There is a lot of anti pvp on this thread it seems
I would like to say that sand boxes are basically pvp games. The pve aspect of the game is to add more depth to the game. Its basically what a developer would do after making the frame for their sand box, they admire detail.
A sand box that is only pve would be more of an experiment testing the world rather than living in it. It would be as good as the NPC/AI offer in content and variability.
I have feeling the people that do not like pvp, are the ones that like to go up to a static tree, chop some wood, and do this 100x until they make 1 gold to buy a hot meal from a vendor to have energy to cut 120x trees. They just like to have grinds
Sure they can add story, but if the story is in a static world, it might as well be a single player game that is a coop for dungeons. No grind needed. Just imo, it would be better to not have an MMO rather than simply have one taking up space, mostly for a gear grind, resource grind, time -sink and high costs for servers and a waste of development... when a single player game and coop system would be in terms of end game just as fun and not time consuming from a pve stand point.
Unless the NPC/AI act like real players to make the game interesting. But if the ai/Npc are like real players... then isn't it just like making the game have pvp?
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Not for me it can't. Unless the PvP is segregated or uses a flagging system. But the moment that PvP rewards outclass PvE, or that developmental cycles cater to something I feel is cancerous to good sandbox gameplay then for me it can never coexist. The best and only viable solution is segregated server modes in the vain of an Asheron's Call. Many AC Darktide vets will say it was the best PvP in the genre but it very rarely saw developmental notice and it did just fine.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
There is a lot of anti pvp on this thread it seems
I would like to say that sand boxes are basically pvp games. The pve aspect of the game is to add more depth to the game. Its basically what a developer would do after making the frame for their sand box, they admire detail.
A sand box that is only pve would be more of an experiment testing the world rather than living in it. It would be as good as the NPC/AI offer in content and variability.
I have feeling the people that do not like pvp, are the ones that like to go up to a static tree, chop some wood, and do this 100x until they make 1 gold to buy a hot meal from a vendor to have energy to cut 120x trees. They just like to have grinds
Sure they can add story, but if the story is in a static world, it might as well be a single player game that is a coop for dungeons. No grind needed. Just imo, it would be better to not have an MMO rather than simply have one taking up space, mostly for a gear grind, resource grind, time -sink and high costs for servers and a waste of development... when a single player game and coop system would be in terms of end game just as fun and not time consuming from a pve stand point.
Unless the NPC/AI act like real players to make the game interesting. But if the ai/Npc are like real players... then isn't it just like making the game have pvp?
Asheron's Call would beg to differ. The first and only true PvE centric sandbox ever created in the genre and will forever be my defining metric system for sandbox gameplay. PvE is paramount in an RPG and is the only thing I care about within context. SO don't tell me this rubbish about how it can't be done.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Just because something is hard doesn't mean it is impossible.
Just because something is possible does not mean that there is a demand to do it.
Why would devs spend resources for a non-problem when the simpler, cheaper solution is just to separate the pvp and pve players?
Good question actually.
Having both PvE and PvP players do have it's advantages as well. For one thing the potential customers are a larger group.
And you do get a rather different feeling when you have several types of players in the game. Some people like both types of play (like me).
But having only one gamestyle works fine, the real problem is when you make it for one playstyle and add the other type to get more players a while before release, or put 90% of the work into one gamestyle. If you are unsure go for one type only.
There is a lot of anti pvp on this thread it seems
I would like to say that sand boxes are basically pvp games. The pve aspect of the game is to add more depth to the game. Its basically what a developer would do after making the frame for their sand box, they admire detail.
A sand box that is only pve would be more of an experiment testing the world rather than living in it. It would be as good as the NPC/AI offer in content and variability.
I have feeling the people that do not like pvp, are the ones that like to go up to a static tree, chop some wood, and do this 100x until they make 1 gold to buy a hot meal from a vendor to have energy to cut 120x trees. They just like to have grinds
Sure they can add story, but if the story is in a static world, it might as well be a single player game that is a coop for dungeons. No grind needed. Just imo, it would be better to not have an MMO rather than simply have one taking up space, mostly for a gear grind, resource grind, time -sink and high costs for servers and a waste of development... when a single player game and coop system would be in terms of end game just as fun and not time consuming from a pve stand point.
Unless the NPC/AI act like real players to make the game interesting. But if the ai/Npc are like real players... then isn't it just like making the game have pvp?
Asheron's Call would beg to differ. The first and only true PvE centric sandbox ever created in the genre and will forever be my defining metric system for sandbox gameplay. PvE is paramount in an RPG and is the only thing I care about within context. SO don't tell me this rubbish about how it can't be done.
