considering nearly everything in eve is crafted by players you can see how important CCP have made the ever belittled care bear to their game's economy.
in this way, eve assured that PVE and PVP will simply have to make nice, and (except for hulkageddon!!!!) this arrangement has made it possible for many a so called care bear to step into the pvp sandbox of eve and find a home.
this is the economic engine of eve but (and here i am nodding to the OP) what systems are in place to assure that pvp/ pve relationship is maintained? the High-sec / low-sec / nullsec system. in it, some places are delineated by the game as safer from ill wishing pvp'ers than others. the only 100% time a player is safe is when they are docked, but in high sec one has a very good deal of protection, mostly in the form of very swift punishment that CONCORD (in game police) will dish out to outlaws.
to me this is just what the doctor ordered when the OP expressed their concerns for any game in which griefing is allowed to turn lots of folks away from a sandbox MMO. "a safe place". as much as I love eve and CCP i don't think for a second that it would have survived this long without the sec system.
lets compare this to Darkfall (current iteration). in darkfall there are actual small corners of the map where pvp cannot occur whatsoever. however everywhere else, people are free game and no punishment exists to prevent someone from ruining a peaceful player's harvesting run, etc. I personally dont mind this approach to the point of excluding the game (i played it for a while and only quit because it had adverse effects on my CPU temperature... funny for an 8 core CPU but that's for another thread aint it). but it does a whole lot to make the sandbox mmo experience more shallow for pve players and therefore, as pve players leave, more shallow overall. for example, to play darkfall without getting frustrated to the point of pulling hair out, one NEEDS to acquire the mindset that gear is completely throwaway and you don't need to sweat the loss of your gear at all. in eve your "gear" (space ship) is also destructable but the nature of eve's security systems allow for gear to be introduced into the game that takes great endeavors to produce, the loss of which would be a DRAMATIC blow not just to a player but to a whole alliance of players (eve players know i'm talking about titans). emotional bonds to a game are part of what keeps a gamer coming back to a game; I know that i would be upset if i lost my PVE dominix that has served me in 0.0 unharmed by other players for 2 years. that's a good thing for ccp. i have an emotional bond to their game. When i lost a set of gear in darkfall that i had actually crafted myself i simply went to my bank and got an identical set of gear and equipped it.
i guess this is my long winded way of pretty much (but not exactly) agreeing with the OP. though it should be reaffirmed that EQN can very easily be a sandbox MMO with no pvp whatsoever or (this is my preference) exist in multiple PVP states on multiple servers with different rulesets.
Well certainly PVEers are required by EVE's gameplay. In that respect, "carebears" are thrown a small bone although they have to submit to one of the most boring PVE games ever in order to participate, so there's that (but just because EVE's PVE is ultra boring doesn't make your point less true.)
But it really doesn't justify the big piece PVEers don't want, which is wholly negative to them, in being forced to PVP occasionally (even in high-sec.) While it fits in EVE's overall systems design, it really isn't the type of fun PVEers are looking for at all.
Especially since it's shallow PVP. Personally I only PVE in MMORPGs. But I PVP a lot. In other games. Because PVP in MMORPG involves so many non-skill factors like population (zerging) and progression (gear/level advantages) that it's very casual, shallow PVP. While casual PVP works for some, my standards are higher than that. (Though tragically I'm playing Planetside 2 right now. PS2 involves both those non-skill factors which I feel almost cripple the game beyond playability. But in absence of another deeper FPS lately, it feels like my only option.)
don't forget that to some people the economy is part of the PVE. The economy is far from boring if you're into that kid of thing. Personally I think the economy in eve is actually part of the PVP. Economically ruthless buying and selling! But i'm weird.
