Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Razeekster Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Drakynn Originally posted by Vorthanion Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by azzamasin Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by azzamasin Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think you need to calm down and actually read my posts carefully. I'm not saying there should be 0 rules.I think sandbox games should emulate the amount of freedom you have in real life. Since you can't make a game that gives you all of the tools that real life does, the developer had to intervene in those areas. Since you can't form your own government and laws, they have to make towns with safe zones and guards, etc.
But since you can implement things like bounties and notoriety systems, those should be implemented instead of lazily turning off dmg from other players.
Originally posted by Bunnyking Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Razeekster Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Drakynn Originally posted by Vorthanion Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by azzamasin Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by azzamasin Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
What sandbox has open world pvp that isnt full loot?...I dont mind getting killed by other players but when you drop everything then it goes from bad to unplayable.....That mechanic alone probably turns off well over 50% of the game's potential customer base.
Originally posted by Theocritus What sandbox has open world pvp that isnt full loot?...I dont mind getting killed by other players but when you drop everything then it goes from bad to unplayable.....That mechanic alone probably turns off well over 50% of the game's potential customer base.
Here is a nice twist. Standardized crafted gear and player encumbrance they are not going to loot your gear but actually stuff like mats and reagents and money if you have any on you.
A nice gear damage/decay system that forces replacement after x amount of damage would create a robust economy benefting crafters and gatherers and make these skillsets valuable and worthwhile.
What sandbox has open world pvp that isnt full loot?...I dont mind getting killed by other players but when you drop everything then it goes from bad to unplayable.....That mechanic alone probably turns off well over 50% of the game's potential customer base.
Well then it turns off 50% of the playerbase. I don't subscribe to the idea that the best game is the one that simply attracts the most people. That's not true for music, movies, tv shows, etc.
I can't comment much because I'm on an an anniversary honeymoon but Holophonist and docbrody are of course 100 per cent right that PVP is part of sandboxes and needed to keep them going. Lots of you will be picking your jaws up off the floor after the everquest next reveal.. I will make time to sign in to gloat.
Originally posted by Bidwood I can't comment much because I'm on an an anniversary honeymoon but Holophonist and docbrody are of course 100 per cent right that PVP is part of sandboxes and needed to keep them going. Lots of you will be picking your jaws up off the floor after the everquest next reveal.. I will make time to sign in to gloat.
I look forward to seeing how you willl act after the reveal. So many people on both sides who are 100% PvE or 100% PvP are going to have to eat humble pie.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Razeekster Originally posted by Bunnyking Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Razeekster Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by Drakynn Originally posted by Vorthanion Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by azzamasin Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by azzamasin Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.
And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
We all know that sandox gaming has nothing relatet with pvp and so far in the history of mmorpg pvp has only harmed any game that has tried to focus on that game stile.
If a sandbox really is about freedom and having options and all that jazz, I should have the freedom and the option to avoid PvP. I'm just saying.
You can avoid it by staying in town. Freedom doesnt mean freedom from anything. By this weird definition of freedom nobody in history has ever been free.
Realism has nothing to do with sandboxes or themeparks. I'm not even sure how that argument got started.
Sandbox is about creativity, thats it.
It got started because sandbox is about giving players tools and letting them create content. How exactly do you create content without freedom?
Your response and my response are not talking about the same thing.
Freedom and Realism are very different topics.
Freedom is relevant to sandboxes, realism is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with realism but is only made to look like it is part of the same topic
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I am a sandbox junkie, and often times play hardcore crafter because I love the business aspect. But saying that, sandbox games do need pvp, but............ they need meaningful pvp! Such as territory gain, taking over a city, forcing the solo minded gamer to group up and work as a team, crafters making items for the war effort, and everyone in between to work on common goals.
Just random ffa open world pvp just doesn't cut it.
Having a flag system to allow you to take a break from pvp, or flag over for an important mission or defense of your city/base, etc.... is important and will take away from the so called "gankfest" so many whine about. I have played MMORPG's for well over a decade and have been ganked maybe once. I don't see how 99% of you cry about ganking and being griefed all the time, who the hell is ganking you lol. The 1%? Team uo, what a thought, and go beat that person butt. I always roll with a group, maybe that's the difference.
I think a lot of the griefing and ganking is players fault to be honest. Because I just don't see a whole lot of it. Or perhaps its misconception of what true ganking is and just because you die once you got ganked?