Well, there have been a few smaller ones as well. But you are right, sandbox means user created content as opposed to the scripted content of themeparks. You can make a sandbox with zero combat, was one around before (I think it was called Desert something). And you have Landmark.
Everquest Next seems to be a sandbox PvE game aswell, or at least a hybrid.
Sandbox PvE games do demand a different way to tell the story though, when they cities and castles are built by the players you need to have mechanics that makes the mobs interact with player created stuff which is more complicated.
It is easier to make a good PvP sandbox then a PvE or mixed one. But I have a feeling that we will see more PvE sandboxes in the future.
Mixing PvP and PvE will never work without different sets of skills. Meaning, at character creation, the player chooses PvP or PvE and it's not possible to switch between then during game play. They receive different sets of skills based on their chosen play. Even then, there will always be problems with mixing these styles of play because people can't be trusted to play fair.
Many years ago, I played WoW. I was playing on one of those servers that had both PvP and PvE. Now as this existed in many games, that usually wasn't a problem but on this game, it was a very big deal. I wasn't flagged for PvP and was playing the PvE game and harvesting. But I grabbed a node before someone else and he wanted to PvP me because of it. I said no, and he started to follow me around stealing nodes and mobs. He kept harassing me about it. 2 hours he did this and it looked like the only way away from him was to log off which isn't fair. He harassed me in chat so I ignored him. Then he harassed me in messaging via email so I ignored him that too. Then he got his WHOLE GUILD to follow me around doing the same thing. It was so bad that they ALL put me on their friends list so that they could ALL find me and harass me as soon as I logged in. His guild had hundreds of players. All because of that one small thing. I left that game and never went back, and I never will.
It's made me hate PvP with a passion. It's not because of PvP itself, it's because of the players. In my experience in this and other games, this kind of behavior is rather common. I never play on PvP servers if they are offered. My experience has been so bad that I only play on RP servers because I have never been harassed on those servers. I've been playing several dozen different MMO's since EQ1 started all those years ago.
Just because something is hard doesn't mean it is impossible.
Just because something is possible does not mean that there is a demand to do it.
Why would devs spend resources for a non-problem when the simpler, cheaper solution is just to separate the pvp and pve players?
Good question actually.
Having both PvE and PvP players do have it's advantages as well. For one thing the potential customers are a larger group.
But having only one gamestyle works fine, the real problem is when you make it for one playstyle and add the other type to get more players a while before release, or put 90% of the work into one gamestyle. If you are unsure go for one type only.
But no one says you have to put all of them into the same game. Just have two types of servers, or game modes. You still get the larger potential customer group without spending the resources to put both pve & pvp into the same game.
Devs don't even need to decide what is the percentage going into one style or the other. Just set up different servers and switch pve or pvp depending on the demand.
Again, it is a non-problem that i don't see why devs would spend money on.
I've been playing an MMO called EVE since 2005 that has PVP and PVE working in a perfect symbiotic relationship. I know that you're wrong.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I've been playing an MMO called EVE since 2005 that has PVP and PVE working in a perfect symbiotic relationship. I know that you're wrong.
I've been playing MMO's since the first Everquest came out in 1999. I know that I'm right. So nice try. I've played somewhere in the realm of 30-40 MMO's in that time, though I'd say somewhere between 10-15 is the number that I played for any length of time. I have experiences too. Do you think that I'm lying just because I said I don't agree with what you do? I'm not. I have no reason to lie.
I've been playing an MMO called EVE since 2005 that has PVP and PVE working in a perfect symbiotic relationship. I know that you're wrong.
Really? 'dont fly what you cant afford to lose', 'farming for tears', gankathons of various descriptions, blackmail? all hinderances for the pure PVE player that they must tolerate or leave. And what is the long term goal for an EVE PVE player? - it cant be expensive ships, because Carebears with overly expensive ships get killed for giggles.
PVE is primarily good in Eve as a secondary activity to generate funds for PVP.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I've been playing an MMO called EVE since 2005 that has PVP and PVE working in a perfect symbiotic relationship. I know that you're wrong.
which only have a mere 500k players when the total MMO market tallies in the tens of millions. Players vote with their feet. If Eve separate out pve and pvp, they would probably have been double its player base.
In fact, Eve is a pretty good example of pvp + pve = niche small game.
I've been playing an MMO called EVE since 2005 that has PVP and PVE working in a perfect symbiotic relationship. I know that you're wrong.
which only have a mere 500k players when the total MMO market tallies in the tens of millions. Players vote with their feet. If Eve separate out pve and pvp, they would probably have been double its player base.
Wow, no. You continue to display your ignorance with respect to EVE. I personally would have stopped after the first time I was exposed, but please, feel free.
In fact, Eve is a pretty good example of pvp + pve = niche small game.