And similarly many folks, me included, would not consider eve's PVP shallow. Lead a couple roams through nullsec first at any rate before you say this there are plenty of negative words you can use for eve's pvp, the big one for most people being the word "unfair" which it is, oh yes it is. But it's incredibly deep.... once you get into territory wars, politics and even WH ops (though i havent experienced WH ops personally). It would take me less time to describe every LoL and Smite game I have ever played than it would to explain any of the large scale 0.0 campaigns i've had in eve.
where I agree with you is when you mentioned that many PVErs dont want even that small bit of pvp in their game. I dont feel that way personally but i agree with you. I actually have no doubt that if eve had a separate server where high sec was changed to make it impossible to break laws while in high sec, the "more carebear" of the servers would have double the population of the regular server... although i would personally play on the regular one.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningfull consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.In the real world, anti-social types generaly aren't very successfull simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependance. Where many MMO's start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependance neccessary for an individual to function. If you actualy need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truely anti-social. You may still have villians.....but they'll be ones that at least treat thier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
This post deserves its own thread
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningfull consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.
In the real world, anti-social types generaly aren't very successfull simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependance. Where many MMO's start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependance neccessary for an individual to function. If you actualy need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truely anti-social. You may still have villians.....but they'll be ones that at least treat thier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
This post deserves its own thread
Agreed.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningfull consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.
In the real world, anti-social types generaly aren't very successfull simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependance. Where many MMO's start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependance neccessary for an individual to function. If you actualy need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truely anti-social. You may still have villians.....but they'll be ones that at least treat thier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
Um...without going to refute every single line seperatedly, because pretty much every single line is flawed, I would sum up the fallacy of OP:
The force behind the change is economical, not the demand. There is no rise of people asking sandbox games, it is just development of standard model MMO is way too expensive and some developers are trying out new possible, profitable approach how to make a game.
Quite tiring, repeated ad nausea fallacy of looking at MMO development from "gamer" point of view. Games are not made for nor by "gamers", they are made to make money.
And last, but not least, when a game developer announce a development of "sandbox" game, it can mean basically anything...and people like to fill the holes with wishful thinking.
Going to have to agree with Gdemami here. The OP sets up his own definition of sandbox and his own version of history to base his arguments around, resulting in some really odd and flawed conclusions - which is a shame because there is a decent amount of truth to a good portion of what he presents, especially the overview of the general interests regarding sandbox content.
One's definitions, comments, and views of history are his own. Just because someone else's understanding of something is different does not make it wrong unless facts are being misconstrued. So, guys, kindly tell me what I said that was wrong rather than generalizing an opinion that I was wrong. What was "odd and flawed" exactly? How can you say there is a "decent amount of truth to a good portion" and also say that you agree with Gdemami - who said, "pretty much every single line is flawed." Both you guys sound confused. Please give me some specifics where I was "flawed" and "odd".
The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningfull consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.
In the real world, anti-social types generaly aren't very successfull simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependance. Where many MMO's start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependance neccessary for an individual to function. If you actualy need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truely anti-social. You may still have villians.....but they'll be ones that at least treat thier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
It is an opportunity to sell games to them that requires no cooperation and non itnerdependence to make them feel successful.
Remember games are entertainment. They don't have to mirror the real world, and they certainly are not educational tools.
If the goal is to entertain, what is better to give the anti-social what they cannot have in real life?
There is no irony in the sense that the OP mentions. Sandbox means players have all control over the game world. That means it is up to the players what kind of game world they create. It's especially up to the players to organize themselves. If they don't want certain behaviour then they will have to set up some rules and enforce them (e.g. in-game law enforcement & bounty hunting). Like in the real world there will be safer areas and unsafer areas. Everything will change over time. Maybe a city / player hub will get abandoned in favour of other locations / player hubs. Rules players set up will change over time as well. Guilds / organisations will come into life, grow and eventually fall apart.
A big part will be to keep up with how the game world evolves. Things could go pear shaped. That's true. Then it's up to the players to step up and act.
I understand what you are saying, but I think some sandbox games have just enough rules to prevent retribution all the while, some players cheat and skirt around using the very game mechanics meant to allow freedom. I have seen this in the games I have played. Sandbox is a term that I think represents ultimate freedom to do whatever you want. However, I just do not think it is possible to actually hold to that standard because of the bullies who will take the liberties of the game and use it for purposes that are outside of the realm of actions that most other gamer's consider to be fair. So I argue that morally-based rules are needed in a sandbox. Rules like getting banned for griefing others, and things like that.