Flag system with meaningful pvp is the way to go. Protects the wimpy people and gives the warriors a shot at having fun also. Stop ombitting features, incorporate both in to the game. If you ombit all the "bad" features you just take a mmorpg and turn it into a console rpg. I play mmorpg's to pit my skill, honor, and strategy against a human player, not an AI! And I am a crafter for god sakes
If I start beating up hookers and running over them with cars I don't think it will turn out well for me.
You could try going to Mexico then. I've heard that open-world PvP'ers can get away with that kind of thing for years there.
Open-world PvP is just an excuse for people who want to gank and bully to get away with doing such without facing any real consequences (pain, death or imprisonment) like one would in real life. I guess I am just too well-adjusted to really see the fun in it. I don't have an issue with any future game creating special PvP servers for gankfesters and the sadomasochists who want to join them, but any future AAA MMO is going to have to have more casual options such as PvE and controlled PvP for the majority of gamers who have a life and would like to spend it doing other things besides constantly improving their characters so that they aren't perpetual victims unless they join some kind of gang that will protect them. There's enough of this crap in the news in real life, I don't understand why anybody wants to game in worlds like these.
Originally posted by Holophonist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Realism has nothing to do with sandboxes or themeparks. I'm not even sure how that argument got started.Sandbox is about creativity, thats it.
It got started because sandbox is about giving players tools and letting them create content. How exactly do you create content without freedom?
Your response and my response are not talking about the same thing.
Freedom and Realism are very different topics.
Freedom is relevant to sandboxes, realism is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with realism but is only made to look like it is part of the same topic
Fair enough. I think it's hard to separate the 2 though. Realistic to a lot of people could mean the same thing as freedom. Restricting things like where you can explore are both unrealistic and anti-freedom.
Not to be snarky, but name one ow pvp mmo that has done well?
I remember at moment three: Lineage 2, UO and EvE.
Many like to pretend that games like Lineage 2 and Lineage 1 didn't exist. These were the two biggest MMOs other than WoW.
Lineage 1 had 10 times the subs as Ultima Online.
Lineage 2 had 6 times the subs of Everquest.
This doesn't square well with people's pre-concieved notions that only Western MMOs were the biggest and most successful games on the market while these little Korean made games were niche. This bias doesn't change the fact that Lineage II was the biggest old school sand box ever made and it had 2 million subs at one point. It did everything right that a sandbox should have. Huge seamless open world with no zoning. FFA no factions PvP. Massive battles to control territory. Contested guild halls and castles. A PvE farming system based on territory control. A player driven economy with crafted gear. Super rare weapons were full loot in PvP like the Zarichi dagger.
Though some would say that it wasn't a sandbox because you couldn't build structures.
It's also important to note that the 2 million players were not from the west. The west had something like 90k subscribers.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by zymurgeist Originally posted by sethman75 LIFE is the best pvp sandbox out there, try it.Leave gaming for us that want a break from it.
If I start beating up hookers and running over them with cars I don't think it will turn out well for me.
You could try going to Mexico then. I've heard that open-world PvP'ers can get away with that kind of thing for years there.
Open-world PvP is just an excuse for people who want to gank and bully to get away with doing such without facing any real consequences (pain, death or imprisonment) like one would in real life. I guess I am just too well-adjusted to really see the fun in it. I don't have an issue with any future game creating special PvP servers for gankfesters and the sadomasochists who want to join them, but any future AAA MMO is going to have to have more casual options such as PvE and controlled PvP for the majority of gamers who have a life and would like to spend it doing other things besides constantly improving their characters so that they aren't perpetual victims unless they join some kind of gang that will protect them. There's enough of this crap in the news in real life, I don't understand why anybody wants to game in worlds like these.
And people say the pvp crowd insults the non pvp crowd. I've new been called a psycopath and a sadomasochist in the same thread. And here I thought i just wanted consequences and player politics in my game. Turns out I just want gank low level players or whatever.
The problem with the "freedom" deabte is that the argument is not about freedom, it's about projecting power and the concept that "might is right". Should the strong be able to impose their will upon the weak?
To some people, that is elemental to their fantasy.
To some people, it is the antithesis of their fantasy.
The question is whether each of us wants "might is right" to define conflicts of interest all the time, part of the time or none of the time. The answer is not the same for everyone. No matter what rhetorical flourishes we use to explain our own preference, that isn't going to change anyone else's preference. So there's no point in arguing preferences, it's just a question of whether different preferences can comfortably coexist in a single game.