Sure it's niche, but half a million people is a hell of a lot regardless of the size of the market. This thread is about whether or not "PVE and PVP players can CO-EXIST in a sandbox", which they have been doing for many years in EVE.
You lose Mr. Seldon.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
In fact, Wow is a pretty good example of pvp + pve = BIG ASS MONSTER MMORPG. I mean, you were the one that told me that you can just transfer servers? Right?
What do you mean? Pvp & Pve are completely separated in WoW. Sure you can switch back & forth ... but that means it is 100% consensual.
Sure it's niche, but half a million people is a hell of a lot regardless of the size of the market. This thread is about whether or not "PVE and PVP players can CO-EXIST in a sandbox", which they have been doing for many years in EVE.
Sure they *can* .. but do they want to? If i look at the market, i would say most do not. And so what a small 500k game has that ... most games don't force pve & pvp to coexist.
Sure it's niche, but half a million people is a hell of a lot regardless of the size of the market. This thread is about whether or not "PVE and PVP players can CO-EXIST in a sandbox", which they have been doing for many years in EVE.
Sure they *can* .. but do they want to? If i look at the market, i would say most do not. And so what a small 500k game has that ... most games don't force pve & pvp to coexist.
This thread is raising a non-problem.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Now continuing this, I find that Rift does a decent job at this. It's an open world sandbox game that has a PvP element to it, all the players need to do is to type /pvp. The downside of this is that no one takes advantage of this si there is very little opportunity to implement it.
And then completely leave out that this very same concept can in fact be applied to a single world server, of course if implemented correctly. Or did you miss that?
Or did you miss the fact that most pve & pvp in wow are conducted in instances? If that is not separate, what is?
Look, PvE and PvP players can absolutely co-exist in a sandbox.
The problem is more of, how many people would actually play that game within the current market? So far it seems not many. Such games with a symbiotic relationship between both player types existed in the past. They require more effort on the part of the designers, and more patience on the part of the producers, to make sure that the systems in place are working correctly.
However, such a game requires both different PvE and PvP from what we're used to in standard games. Ganking would be more common (though punishable), hacking would still be an issue, massive raids wouldn't really work with such a game (which is what much of the PvE crowd seems to think they want at the moment).
It's doable, but would be a very different game than what most people are used to. And so far, with games, games that are 'too different' usually don't do so well.
It's doable, but would be a very different game than what most people are used to. And so far, with games, games that are 'too different' usually don't do so well.
Also .. "doable" does not mean cheap or easy to do. There is really little reason for a dev to put pve & pvp together when it is just fine when they are apart.
Comments
There is a lot of anti pvp on this thread it seems
I would like to say that sand boxes are basically pvp games. The pve aspect of the game is to add more depth to the game. Its basically what a developer would do after making the frame for their sand box, they admire detail.
A sand box that is only pve would be more of an experiment testing the world rather than living in it. It would be as good as the NPC/AI offer in content and variability.
I have feeling the people that do not like pvp, are the ones that like to go up to a static tree, chop some wood, and do this 100x until they make 1 gold to buy a hot meal from a vendor to have energy to cut 120x trees. They just like to have grinds
Sure they can add story, but if the story is in a static world, it might as well be a single player game that is a coop for dungeons. No grind needed. Just imo, it would be better to not have an MMO rather than simply have one taking up space, mostly for a gear grind, resource grind, time -sink and high costs for servers and a waste of development... when a single player game and coop system would be in terms of end game just as fun and not time consuming from a pve stand point.
Unless the NPC/AI act like real players to make the game interesting. But if the ai/Npc are like real players... then isn't it just like making the game have pvp?
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Just because something is possible does not mean that there is a demand to do it.
Why would devs spend resources for a non-problem when the simpler, cheaper solution is just to separate the pvp and pve players?
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Asheron's Call would beg to differ. The first and only true PvE centric sandbox ever created in the genre and will forever be my defining metric system for sandbox gameplay. PvE is paramount in an RPG and is the only thing I care about within context. SO don't tell me this rubbish about how it can't be done.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Good question actually.
Having both PvE and PvP players do have it's advantages as well. For one thing the potential customers are a larger group.
And you do get a rather different feeling when you have several types of players in the game. Some people like both types of play (like me).
But having only one gamestyle works fine, the real problem is when you make it for one playstyle and add the other type to get more players a while before release, or put 90% of the work into one gamestyle. If you are unsure go for one type only.
Everybody must have fun or the game will fail.
Well, there have been a few smaller ones as well. But you are right, sandbox means user created content as opposed to the scripted content of themeparks. You can make a sandbox with zero combat, was one around before (I think it was called Desert something). And you have Landmark.
Everquest Next seems to be a sandbox PvE game aswell, or at least a hybrid.