The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningful consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.
In the real world, anti-social types generally aren't very successful simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependence. Where many Memos' start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependence necessary for an individual to function. If you actually need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truly anti-social. You may still have villains.....but they'll be ones that at least treat tier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
It is an opportunity to sell games to them that requires no cooperation and non interdependence to make them feel successful.
Remember games are entertainment. They don't have to mirror the real world, and they certainly are not educational tools.
If the goal is to entertain, what is better to give the anti-social what they cannot have in real life?
Yes, but the genre is not designed for it really. You can make a game anyway you like and in this climate any MMORPG that's half a game with a cash shop is financially successful. But you have single player games that allow you to be the hero and success on your own.
It is an opportunity to sell games to them that requires no cooperation and non interdependence to make them feel successful.
Remember games are entertainment. They don't have to mirror the real world, and they certainly are not educational tools.
If the goal is to entertain, what is better to give the anti-social what they cannot have in real life?
Yes, but the genre is not designed for it really. You can make a game anyway you like and in this climate any MMORPG that's half a game with a cash shop is financially successful. But you have single player games that allow you to be the hero and success on your own.
No one says only one genre (SP games) can do this. In fact, aren't many MMOs put in solo, and SP game elements? It is a free world. If a dev decides he wants to put solo stuff in his MMO, you can't really stop him, can you?
I think the genre is really not "designed for anything". It is just a collection of games, and devs are free to do whatever .. which of course they do.
It is an opportunity to sell games to them that requires no cooperation and non interdependence to make them feel successful.
Remember games are entertainment. They don't have to mirror the real world, and they certainly are not educational tools.
If the goal is to entertain, what is better to give the anti-social what they cannot have in real life?
Yes, but the genre is not designed for it really. You can make a game anyway you like and in this climate any MMORPG that's half a game with a cash shop is financially successful. But you have single player games that allow you to be the hero and success on your own.
No one says only one genre (SP games) can do this. In fact, aren't many MMOs put in solo, and SP game elements? It is a free world. If a dev decides he wants to put solo stuff in his MMO, you can't really stop him, can you?
I think the genre is really not "designed for anything". It is just a collection of games, and devs are free to do whatever .. which of course they do.
And where did I say you couldn't. I just said that the genre isn't designed for that. That's why there's a lot of gamer fatigue to the gameplay that it must be given away and subsidized to be consumed. Like I said due to the current and maybe forever climate you can push single player content on players but the games have long term cost and shouldn't be designed around short term content.
If you were running a marathon would you train solely for short sprints? No, its not practical unless your sponsers are allowed to pick you up and carry your to the finish like F2P essentially is allow.
Originally posted by Eyesgood Just because someone else's understanding of something is different does not make it wrong unless facts are being misconstrued.
The point is, it does not make you right either...and that's what you did. You made a wall of claims things that are completely lacking any back up but are your personal opinion or bias. You even admitted that yourself - you entitled yourself to speak in behalf of others.
Because you appeal to sandboxes, so must have SOE. Because you appeal to sandboxes and PVP, so sandbox appeal must be a PVP.
etc. etc. etc.
If one is making generalizations, it's you. You make generalizations based on your own bias - because you perceive something certain way, others do so as well.
Just because someone else's understanding of something is different does not make it wrong unless facts are being misconstrued.
The point is, it does not make you right either...and that's what you did. You made a wall of claims things that are completely lacking any back up but are your personal opinion or bias. You even admitted that yourself - you entitled yourself to speak in behalf of others.
Because you appeal to sandboxes, so must have SOE. Because you appeal to sandboxes and PVP, so sandbox appeal must be a PVP.
etc. etc. etc.
If one is making generalizations, it's you. You make generalizations based on your own bias - because you perceive something certain way, others do so as well.