Originally posted by Theocritus What sandbox has open world pvp that isnt full loot?...I dont mind getting killed by other players but when you drop everything then it goes from bad to unplayable.....That mechanic alone probably turns off well over 50% of the game's potential customer base.
Here is a nice twist. Standardized crafted gear and player encumbrance they are not going to loot your gear but actually stuff like mats and reagents and money if you have any on you.
A nice gear damage/decay system that forces replacement after x amount of damage would create a robust economy benefting crafters and gatherers and make these skillsets valuable and worthwhile.
let me translate it to nonpvp language: "lets only things i dont carry around as a pvper since i dont need them for pvp be looted, things i can steal from other players, like miners and harvesters, who have to carry them around, because, well, that the reason they ventured out of the city."
how about opposite? only combat eq can be looted, nothing else.
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
!00% Freedom eh!!
I guess that means I have the freedom to create an impenetrable force field around my body, that deflects any personal attack against me from doing damage!
Woohoo!! I want a sandbox!!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
To your second point because I have no issue with the first...
A sandbox is at it's core a blank canvass or setting with tools provided to create.The makers of the sandbox give you the tools and sometimes let you bring your own or create your own.Second Life is an example of this,it is not a game in and of itself but people have created games with it and whether those games are "PvE or PvP" is totally dependent on the creator.
Second Life is a pure sandbox which is something no game can be because just being a game means you are being limited by what the game creators have decided are the games rules and toolset.Whether the game gives you tools for PvE or PvP or both is up to the game devs and is part of the game they are trying to create as is how PvE and PvP affect the world/sandbox.Thus PvE and PvP are game features not sandbox in and of themselves.
Comments
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think you need to calm down and actually read my posts carefully. I'm not saying there should be 0 rules.I think sandbox games should emulate the amount of freedom you have in real life. Since you can't make a game that gives you all of the tools that real life does, the developer had to intervene in those areas. Since you can't form your own government and laws, they have to make towns with safe zones and guards, etc.But since you can implement things like bounties and notoriety systems, those should be implemented instead of lazily turning off dmg from other players.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.Here is a nice twist. Standardized crafted gear and player encumbrance they are not going to loot your gear but actually stuff like mats and reagents and money if you have any on you.
A nice gear damage/decay system that forces replacement after x amount of damage would create a robust economy benefting crafters and gatherers and make these skillsets valuable and worthwhile.
Life IS Feudal
Well then it turns off 50% of the playerbase. I don't subscribe to the idea that the best game is the one that simply attracts the most people. That's not true for music, movies, tv shows, etc.Holophonist and docbrody are of course 100 per cent right that PVP is part of sandboxes and needed to keep them going. Lots of you will be picking your jaws up off the floor after the everquest next reveal.. I will make time to sign in to gloat.
I look forward to seeing how you willl act after the reveal. So many people on both sides who are 100% PvE or 100% PvP are going to have to eat humble pie.
I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Smile
Realism has nothing to do with sandboxes or themeparks. I'm not even sure how that argument got started.
Sandbox is about creativity, thats it.
This tired and worn out argument will never hold water, as PvP does not make a sandbox. FFA PvP or PvP for that matter has not, does not, will not ever be part of the definition of the word sandbox. No matter how you much it you wish it to be.
Sandbox is open world, non linear gaming with the player having 100% freedom of choice in how he plays. Asheron's Call is a sandbox, Just Cause 2 is a sandbox, Skyrim is a sandbox, GTA is a sandbox, Saints Row is a sandbox, etc.
If that doesn't mean ow pvp, then I don't know what does. I'm sure you can have a non-pvp game that would be considered a "sandbox" by most people, but ow pvp is most definitely a sandbox feature.
It "CAN" mean it, it doesn't necessary "HAVE" to mean it, and this is the crux of the argument. I want to see a completely 100% PvE world in a sandbox, without PvP. That 1 element doesn't facilitate the definition, nor has it ever.
How does 100% freedom not mean ow pvp? It's not even like turning off pvp is just a LITTLE BIT restrictive, no it's incredibly restrictive.