Sandbox PvE games do demand a different way to tell the story though, when they cities and castles are built by the players you need to have mechanics that makes the mobs interact with player created stuff which is more complicated.
It is easier to make a good PvP sandbox then a PvE or mixed one. But I have a feeling that we will see more PvE sandboxes in the future.
Mixing PvP and PvE will never work without different sets of skills. Meaning, at character creation, the player chooses PvP or PvE and it's not possible to switch between then during game play. They receive different sets of skills based on their chosen play. Even then, there will always be problems with mixing these styles of play because people can't be trusted to play fair.
Many years ago, I played WoW. I was playing on one of those servers that had both PvP and PvE. Now as this existed in many games, that usually wasn't a problem but on this game, it was a very big deal. I wasn't flagged for PvP and was playing the PvE game and harvesting. But I grabbed a node before someone else and he wanted to PvP me because of it. I said no, and he started to follow me around stealing nodes and mobs. He kept harassing me about it. 2 hours he did this and it looked like the only way away from him was to log off which isn't fair. He harassed me in chat so I ignored him. Then he harassed me in messaging via email so I ignored him that too. Then he got his WHOLE GUILD to follow me around doing the same thing. It was so bad that they ALL put me on their friends list so that they could ALL find me and harass me as soon as I logged in. His guild had hundreds of players. All because of that one small thing. I left that game and never went back, and I never will.
It's made me hate PvP with a passion. It's not because of PvP itself, it's because of the players. In my experience in this and other games, this kind of behavior is rather common. I never play on PvP servers if they are offered. My experience has been so bad that I only play on RP servers because I have never been harassed on those servers. I've been playing several dozen different MMO's since EQ1 started all those years ago.
PvP and Pve don't work together.
But no one says you have to put all of them into the same game. Just have two types of servers, or game modes. You still get the larger potential customer group without spending the resources to put both pve & pvp into the same game.
Devs don't even need to decide what is the percentage going into one style or the other. Just set up different servers and switch pve or pvp depending on the demand.
Again, it is a non-problem that i don't see why devs would spend money on.
PvP and PvE should compliment one another and never force a player to do either to progress.
A healthy interaction, where successes for your realm in either type of gameplay offers universal benefits for all.
I've been playing an MMO called EVE since 2005 that has PVP and PVE working in a perfect symbiotic relationship. I know that you're wrong.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I've been playing MMO's since the first Everquest came out in 1999. I know that I'm right. So nice try. I've played somewhere in the realm of 30-40 MMO's in that time, though I'd say somewhere between 10-15 is the number that I played for any length of time. I have experiences too. Do you think that I'm lying just because I said I don't agree with what you do? I'm not. I have no reason to lie.
So... you are wrong.
Really? 'dont fly what you cant afford to lose', 'farming for tears', gankathons of various descriptions, blackmail? all hinderances for the pure PVE player that they must tolerate or leave. And what is the long term goal for an EVE PVE player? - it cant be expensive ships, because Carebears with overly expensive ships get killed for giggles.
PVE is primarily good in Eve as a secondary activity to generate funds for PVP.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
which only have a mere 500k players when the total MMO market tallies in the tens of millions. Players vote with their feet. If Eve separate out pve and pvp, they would probably have been double its player base.
In fact, Eve is a pretty good example of pvp + pve = niche small game.
Sure it's niche, but half a million people is a hell of a lot regardless of the size of the market. This thread is about whether or not "PVE and PVP players can CO-EXIST in a sandbox", which they have been doing for many years in EVE.
You lose Mr. Seldon.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
What do you mean? Pvp & Pve are completely separated in WoW. Sure you can switch back & forth ... but that means it is 100% consensual.
Sure they *can* .. but do they want to? If i look at the market, i would say most do not. And so what a small 500k game has that ... most games don't force pve & pvp to coexist.
This thread is raising a non-problem.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Or did you miss the fact that most pve & pvp in wow are conducted in instances? If that is not separate, what is?
Look, PvE and PvP players can absolutely co-exist in a sandbox.
The problem is more of, how many people would actually play that game within the current market? So far it seems not many. Such games with a symbiotic relationship between both player types existed in the past. They require more effort on the part of the designers, and more patience on the part of the producers, to make sure that the systems in place are working correctly.
However, such a game requires both different PvE and PvP from what we're used to in standard games. Ganking would be more common (though punishable), hacking would still be an issue, massive raids wouldn't really work with such a game (which is what much of the PvE crowd seems to think they want at the moment).
It's doable, but would be a very different game than what most people are used to. And so far, with games, games that are 'too different' usually don't do so well.
Also .. "doable" does not mean cheap or easy to do. There is really little reason for a dev to put pve & pvp together when it is just fine when they are apart.