ITS AN OPINION - MY OPINION, MY WALL OF TEXT, AND MY IDEAS. I never said I was 100% right nor did I even claim my ideas were irrefutable. When my fingers type, they are free to type whatever I want them to. You measure my words by your bias and then claim that my words are biased. Your arguments are as flawed as you claim mine are. [mod edit]
Originally posted by EyesgoodYou measure my words by your bias and then claim that my words are biased.
Reason isn't a bias and my arguments aren't flawed because you don't like them.
Funny you accuse me of "nonsensical whining", yet you openly imply that you do not care whether your post actually makes any sense - after it was pointed out it doesn't.
don't forget that to some people the economy is part of the PVE. The economy is far from boring if you're into that kid of thing. Personally I think the economy in eve is actually part of the PVP. Economically ruthless buying and selling! But i'm weird.
And similarly many folks, me included, would not consider eve's PVP shallow. Lead a couple roams through nullsec first at any rate before you say this there are plenty of negative words you can use for eve's pvp, the big one for most people being the word "unfair" which it is, oh yes it is. But it's incredibly deep.... once you get into territory wars, politics and even WH ops (though i havent experienced WH ops personally). It would take me less time to describe every LoL and Smite game I have ever played than it would to explain any of the large scale 0.0 campaigns i've had in eve.
where I agree with you is when you mentioned that many PVErs dont want even that small bit of pvp in their game. I dont feel that way personally but i agree with you. I actually have no doubt that if eve had a separate server where high sec was changed to make it impossible to break laws while in high sec, the "more carebear" of the servers would have double the population of the regular server... although i would personally play on the regular one.
Well it's not really "part of the PVE" (the economy is actually a form of PVP, while gathering/creating items is PVE) but that's not really the point which was made.
The point is that combat PVP isn't what these players want, and it's part of why EVE's population isn't higher (because there's a lot of PVE-only players who never want to be prey for the PVPers.)
EVE's PVP is shallow. You can gain truly massive advantages over your opponents through progression (ship size, type, and SP) and population (zerging). In EVE if you don't consistently force unfair completely-lopsided battles upon your opponents, you've done something wrong. And that's why it's shallow, because it's really only about preparation and not skillful decision-making during the fight. It's a game of Chess where the game is nearly completely automated apart from getting more or fewer pieces based on how long you've played and how many friends you bring.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A good PVE sandbox would succeed because it hasnt been done.
PVP is normally mindless in mmorpg's (no aiming means dependent on gear and a simple skill rotation)
premade group pvp takes more"skill" but not on a players level.
Any sandbox that allows free pvp will attract a lot of negative players.
Log into darkfall and read global chat for 5 minutes.
I've never seen a normal pvp community.
If a dev team has a brilliant sandbox idea i would suggest a seperate pvp server. Most mmo players do not enjoy PVP (at least as a focus) - and a lot of mmo players who do like pvp rather play a fps (and there a lot of mmo/fps games being made)
Originally posted by Eyesgood ...You measure my words by your bias and then claim that my words are biased. Your arguments are as flawed as you claim mine are...
Lots of that going on around here. This would make a good stickie or signature.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
The problem you illustrate, I think, has to do with the misconception among Developers and Players that "freedom" equates with a lack of meaningful consequences. It doesn't. Freedom also doesn't equate with the ability to do anything you want. It simply equates that you have the OPPORTUNITY to try to do what you want. A subtle but important distinction.
In the real world, anti-social types generally aren't very successful simply because accomplishing most things which are significant requires a very large degree of cooperation and interdependence. Where many Memos' start to run into problems is that they don't represent very well the degree of cooperation and interdependence necessary for an individual to function. If you actually need people to rescue you when you are in trouble, heal your wounds when you are injured, provide your food, repair your weapons and armor, help you take down difficult foes, etc.......it gets much more difficult to be truly anti-social. You may still have villains.....but they'll be ones that at least treat tier own "tribes" well....because they need them in order to be effective.
It is an opportunity to sell games to them that requires no cooperation and non interdependence to make them feel successful.
Remember games are entertainment. They don't have to mirror the real world, and they certainly are not educational tools.