You're also making the mistake that a lot of people make in thinking that it's binary - either a game is a sandbox or it's not. Truth is no game is ever going to be 100% sandbox and very few games (if any) are 0% sandbox. But taking out ow pvp makes it however many percentage points LESS of a sandbox. Doesn't mean people wouldn't consider it a sandbox, but ow pvp IS a sandbox feature.
I don't know why everyone thinks a real sandbox is 100% freedom. I remember distinctly that there were rules in all of the sandboxes of my childhood, including all of the sandbox style single player and multiplayer computer games.
A sandbox can mean 100% freedom if your by yourself,as soon as more people become involved rules start evolving,one could also say sandboxes are restricted by the tools on hand as well...then you add in the word game into the equation.games are defined by their rules even Calvinball despite the rules always changing on the fly.
Again Sandbox in and of itself has nothing to do with PvP or PvE,those things are implemented by the GAME side of the equation.Anyone who thinks a sandbox game can only be made one way shows a distinct lack of imagination and myopia.
1) I'm not saying that the only way a game can be considered a sandbox by most people is if it has ow pvp. So I'm not saying a game "can only be made one way"
2) Just because you simply assert that sandbox has nothing to do with pvp or pve doesn't make it so. Offer reasoning behind your claim. Sandbox games are known for their freedom. They're known for developers NOT telling somebody how they have to play. How on earth you guys are saying this doesn't at least imply OW PVP I'll never know. OW PvP is a sandbox feature because it offers less restriction and more opportunity for people to create their own content.
Because the point of sandboxes are to add a sense of realism into the genre. I don't find it very realistic for one guy to be ganking new players for hours and not being put in prison. In the real world that guy would be considered a mass murderer.
Nobody said anything about not going to prison or about a guy ganking new players for hours.
Nobody HAS to say anything about that, because having ow pvp will draw in those kind of players. It WILL be done if the game allows it. Same for any twisted, perverted, psychopathic and/or sadistic actions that players would be able to perform; it WOULD happen. Because there's sickos out there who enjoy that sort of stuff and the only thing that usually stops them from acting like that in real life is fear of the repercussions.
That's why I think there should be repercussions for killing another player in a sandbox game too (with certain exceptions of course; license to kill, bounty on someone/wanted by the law, self defense, war).
I think they should have a death penalty as one of the repercussions. That would seriously deter ganking asswads.
That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.I didn't say "meaningful PK" did I? I said gankers. As in jerks who find joy in killing people that are way below their level. I don't understand what's wrong with having a flag system where people that want open world PvP flag themselves for PvP and people that are 100% PvE players don't flag themselves for PvP.
Sorry but no you just said death penalty as a repercussion, not a repercussion only against gankers, whatever you think that term means. My point is that a death penalty as repercussion to killing people would deter more than meaningless mindless killing.And the reason you think flagging systems have no downside is because you think the ow pvp crowd only want ow pvp because we like fighting people. Turns out we want it cause it makes for deeper and more meaningful gameplay.
It got started because sandbox is about giving players tools and letting them create content. How exactly do you create content without freedom?
You can avoid it by staying in town. Freedom doesnt mean freedom from anything. By this weird definition of freedom nobody in history has ever been free.Your response and my response are not talking about the same thing.
Freedom and Realism are very different topics.
Freedom is relevant to sandboxes, realism is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with realism but is only made to look like it is part of the same topic
I am a sandbox junkie, and often times play hardcore crafter because I love the business aspect. But saying that, sandbox games do need pvp, but............ they need meaningful pvp! Such as territory gain, taking over a city, forcing the solo minded gamer to group up and work as a team, crafters making items for the war effort, and everyone in between to work on common goals.
Just random ffa open world pvp just doesn't cut it.
Having a flag system to allow you to take a break from pvp, or flag over for an important mission or defense of your city/base, etc.... is important and will take away from the so called "gankfest" so many whine about. I have played MMORPG's for well over a decade and have been ganked maybe once. I don't see how 99% of you cry about ganking and being griefed all the time, who the hell is ganking you lol. The 1%? Team uo, what a thought, and go beat that person butt. I always roll with a group, maybe that's the difference.
I think a lot of the griefing and ganking is players fault to be honest. Because I just don't see a whole lot of it. Or perhaps its misconception of what true ganking is and just because you die once you got ganked?
