Sandbox = PVP gank game in upcoming games - why?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Four0Six

Seems like I read this thread before, somewhere else........

 

Blah blah blah, don't like it don't play it. If you do want to play it because of X or Y feature, suck it up and deal.

F0URTWENTY

It's hard to have a real sandbox economy in games without loss of gear, or expensive durability loss. There needs to be something that keeps crafters crafting, and give meaningful resources for guilds to fight over.

 

If you don't want loss of anything on death, sandpark games would be best for you like archeage. You can do your territory control but the economy will always be shallow.

d_20

It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.

 

Lower dev costs would mean the game has to earn less to recoup those costs and turn a profit, either through box or cash shop sales. These games always become "niche" so that's why I guess they are able to make their money back without having a lot of players for a long period of time.

goboygo

Originally posted by Sketch420

It's hard to have a real sandbox economy in games without loss of gear, or expensive durability loss. There needs to be something that keeps crafters crafting, and give meaningful resources for guilds to fight over.

 

If you don't want loss of anything on death, sandpark games would be best for you like archeage. You can do your territory control but the economy will always be shallow.

Totally not true, but sounds like as good a justification as any.

goboygo

Originally posted by d_20

It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.

 

Lower dev costs would mean the game has to earn less to recoup those costs and turn a profit, either through box or cash shop sales. These games always become "niche" so that's why I guess they are able to make their money back without having a lot of players for a long period of time.

Your much closer to the truth in this post.  

FlyByKnight

Don't play them fam.

 

My PC MMORPG experience started with Aion. I loved how they melded both experiences of PVE/PVP. There's nothing wrong with being a PVE/Dice Roll/Macro/RP player. Just recognize the fact that many people including myself like PVP too.

 

As long as a game is balanced in a way to give a player a chance to win an encounter I'm for it.  Justice systems are needed too.

 

People like competing against other players. Clearly more people than most would assume.

F0URTWENTY

I also want to add this. Sandbox games usually are group based games where you work closely to accomplish goals with your guilds. In group battles I find it indefinitely more fun, and exciting when your whole group is risking their gear. You pick your fights wisely and if you loose your gear you can all work together to replace it. IMO sandbox games will never work without that.

F0URTWENTY

Originally posted by d_20

It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.

 

Lower dev costs would mean the game has to earn less to recoup those costs and turn a profit, either through box or cash shop sales. These games always become "niche" so that's why I guess they are able to make their money back without having a lot of players for a long period of time.

 

The whole point of sandbox games is that the players create the content. Sandbox players don't want pve carrot on a stick standard mmorpg gameplay. Why even post in this thread if you don't understand what you're talking about.

d_20

Originally posted by Sketch420

Originally posted by d_20

It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.

 

Lower dev costs would mean the game has to earn less to recoup those costs and turn a profit, either through box or cash shop sales. These games always become "niche" so that's why I guess they are able to make their money back without having a lot of players for a long period of time.

 

The whole point of sandbox games is that the players create the content. Sandbox players don't want pve carrot on a stick standard mmorpg gameplay. Why even post in this thread if you don't understand what you're talking about.

There can be more to do in a sandbox than murder people.

No need to be a grouch.

sunandshadow

The people who think PvP is essential to a sandbox game seem to be the kind who have never played sims and don't realize that a sandbox would work fine with all sim gameplay.

Personally I've been waiting for a sandbox that has no pvp, 3rd person perspective, no guns, and a world that isn't horror-themed for about 2 years now.

Sojhin

A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.

JDis25

Do you remember Candyland? That game was PvP. Let that sink in for a minute.

Dullahan

Seems to me its a budget issue, if not a lack of creativity.  They design these games by going all in on PvP because they lack any other content.  Ironically, its the same reason they become boring so quickly.  The thing about a virtual world is it takes all kinds of players.  Even players that like to PvP need some form of progression to keep their interest.

Virtual worlds aren't created by building the foundation with PvP.  Never worked, never will.

sig

General-Zod

Originally posted by Dullahan

Seems to me its a budget issue, if not a lack of creativity.  They design these games by going all in on PvP because they lack any other content.  Ironically, its the same reason they become boring so quickly.  The thing about a virtual world is it takes all kinds of players.  Even players that like to PvP need some form of progression to keep their interest.

Virtual worlds aren't created by building the foundation with PvP.  Never worked, never will.

sig

I disagree.

A virtual world can be built with a PvP foundation. The problem is there is usually nothing atop said foundation, which inevitably leads to a very lackluster game.

on another note

I understand that PvE content is the most difficult and expensive to make. Why don't they just make fewer higher quality PvE content? We've all played games where thousands of NPC stand around waiting to be slaughtered for experience. Why not make some kind of NPC that takes a bit of exploring to find? Instead of killing bears by the dozen, make a bear encounter mean something...

bcbully

The biggest nonsandbox feature is the "you cannot attack" thing floating on your screen. Sandbox is freedom. Freedom to define your role, also to suffer the consequences of your actions, thus bounties, jail and poor reputation.

nariusseldon

Originally posted by General-Zod

I understand that PvE content is the most difficult and expensive to make. Why don't they just make fewer higher quality PvE content? We've all played games where thousands of NPC stand around waiting to be slaughtered for experience. Why not make some kind of NPC that takes a bit of exploring to find? Instead of killing bears by the dozen, make a bear encounter mean something...

Because FINDING the bear is not the fun part of the game to many?

Personally i would care less to find the bear ... killing it .. OTOH would be fun if the combat mechanics is done right.

 

Iselin

Because when you give people total freedom, they fight... way to go, human race! 