If the goal is to entertain, what is better to give the anti-social what they cannot have in real life?
Yes, but the genre is not designed for it really. You can make a game anyway you like and in this climate any MMORPG that's half a game with a cash shop is financially successful. But you have single player games that allow you to be the hero and success on your own.
well i honor your opinion and disagree with it, i was quite un-sociable in my youth and still were able to make friends online i even know a person who was saved from the brink of suicide thanks to MMORPGs
well i agree with the notion that MODERN MMORPGs are not designed for making friends its just a mindless race to the finish
Originally posted by OfficialFlow ...well i agree with the notion that MODERN MMORPGs are not designed for making friends its just a mindless race to the finisha race that someone already finished
Nice conclusion. Yes Modern MMOs are single player experiences, sadly.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by OfficialFlow ...well i agree with the notion that MODERN MMORPGs are not designed for making friends its just a mindless race to the finish
a race that someone already finished
Nice conclusion. Yes Modern MMOs are single player experiences, sadly.
I don't know how more people don't see this. And if they do see it, how they can argue that themeparks aren't inferior mmo's compared to sandboxes. The genre was designed around virtual worlds. Instancing and mainlining quests for a few weeks straight are nothing more than developers bowing to every whim the playerbase has.
SOMETIMES the game developers are the parents and the consumers are the kids. If I'm playing an MMO, just because I WOULD press a button and be instantly showered with infinite gold and items if that button existed, doesn't mean they should put the button in. Somebody needs to start telling these kids "NO."
Originally posted by OfficialFlow ...well i agree with the notion that MODERN MMORPGs are not designed for making friends its just a mindless race to the finish
a race that someone already finished
Nice conclusion. Yes Modern MMOs are single player experiences, sadly.
I don't know how more people don't see this. And if they do see it, how they can argue that themeparks aren't inferior mmo's compared to sandboxes. The genre was designed around virtual worlds. Instancing and mainlining quests for a few weeks straight are nothing more than developers bowing to every whim the playerbase has.
SOMETIMES the game developers are the parents and the consumers are the kids. If I'm playing an MMO, just because I WOULD press a button and be instantly showered with infinite gold and items if that button existed, doesn't mean they should put the button in. Somebody needs to start telling these kids "NO."
Polling gone wrong IMO. It's like polling kids if they rather have candy or a balanced diet and feed them candy despite the health effects.
EvE is a perfect example of a title that claims to be that its a sandbox game. But in reality the only sandbox feature to it is at the very lower level of playing. When a player gets beyond that narrow bubble, that game is a P2W. If the "end-game" was truly sandbox, players wouldn't hit a glass ceiling that RL money can't built. The Fountain war recently showed by how much a publisher would change their own game around, to give an advantage to one corp and *maintain* their M.O. for 3 years. That's not sandbox, that's a managed P2W game.
True sandbox games are organic enough that no entity is all encompassing, as there's many routes to overcome obstacles in their way. The problem in the Fountain war was resources. TEST didn't have that ISK fountain Goons had to fund their war. TEST is an example of the real EvE (a thousand players playing without a funding source so encompassing it drove the economy), where the Goons are an example of what CCP allows them to be (e.g., allowing the exploit to exist that gave them the wealth to begin with...then, changed the game around it).
In a true sandbox game the resources wouldn't be so centralized and controlled, as that is domination. Domination is a disservice in a sandbox, as it closes avenues of access, and is an obstacle that only RL money or dev direct involvement can fix.
So true sandbox games is decentralized of any one source of power or resource. It's you are in control of your sphere of influence, but world domination can't be achieved, it's too organic to allow it. It's an Utopian game.
FFA and Sandbox never mix.
FFA is forced PvP. No different than forced questing.