Flag system with meaningful pvp is the way to go. Protects the wimpy people and gives the warriors a shot at having fun also. Stop ombitting features, incorporate both in to the game. If you ombit all the "bad" features you just take a mmorpg and turn it into a console rpg. I play mmorpg's to pit my skill, honor, and strategy against a human player, not an AI! And I am a crafter for god sakes
You could try going to Mexico then. I've heard that open-world PvP'ers can get away with that kind of thing for years there.
Open-world PvP is just an excuse for people who want to gank and bully to get away with doing such without facing any real consequences (pain, death or imprisonment) like one would in real life. I guess I am just too well-adjusted to really see the fun in it. I don't have an issue with any future game creating special PvP servers for gankfesters and the sadomasochists who want to join them, but any future AAA MMO is going to have to have more casual options such as PvE and controlled PvP for the majority of gamers who have a life and would like to spend it doing other things besides constantly improving their characters so that they aren't perpetual victims unless they join some kind of gang that will protect them. There's enough of this crap in the news in real life, I don't understand why anybody wants to game in worlds like these.
It got started because sandbox is about giving players tools and letting them create content. How exactly do you create content without freedom?Your response and my response are not talking about the same thing.
Freedom and Realism are very different topics.
Freedom is relevant to sandboxes, realism is a strawman argument that has nothing to do with realism but is only made to look like it is part of the same topic
Fair enough. I think it's hard to separate the 2 though. Realistic to a lot of people could mean the same thing as freedom. Restricting things like where you can explore are both unrealistic and anti-freedom.Though some would say that it wasn't a sandbox because you couldn't build structures.
It's also important to note that the 2 million players were not from the west. The west had something like 90k subscribers.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If I start beating up hookers and running over them with cars I don't think it will turn out well for me.
You could try going to Mexico then. I've heard that open-world PvP'ers can get away with that kind of thing for years there.
Open-world PvP is just an excuse for people who want to gank and bully to get away with doing such without facing any real consequences (pain, death or imprisonment) like one would in real life. I guess I am just too well-adjusted to really see the fun in it. I don't have an issue with any future game creating special PvP servers for gankfesters and the sadomasochists who want to join them, but any future AAA MMO is going to have to have more casual options such as PvE and controlled PvP for the majority of gamers who have a life and would like to spend it doing other things besides constantly improving their characters so that they aren't perpetual victims unless they join some kind of gang that will protect them. There's enough of this crap in the news in real life, I don't understand why anybody wants to game in worlds like these.
And people say the pvp crowd insults the non pvp crowd. I've new been called a psycopath and a sadomasochist in the same thread. And here I thought i just wanted consequences and player politics in my game. Turns out I just want gank low level players or whatever.The problem with the "freedom" deabte is that the argument is not about freedom, it's about projecting power and the concept that "might is right". Should the strong be able to impose their will upon the weak?
To some people, that is elemental to their fantasy.
To some people, it is the antithesis of their fantasy.
The question is whether each of us wants "might is right" to define conflicts of interest all the time, part of the time or none of the time. The answer is not the same for everyone. No matter what rhetorical flourishes we use to explain our own preference, that isn't going to change anyone else's preference. So there's no point in arguing preferences, it's just a question of whether different preferences can comfortably coexist in a single game.
fine, in that case, i want the freedom to make force anyone to dance with me for 2 mins any time i want, ok?
let me translate it to nonpvp language: "lets only things i dont carry around as a pvper since i dont need them for pvp be looted, things i can steal from other players, like miners and harvesters, who have to carry them around, because, well, that the reason they ventured out of the city."
how about opposite? only combat eq can be looted, nothing else.
!00% Freedom eh!!
I guess that means I have the freedom to create an impenetrable force field around my body, that deflects any personal attack against me from doing damage!
Woohoo!! I want a sandbox!!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
To your second point because I have no issue with the first...
A sandbox is at it's core a blank canvass or setting with tools provided to create.The makers of the sandbox give you the tools and sometimes let you bring your own or create your own.Second Life is an example of this,it is not a game in and of itself but people have created games with it and whether those games are "PvE or PvP" is totally dependent on the creator.
Second Life is a pure sandbox which is something no game can be because just being a game means you are being limited by what the game creators have decided are the games rules and toolset.Whether the game gives you tools for PvE or PvP or both is up to the game devs and is part of the game they are trying to create as is how PvE and PvP affect the world/sandbox.Thus PvE and PvP are game features not sandbox in and of themselves.