to every FFA loot pvp having sandbox game atm).
And what sandbox game are you currently playing, cause there aren't so many out there.
We'll go with all three
a) you said it doesn't ever happen, but when someone points out it does, it's dismissed because that person is invalid to you?
b) I wasn't trying to bring down your overall argument at all. You said it never happens so pointed out where it does happen right here.
c) That you perceive the process of learning the views and stances of those you are having discussions with through the process of the discussions as 'following people around, spying on their posts' is interesting.
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
Too long of a name. Shorten it to something like.... ohh.... Minecraft?
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
Actually, it's not a stupid comparison at all, as it highlights the rather alarming fact that a good number of gamers either cannot conceive of or do not want any form of conflict resolution outside of bludgeoning the other person to death. Compromise, cooperation, and collaboration have not once been brought up in the combined 200+ pages of posts on this topic over the past three days.
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
EvE is a sanbox built and balanced entirely around PvP as the primary end-sink for resources and generator of news with 10 years of evolution in that direction. I think you could potentially replace PvP space with some other form of high-risk frontier and more large-scale events and get a perfectly playable, sustainable game, but the first few iterations would be an awful hackjob and the end-result would be appealing to a completely different audience, so of course it looks like a bad idea to current EvE players.
You still didn't explain how PvP makes a game world more realistic in an MMO.
Comparing most MMORPGs to the real world that I live in, I've been alive over forty years and have engaged in real world PvP a very limited number of times. Even in the Wild West, where there were few if any laws murders per capita were rare. Depending on who's statistics you look at, there was more gun control and fewer murders per capita than modern U.S. cities.
If the goal is making an MMORPG more realistic, limiting PvP far more than it's limited in any MMORPG to simulate the restraint that people usually have when walking around in the real world would be a more likely path to take.
MMORPGs aren't based in reality, and the behavior that players exhibit in MMORPGs don't usually occur outside of the game*, so the argument that PvP in an MMORPG makes it more realistic seems superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
* Repeatedly throwing oneself off a cliff to enhance a slow fall ability for instance.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
First of all.. as a matter of fact i don't want to be involved in that topic. Because i don't think it is worth the hassle nor that anything from worth will come out of it. And as i said in post before, pve sandboxes are possible, they are not 100% sandboxes as no MMORPG sandbox as of date is, and they have a completely different approach to different things.
So, as now that is out of the way.
Why does PvP make a game world more realistic?
It is a rather simple question, and the answer is exactly the same simple.
Because if you have pvp allowed in your system, you will have a lot more options, alot more potential gameplay mechanics, which you couldn't realize in a system without pvp.
like
- commiting a crime (even if it is not combat it involves pvp)
- hunting criminals
- conquering territory
- destroying real estate
- Player War (territorial conflict, conflict about market dominance, conflict about whatever)
- player made laws
- player politics, resolving diplomacy/laws between different player nations
- and so on..
You will have a lot more gameplay options, a lot more options to handle player conflict with pvp as you would have without any pvp. And just because you actually do have more options, it will become more realistic. It really is that simple.
That of course does not mean that it will be "better", or that more people will like it, or whatever. Because finally this is just a matter of personal preference.
And about the real life reference. All the world conflict about rare resources, all the middle east drama. All the conflict about immigration. All the conflict about economic market. All that is pvp. You may not partake in pvp in your personal life(although there is a lot of conflict within families or between neighboors), but you are influenced by it in every day, in almost every decision.
Edit/PS: On a side note. MMORPGs don't have to be realistic, they are fantasy. But they better are rational to some extent.
First of all.. as a matter of fact i don't want to be involved in that topic. Because i don't think it is worth the hassle nor that anything from worth will come out of it. And as i said in post before, pve sandboxes are possible, they are not 100% sandboxes as no MMORPG sandbox as of date is, and they have a completely different approach to different things.
So, as now that is out of the way.
Why does PvP make a game world more realistic?
It is a rather simple question, and the answer is exactly the same simple.
Because if you have pvp allowed in your system, you will have a lot more options, alot more potential gameplay mechanics, which you couldn't realize in a system without pvp.
like
- commiting a crime (even if it is not combat it involves pvp)
- hunting criminals
- conquering territory
- destroying real estate
- Player War (territorial conflict, conflict about market dominance, conflict about whatever)
- player made laws
- player politics, resolving diplomacy/laws between different player nations
- and so on..
You will have a lot more gameplay options, a lot more options to handle player conflict with pvp as you would have without any pvp. And just because you actually do have more options, it will become more realistic. It really is that simple.
That of course does not mean that it will be "better", or that more people will like it, or whatever. Because finally this is just a matter of personal preference.
And about the real life reference. All the world conflict about rare resources, all the middle east drama. All the conflict about immigration. All the conflict about economic market. All that is pvp. You may not partake in pvp in your personal life(although there is a lot of conflict within families or between neighboors), but you are influenced by it in every day, in almost every decision.
Edit/PS: On a side note. MMORPGs don't have to be realistic, they are fantasy. But they better are rational to some extent.
Can't argue with a lot of that. I would only say that in regards to the topic of the discussion, preferring something doesn't mean it's required. The OP's thread title at least is spot on. PvP is not required to exist in a sandbox game, and it's certainly not necessary for PvP to be the central feature of the game. So long as we're talking about Combat PvP. Which is what the thread OP is on about.
Off the topic, having PvP in any of its many forms in a multiplayer game is unavoidable. Players will compete, even in cooperative games. In that regard, PvP isn't a requirement, it's a base feature or effect of having more than one person in the game's world. The developer can add features to take advantage of that or not, and they can do so in ways that aren't combat based. It's really up to the developer and what players will buy.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
actually i am pretty sure there is at least as many people who do play mincraft w/o pvp at least as long as longest playing pvper, so no - it just mean that it is boring to you, not that it is boring to everyone else.