As for Test, they are on of many to get negated. Goonswarm made it public two years ago they had become unbreakable. ISBoxer, enough Plex to meta anything the game could throw at them. CCP ignored it.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Originally posted by HolophonistOriginally posted by ArclanOriginally posted by OfficialFlow...well i agree with the notion that MODERN MMORPGs are not designed for making friends its just a mindless race to the finisha race that someone already finished
Nice conclusion. Yes Modern MMOs are single player experiences, sadly.I don't know how more people don't see this. And if they do see it, how they can argue that themeparks aren't inferior mmo's compared to sandboxes. The genre was designed around virtual worlds. Instancing and mainlining quests for a few weeks straight are nothing more than developers bowing to every whim the playerbase has.SOMETIMES the game developers are the parents and the consumers are the kids. If I'm playing an MMO, just because I WOULD press a button and be instantly showered with infinite gold and items if that button existed, doesn't mean they should put the button in. Somebody needs to start telling these kids "NO."
Polling gone wrong IMO. It's like polling kids if they rather have candy or a balanced diet and feed them candy despite the health effects.
Indeed. Very good analogy, too.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by Arclan Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal Originally posted by HolophonistOriginally posted by ArclanOriginally posted by OfficialFlow...well i agree with the notion that MODERN MMORPGs are not designed for making friends its just a mindless race to the finisha race that someone already finished
Nice conclusion. Yes Modern MMOs are single player experiences, sadly.I don't know how more people don't see this. And if they do see it, how they can argue that themeparks aren't inferior mmo's compared to sandboxes. The genre was designed around virtual worlds. Instancing and mainlining quests for a few weeks straight are nothing more than developers bowing to every whim the playerbase has.SOMETIMES the game developers are the parents and the consumers are the kids. If I'm playing an MMO, just because I WOULD press a button and be instantly showered with infinite gold and items if that button existed, doesn't mean they should put the button in. Somebody needs to start telling these kids "NO."
Polling gone wrong IMO. It's like polling kids if they rather have candy or a balanced diet and feed them candy despite the health effects.
Indeed. Very good analogy, too.
Reading this bit made me think, "Echo Chamber". I'm not sure why.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Finally, it is not enough to plop players down in a game world and have them duke it out to the death in a player-controlled environment. Law and order has its proper place. You can have a great PVP game when you properly match risk and reward for everyone, not just for the bullies. Provide protection to keep the larger player-base alive and thriving. Give them a reason to support the Great Cause. Provide reward for those who wish to seek fame and fortune, yes, but with controls in place so their base nature does not drive away your base players. You cannot eliminate the bullies and unfortunately, most want them in the game if not for any other reason that the hero/villain paradigm. This is fine. But in your attempt to be more exciting, more thrilling, more dangerous, and more real to life, don’t forget that there are vastly more peoples out of prison than there are in. And they are the ones who pay the taxes!
Worth repeating.
Sandbox discussions here often read like 1st graders discussing politics. The concept that the logical outcome of anarchy is replacing the suppression of freedom by the state with the suppression of freedom by bullies seems to be lost on them.
Sandbox games, just like any other social environment need rules that reward good social behavior and punish anti-social behavior.
Sometimes I get the feeling that most developers and some sandbox proponents believe that the majority of potential virtual world dwellers are antisocial bullies. They cater to them or at the very least, turn a blind eye to their abuses in the name of "freedom."
Until they realize that freedom == anarchy, the same amateurish attempts at sandboxes will be the norm. And they will exclude many more than they will include.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
don't forget that to some people the economy is part of the PVE. The economy is far from boring if you're into that kid of thing. Personally I think the economy in eve is actually part of the PVP. Economically ruthless buying and selling! But i'm weird.
And similarly many folks, me included, would not consider eve's PVP shallow. Lead a couple roams through nullsec first at any rate before you say this
there are plenty of negative words you can use for eve's pvp, the big one for most people being the word "unfair" which it is, oh yes it is. But it's incredibly deep.... once you get into territory wars, politics and even WH ops (though i havent experienced WH ops personally). It would take me less time to describe every LoL and Smite game I have ever played than it would to explain any of the large scale 0.0 campaigns i've had in eve.
where I agree with you is when you mentioned that many PVErs dont want even that small bit of pvp in their game. I dont feel that way personally but i agree with you. I actually have no doubt that if eve had a separate server where high sec was changed to make it impossible to break laws while in high sec, the "more carebear" of the servers would have double the population of the regular server... although i would personally play on the regular one.