HabitualFrogStomp

Because sandboxes are mostly about the community that you build around the game. The tools to build something with the world or do X Y Z are just tools and are meaningless without a context. The community provides that context.

If there is no rivalry in a game or someone that wants to hinder you from doing something, you may as well create a themepark. Sandboxes should be about interaction and rivalry or strife is one of the base ways people interact with each other.

There's a whole group that can't handle rivalry or will hold grudges over this stuff, they shouldn't play these kinds of games. They are for people that understand that the other player is my content, and I am his, if he does something to harm me or my progress I shouldn't take it personally because that's what makes the world go. So no, if you can't handle that, or don't have that level of maturity or understanding, don't even bother with it.

Ender4

---

Originally posted by d_20
It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.

 

Lower dev costs would mean the game has to earn less to recoup those costs and turn a profit, either through box or cash shop sales. These games always become "niche" so that's why I guess they are able to make their money back without having a lot of players for a long period of time.

---

A sandbox game is much harder and more expensive to create than a theme park assuming you create sandbox PVE. You have to create all the same content but you also have to create the features that let the AI run the game as well.

The genre is pushing towards sandbox because we've had 10 years of failures from the theme park crowd. This genre is in an absolute pathetic state at this point and needs a huge change in direction.

bcbully

Originally posted by Iselin
Because when you give people total freedom, they fight... way to go, human race! 

That's why there are things like jail...

Sovrath

Originally posted by Sojhin
A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.

That's not even remotely true. It's as if you don't understand what theme park and sandbox actually mean.

Also there are pve only sandbox games. I believe "A Tale in the Desert" is one of them.

Ender4

---

Originally posted by Sovrath
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.

That's not even remotely true. It's as if you don't understand what theme park and sandbox actually mean.

Also there are pve only sandbox games. I believe "A Tale in the Desert" is one of them.

---

That isn't a PvE sandbox. There are no true PvE sandbox games yet, they simply do not exist. The first game to succeed in making one is going to be a huge hit.

PottedPlant22

Pathfinder Online isn't a PVP gank game and is a Sandbox.

They have a simple (I say simple, no idea how hard it is to actually implement) mechanic to handle PVP.

Here's how it works.  You have a GIANT map that has settlements run by players.  Each settlement capture control points (called towers) to raise the level of training for said settlement.  Those control points have a PVP window that expands with the number of towers said settlement controls.  Settlement owner sets PVP window.  When window is open for those towers, the hex the tower is in is no rep loss PVP.

PVP outside of that situation will give you a rep loss.  Have too low of rep and you can't enter a town without the guards attacking and killing you.  This forces the serial killers (gankers) into the woods, until they burn off the rep hit.  Which is gradual taking multiple days.  If you attack anyone, you are flagged for 60 seconds.  If continue to attack and kill, you are now a free kill for anyone.  The length of time extends based on how much you attack/kill.

Pathfinder Online solves this issue by not preventing the actions, but designing consequences (in some situations severe) for PVP outside of the intended playstyle.

My point isn't to push people to go try out Pathfinder Online (although I think many should look into it,) but to realize that there are options out there.  People just need to look past the cover and look at what game is actually offering.

General-Zod

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by General-Zod

I understand that PvE content is the most difficult and expensive to make. Why don't they just make fewer higher quality PvE content? We've all played games where thousands of NPC stand around waiting to be slaughtered for experience. Why not make some kind of NPC that takes a bit of exploring to find? Instead of killing bears by the dozen, make a bear encounter mean something...

Because FINDING the bear is not the fun part of the game to many?

Personally i would care less to find the bear ... killing it .. OTOH would be fun if the combat mechanics is done right.

 

So...

Purchasing tracking equipment and traps, heading out to a vast forest to look for a grizzled bear that you know is dangerous and has a good chance of killing you and your party. Nobody wants to do...

but...

Heading out of town and seeing 5-6 bears laying in a circle in front of a tree waiting to be killed is fun?

Mmkay... gotcha

berenim

 The one thing that we have to accept is that there is no way to have a game with absolute freedom. This is because the freedom of one reduces the freedom of others. So you can't have a "free" game. If player A wants the freedom to kill everyone it takes the freedom away form player B to peacfully go out hunting and vice versa. Both are freedom and choices actively taking and mutually exclusive to each other.

 There were some games I had interest in but lost it the moment I read "Full loot open world PvP". Though I didn't go in and complain all the time, I just took my consequences and didn't play and follow. Ryzom is a sandbox that doesn't force PvP on you, but gives you things to fight for (ressources). Never got that far, but I heard that in the roots ganking is not that frequent. So it seems it can work with restricted zones. Anarchy Online took the aproach of gas reducing your aggression, so in some zones it was 100% and you couldn't attack anything, 75% you could flag up IIRC and attck wildlife down to 0% FFA zones. Guess which zones are not that visited.

 PvE sandboxes are totally viable. An open world where you have to harvest materials to craft and kill stuff for bones and skins (see Ryzom), you materials decay and take a hard hit if you get killed, so there is a constant need for new stuff. It can't have heavy stats on weaponary, but gradually get better. You could also just make a full trading game.

 Main problem with PvP sandboxes for most PvEers I know is: The lack of consequences for gankers and murderers (speaking from in game PoV). Those games put those on the buisness end of the gun into hard disadvantage. The ganker gets what he wants: PvP without further consequences, the PvEer just gets a disruption of his game session. The consequences for running rampant and marauding need to be hard, perhaps even with different severities. Some countries have harder punishment than others, There is a reason we do not go out hitting each other with clubs in this sandbox we call real life: It has consequences. It is hard to balance those consequences in a way both sides are content.