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
This post deserves its own thread
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Agreed.
Exactly, this.
One's definitions, comments, and views of history are his own. Just because someone else's understanding of something is different does not make it wrong unless facts are being misconstrued. So, guys, kindly tell me what I said that was wrong rather than generalizing an opinion that I was wrong. What was "odd and flawed" exactly? How can you say there is a "decent amount of truth to a good portion" and also say that you agree with Gdemami - who said, "pretty much every single line is flawed." Both you guys sound confused. Please give me some specifics where I was "flawed" and "odd".
It is an opportunity to sell games to them that requires no cooperation and non itnerdependence to make them feel successful.
Remember games are entertainment. They don't have to mirror the real world, and they certainly are not educational tools.
If the goal is to entertain, what is better to give the anti-social what they cannot have in real life?
I understand what you are saying, but I think some sandbox games have just enough rules to prevent retribution all the while, some players cheat and skirt around using the very game mechanics meant to allow freedom. I have seen this in the games I have played. Sandbox is a term that I think represents ultimate freedom to do whatever you want. However, I just do not think it is possible to actually hold to that standard because of the bullies who will take the liberties of the game and use it for purposes that are outside of the realm of actions that most other gamer's consider to be fair. So I argue that morally-based rules are needed in a sandbox. Rules like getting banned for griefing others, and things like that.
Yes, but the genre is not designed for it really. You can make a game anyway you like and in this climate any MMORPG that's half a game with a cash shop is financially successful. But you have single player games that allow you to be the hero and success on your own.
No one says only one genre (SP games) can do this. In fact, aren't many MMOs put in solo, and SP game elements? It is a free world. If a dev decides he wants to put solo stuff in his MMO, you can't really stop him, can you?
I think the genre is really not "designed for anything". It is just a collection of games, and devs are free to do whatever .. which of course they do.
And where did I say you couldn't. I just said that the genre isn't designed for that. That's why there's a lot of gamer fatigue to the gameplay that it must be given away and subsidized to be consumed. Like I said due to the current and maybe forever climate you can push single player content on players but the games have long term cost and shouldn't be designed around short term content.
If you were running a marathon would you train solely for short sprints? No, its not practical unless your sponsers are allowed to pick you up and carry your to the finish like F2P essentially is allow.
The point is, it does not make you right either...and that's what you did. You made a wall of claims things that are completely lacking any back up but are your personal opinion or bias. You even admitted that yourself - you entitled yourself to speak in behalf of others.
Because you appeal to sandboxes, so must have SOE.
Because you appeal to sandboxes and PVP, so sandbox appeal must be a PVP.
etc. etc. etc.
If one is making generalizations, it's you. You make generalizations based on your own bias - because you perceive something certain way, others do so as well.
ITS AN OPINION - MY OPINION, MY WALL OF TEXT, AND MY IDEAS. I never said I was 100% right nor did I even claim my ideas were irrefutable. When my fingers type, they are free to type whatever I want them to. You measure my words by your bias and then claim that my words are biased. Your arguments are as flawed as you claim mine are. [mod edit]
Reason isn't a bias and my arguments aren't flawed because you don't like them.
Funny you accuse me of "nonsensical whining", yet you openly imply that you do not care whether your post actually makes any sense - after it was pointed out it doesn't.
You pretty much confirmed what I was saying...
Well it's not really "part of the PVE" (the economy is actually a form of PVP, while gathering/creating items is PVE) but that's not really the point which was made.
The point is that combat PVP isn't what these players want, and it's part of why EVE's population isn't higher (because there's a lot of PVE-only players who never want to be prey for the PVPers.)
EVE's PVP is shallow. You can gain truly massive advantages over your opponents through progression (ship size, type, and SP) and population (zerging). In EVE if you don't consistently force unfair completely-lopsided battles upon your opponents, you've done something wrong. And that's why it's shallow, because it's really only about preparation and not skillful decision-making during the fight. It's a game of Chess where the game is nearly completely automated apart from getting more or fewer pieces based on how long you've played and how many friends you bring.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A good PVE sandbox would succeed because it hasnt been done.
PVP is normally mindless in mmorpg's (no aiming means dependent on gear and a simple skill rotation)
premade group pvp takes more"skill" but not on a players level.
Any sandbox that allows free pvp will attract a lot of negative players.
Log into darkfall and read global chat for 5 minutes.
I've never seen a normal pvp community.
If a dev team has a brilliant sandbox idea i would suggest a seperate pvp server. Most mmo players do not enjoy PVP (at least as a focus) - and a lot of mmo players who do like pvp rather play a fps (and there a lot of mmo/fps games being made)
Lots of that going on around here. This would make a good stickie or signature.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
well i honor your opinion and disagree with it, i was quite un-sociable in my youth and still were able to make friends online i even know a person who was saved from the brink of suicide thanks to MMORPGs
well i agree with the notion that MODERN MMORPGs are not designed for making friends its just a mindless race to the finish
a race that someone already finished
Nice conclusion. Yes Modern MMOs are single player experiences, sadly.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I don't know how more people don't see this. And if they do see it, how they can argue that themeparks aren't inferior mmo's compared to sandboxes. The genre was designed around virtual worlds. Instancing and mainlining quests for a few weeks straight are nothing more than developers bowing to every whim the playerbase has.
SOMETIMES the game developers are the parents and the consumers are the kids. If I'm playing an MMO, just because I WOULD press a button and be instantly showered with infinite gold and items if that button existed, doesn't mean they should put the button in. Somebody needs to start telling these kids "NO."
Polling gone wrong IMO. It's like polling kids if they rather have candy or a balanced diet and feed them candy despite the health effects.
FFA and Sandbox never mix.
FFA is forced PvP. No different than forced questing.
As for Test, they are on of many to get negated. Goonswarm made it public two years ago they had become unbreakable. ISBoxer, enough Plex to meta anything the game could throw at them. CCP ignored it.
I don't know how more people don't see this. And if they do see it, how they can argue that themeparks aren't inferior mmo's compared to sandboxes. The genre was designed around virtual worlds. Instancing and mainlining quests for a few weeks straight are nothing more than developers bowing to every whim the playerbase has. SOMETIMES the game developers are the parents and the consumers are the kids. If I'm playing an MMO, just because I WOULD press a button and be instantly showered with infinite gold and items if that button existed, doesn't mean they should put the button in. Somebody needs to start telling these kids "NO."
Polling gone wrong IMO. It's like polling kids if they rather have candy or a balanced diet and feed them candy despite the health effects.
Indeed. Very good analogy, too.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I don't know how more people don't see this. And if they do see it, how they can argue that themeparks aren't inferior mmo's compared to sandboxes. The genre was designed around virtual worlds. Instancing and mainlining quests for a few weeks straight are nothing more than developers bowing to every whim the playerbase has. SOMETIMES the game developers are the parents and the consumers are the kids. If I'm playing an MMO, just because I WOULD press a button and be instantly showered with infinite gold and items if that button existed, doesn't mean they should put the button in. Somebody needs to start telling these kids "NO."
Polling gone wrong IMO. It's like polling kids if they rather have candy or a balanced diet and feed them candy despite the health effects.
Indeed. Very good analogy, too.
Reading this bit made me think, "Echo Chamber". I'm not sure why.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Worth repeating.
Sandbox discussions here often read like 1st graders discussing politics. The concept that the logical outcome of anarchy is replacing the suppression of freedom by the state with the suppression of freedom by bullies seems to be lost on them.
Sandbox games, just like any other social environment need rules that reward good social behavior and punish anti-social behavior.
Sometimes I get the feeling that most developers and some sandbox proponents believe that the majority of potential virtual world dwellers are antisocial bullies. They cater to them or at the very least, turn a blind eye to their abuses in the name of "freedom."
Until they realize that freedom == anarchy, the same amateurish attempts at sandboxes will be the norm. And they will exclude many more than they will include.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED