Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by cheyane Probably because human beings are the best content. They are unpredictable so newer Indie games who have fewer resources cannot make games without PvP because it will take care of a large portion of their content by providing meaning,conflict,competition,race to get ahead and also provide emotional experiences like anger, frustration, jubilance, fear, triumph and you do this just by introducing a simple mechanic. Why wouldn't most developers do this.
So, if PvP players enjoy "unpredictable", do they also enjoy Random Number Generation Combat, the ultimate in unpredictability? Do they enjoy not knowing what their opponent's gear or skills are before engaging them, aka fight only with a predictable edge?
Do you have any specific games in mind? Without actual games to analyze, it is hard to agree or disagree. By looking at specific games and their mechanics, people can make an informed comment. Different games have very different dymanics, and should be analyzed individually, and not with the global, I don't like this or that.
People have different takes on what is too much or too little PVP. Having specific games mentioned will also help to bring their specific ideas to light. I think that will make this tread much more meaningful.
It's not meaningless as those in game are enjoying entertainment, taken from their free time that may be limited. I also see freedom as choice, my own choice, not that which I have according to the whims of others.
"Then don't play it."
We don't, but then where do the "wolves" get "sheep" so others can be "sheep dogs"? Compromise. You design a world that puts enough focus on both to keep them happy. Not the purists mind you, but a larger majority.
This is not how it's been done but some out of the box thinking could change that.
Originally posted by Aelious It's not meaningless as those in game are enjoying entertainment, taken from their free time that may be limited. I also see freedom as choice, my own choice, not that which I have according to the whims of others. It is meaningless because then every freedom would be contradicting somebody else's freedom and the word becomes meaningless. In reality freedom just exists. Humans are free to do whatever they're capable of doing, and that includes setting up laws that prohibit certain actions. Laws in a game are fine. Consequences in a game are fine. That doesn't prohibit freedom. Setting up an invisible forcefield around players so they can't be hurt by their peers does prohibit freedom.
"Then don't play it."
We don't, but then where do the "wolves" get "sheep" so others can be "sheep dogs"? Compromise. You design a world that puts enough focus on both to keep them happy. Not the purists mind you, but a larger majority.
This is not how it's been done but some out of the box thinking could change that.
You keep talking about a compromise including "both" playstyles as if the existence of ow pvp means the game is all about pvp. This is NOT true. My favorite game, UO, had a huge focus on non-pvp aspects. The vast majority of my time spent in that game was NOT pvping. Like I said, the compromise you're talking about IS an ow pvp sandbox game.
Originally posted by cheyane Probably because human beings are the best content. They are unpredictable so newer Indie games who have fewer resources cannot make games without PvP because it will take care of a large portion of their content by providing meaning,conflict,competition,race to get ahead and also provide emotional experiences like anger, frustration, jubilance, fear, triumph and you do this just by introducing a simple mechanic. Why wouldn't most developers do this.
So, if PvP players enjoy "unpredictable", do they also enjoy Random Number Generation Combat, the ultimate in unpredictability? Do they enjoy not knowing what their opponent's gear or skills are before engaging them, aka fight only with a predictable edge?
Originally posted by DocBrody why, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
I laugh at people who think standing in line next to your sworn enemy who has killed dozens of members of your in game family while you wait for your spot in the arena game where you play against each of them for prize tokens is immersive and rewarding gameplay.
No nothing less realistic about that at all.
Never said that was "realistic", either. How's that "perma-life" working for ya?
Less realistic to me is never dieing. I mean, REALLY dieing. Head lopped off? Respawn, run back and try again. Yea, totally "realistic" in ANY PvP setting...
So you're an advocate of permadeath then? Great I am too, put your gameplay where your mouth is.
But you wouldn't play that game because it would be slow, boring and far too realistic for you. Which again points out why open world is superior in terms of realism, some of them do have permadeath. You never "die" in arena games, you just get back in line again. How is this a negative to open world play but not for MOBAs, think about your point before you start the rant.
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
Because for most people making suffer other humans it's just too much fun and in online games every one can express what's keeps inside without inibitions.
Look at the great success of games like Dayz,a zombie game where no one shoots zombies to save ammo for kill players.
It's also less expensive in development,no NPC to code.
Stop arguing with the PvP zealots you cant win. Them and their 10 other friends just wear you down. Let them migrate from game to game just dont interact with them on the forums either. Hopefully they will leave the forums like every game they white knight until its released.
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
So *my* freedom of NOT fighting other players is not a sandbox, but *your* freedom to do so is? Am I missing something here?
Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something. Otherwise it's just a meaningless, endless loop.
I guess "freedom" also means freedom to oppress -> To take away other players' freedom.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Stop arguing with the PvP zealots you cant win. Them and their 10 other friends just wear you down. Let them migrate from game to game just dont interact with them on the forums either. Hopefully they will leave the forums like every game they white knight until its released.
Wow thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
So *my* freedom of NOT fighting other players is not a sandbox, but *your* freedom to do so is? Am I missing something here?
Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something. Otherwise it's just a meaningless, endless loop.
I guess "freedom" also means freedom to oppress -> To take away other players' freedom.
Not surprisingly the same derisive, prejudiced, insulting usual suspects are showing up to derail the thread. You're right guys, we want sandbox mmos because we're psychopaths, because we want to stifle other people's freedoms, because we're all just sick, depraved griefers. It's not because we want risk/reward, it's not because we want consequences, it's not because we want deep gameplay. It's all of those bad things that you want to think about us.
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
So *my* freedom of NOT fighting other players is not a sandbox, but *your* freedom to do so is? Am I missing something here?
Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something. Otherwise it's just a meaningless, endless loop.
I guess "freedom" also means freedom to oppress -> To take away other players' freedom.
Just stop.
You should probably follow your own words... just saying.
If you take issue with something I've said, please let me know. Until then, I don't think you have the right to say something like this.
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
Because for most people making suffer other humans it's just too much fun and in online games every one can express what's keeps inside without inibitions.
Look at the great success of games like Dayz,a zombie game where no one shoots zombies to save ammo for kill players.
It's also less expensive in development,no NPC to code.
You naturally put a negative spin on pvp by linking it to ganking. By doing so, I assume you mean any open world pvp equates to ganking. If you mean that you can attack someone most places, then yes, most open world pvp would be considered ganking.
On the other hand, some games have open world pvp, which promotes a more cutthroat style than others.
Also, do you mean ganking in that you can be attacked most places, or do you mean being repeatedly killed by the same person? From my point of view, ganking means the repeated attack against someone, and not merely attacking a target of opportunity and moving on. There are ways to deal with the second instance while preserving the open world pvp integrity. Although, I'm sure there are some purists who would diagree with this.
I guess "freedom" also means freedom to oppress -> To take away other players' freedom.
Just stop.
You should probably follow your own words... just saying.
Nah, he's doing just fine. Anything to add?
"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
The only reason it is an issue, is because the PKers know that there are PvE people and Roleplayers that enjoy sandboxes but not PvP. By forcing PvP on them with no PvE server option the PKers are provided prey for which they can feast upon.
The PKers don't like just playing against other PKers because they don't get the thrill of pouncing on the unprepared, unskilled, and unwilling.
Sandbox PKers are kind of like serial killers. They don't want a fight, they want a victim.
Freedom means exactly freedom from something. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom fun oppression.
That is exactly what the word means.
If you are forced it is not freedom. If i am being hunted i am not free. If I'm forced to fight i am not free. If i am constantly being beaten i am not free.
Freedom from something is exactly what it means.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The only reason it is an issue, is because the PKers know that there are PvE people and Roleplayers that enjoy sandboxes but not PvP. By forcing PvP on them with no PvE server option the PKers are provided prey for which they can feast upon.
The PKers don't like just playing against other PKers because they don't get the thrill of pouncing on the unprepared, unskilled, and unwilling.
Sandbox PKers are kind of like serial killers. They don't want a fight, they want a victim.
An experienced PvPer also won't start cursing at them, or rage quit the game. Basically they want to ruin someone's day, that's where the fun is for that type of player. (Very much like forum trolls) And actual PvPers simply don't fulfill that particular need.
Unfortunately it's these types that everyone remembers the moment OW PvP gets mentioned, not the guy that wants "Risk vs Reward" or "challenge" or whatever.
And they pretty much guarantee that no big budget Dev in their right mind is ever going to touch it. The closest they'll get is adding PvP servers to their MMOs.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
The absence of subsection. The state of not being forced. The players that do not wish to pvp in that game are not free. Only the players that do wish to pvp are.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Freedom means exactly freedom from something. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom fun oppression.
That is exactly what the word means.
If you are forced it is not freedom. If i am being hunted i am not free. If I'm forced to fight i am not free. If i am constantly being beaten i am not free.
Freedom from something is exactly what it means.
Which is very much in line with your quote.
You can't stop worrying about other players when they're spawn camping you or keeping you from doing what you want to do in game that day.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Freedom means exactly freedom from something. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom fun oppression.
That is exactly what the word means.
If you are forced it is not freedom. If i am being hunted i am not free. If I'm forced to fight i am not free. If i am constantly being beaten i am not free.
Freedom from something is exactly what it means.
If you're playing a game where this is all possible you are entering into it at your own risk and have no argument. The freedom you have is to not play a game that does not cater to what you want. If you like to play a game that leads you around from ! to ? in a safe environment where the only thing that can attack you is pools of npc mobs in a spawn point, than you have the freedom to do so. Don't play a game that is not for you, it's that easy.
Full loot PVP solves a big problem with your economy. If your players keep needing to replace their gear then that's a big break on inflation. It won't stop it entirely but it will slow it greatly. Full loot or something like EVE's half loot and half destruction is also a huge boon to your crafting system. You don't outgrow your early equipment and sell it on or recycle it. Starting crafters will find a market for the stuff they make.
Devs like easy solutions for these problems. They also like easy tools for the sandbox that players can occupy themselves with. Troubles arise when they don't give players the tools with which to deal with their full pvp environments. I don't know about Mortal Online or Darkfall, but anyone complaining about how they can't deal with the system in EVE needs to learn how to play the game. PVP in EVE is purely consensual, the hardest part is convincing your opponent that they can win if they take a fight with you. I have merrily beared my way through a dozen high-sec wars on my pve alt and made hundreds of trips through 'dangerous' space to move things around and do exploration. You don't get ganked in EVE, you fuck up and don't use your tools, you get greedy and try to rush movements when you should wait or fail to wait around for a buddy to scout for you.
More devs need to give players the tools to deal with the pvp systems they also give the players. I don't care what kind of logical hoops you have to jump through to fit local channels or d-scan into your game. You need to have them or something which fulfills the same purpose. I don't care if your game is fantasy, call the shit magic and make it happen. Give your players maps to see activity all over your world. Fucking do it. Full loot games without these tools suck, games that cater to people who want them structured so that they are never in danger of unwanted pvp without having to do anything to avoid it also suck.
Full loot PVP solves a big problem with your economy. If your players keep needing to replace their gear then that's a big break on inflation. It won't stop it entirely but it will slow it greatly. Full loot or something like EVE's half loot and half destruction is also a huge boon to your crafting system. You don't outgrow your early equipment and sell it on or recycle it. Starting crafters will find a market for the stuff they make.
What problem? Just have account bind items, and problem solved. In fact, in hack-n-slash MMOs, you don't even need an economy.
Comments
Yes
I enjoy roguelikes greatly
Waiting for:
The Repopulation
Albion Online
Do you have any specific games in mind? Without actual games to analyze, it is hard to agree or disagree. By looking at specific games and their mechanics, people can make an informed comment. Different games have very different dymanics, and should be analyzed individually, and not with the global, I don't like this or that.
People have different takes on what is too much or too little PVP. Having specific games mentioned will also help to bring their specific ideas to light. I think that will make this tread much more meaningful.
I self identify as a monkey.
"Then don't play it."
We don't, but then where do the "wolves" get "sheep" so others can be "sheep dogs"? Compromise. You design a world that puts enough focus on both to keep them happy. Not the purists mind you, but a larger majority.
This is not how it's been done but some out of the box thinking could change that.
You keep talking about a compromise including "both" playstyles as if the existence of ow pvp means the game is all about pvp. This is NOT true. My favorite game, UO, had a huge focus on non-pvp aspects. The vast majority of my time spent in that game was NOT pvping. Like I said, the compromise you're talking about IS an ow pvp sandbox game.
I second this.
So you're an advocate of permadeath then? Great I am too, put your gameplay where your mouth is.
But you wouldn't play that game because it would be slow, boring and far too realistic for you. Which again points out why open world is superior in terms of realism, some of them do have permadeath. You never "die" in arena games, you just get back in line again. How is this a negative to open world play but not for MOBAs, think about your point before you start the rant.
Because for most people making suffer other humans it's just too much fun and in online games every one can express what's keeps inside without inibitions.
Look at the great success of games like Dayz,a zombie game where no one shoots zombies to save ammo for kill players.
It's also less expensive in development,no NPC to code.
Really 25 pages?
Stop arguing with the PvP zealots you cant win. Them and their 10 other friends just wear you down. Let them migrate from game to game just dont interact with them on the forums either. Hopefully they will leave the forums like every game they white knight until its released.
I guess "freedom" also means freedom to oppress -> To take away other players' freedom.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Wow thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Just stop.
If you take issue with something I've said, please let me know. Until then, I don't think you have the right to say something like this.
You naturally put a negative spin on pvp by linking it to ganking. By doing so, I assume you mean any open world pvp equates to ganking. If you mean that you can attack someone most places, then yes, most open world pvp would be considered ganking.
On the other hand, some games have open world pvp, which promotes a more cutthroat style than others.
Also, do you mean ganking in that you can be attacked most places, or do you mean being repeatedly killed by the same person? From my point of view, ganking means the repeated attack against someone, and not merely attacking a target of opportunity and moving on. There are ways to deal with the second instance while preserving the open world pvp integrity. Although, I'm sure there are some purists who would diagree with this.
I self identify as a monkey.
Nah, he's doing just fine. Anything to add?
"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
The only reason it is an issue, is because the PKers know that there are PvE people and Roleplayers that enjoy sandboxes but not PvP. By forcing PvP on them with no PvE server option the PKers are provided prey for which they can feast upon.
The PKers don't like just playing against other PKers because they don't get the thrill of pouncing on the unprepared, unskilled, and unwilling.
Sandbox PKers are kind of like serial killers. They don't want a fight, they want a victim.
That is exactly what the word means.
If you are forced it is not freedom. If i am being hunted i am not free. If I'm forced to fight i am not free. If i am constantly being beaten i am not free.
Freedom from something is exactly what it means.
An experienced PvPer also won't start cursing at them, or rage quit the game. Basically they want to ruin someone's day, that's where the fun is for that type of player. (Very much like forum trolls) And actual PvPers simply don't fulfill that particular need.
Unfortunately it's these types that everyone remembers the moment OW PvP gets mentioned, not the guy that wants "Risk vs Reward" or "challenge" or whatever.
And they pretty much guarantee that no big budget Dev in their right mind is ever going to touch it. The closest they'll get is adding PvP servers to their MMOs.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
The players that do not wish to pvp in that game are not free. Only the players that do wish to pvp are.
Which is very much in line with your quote.
You can't stop worrying about other players when they're spawn camping you or keeping you from doing what you want to do in game that day.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
If you're playing a game where this is all possible you are entering into it at your own risk and have no argument. The freedom you have is to not play a game that does not cater to what you want. If you like to play a game that leads you around from ! to ? in a safe environment where the only thing that can attack you is pools of npc mobs in a spawn point, than you have the freedom to do so. Don't play a game that is not for you, it's that easy.
Full loot PVP solves a big problem with your economy. If your players keep needing to replace their gear then that's a big break on inflation. It won't stop it entirely but it will slow it greatly. Full loot or something like EVE's half loot and half destruction is also a huge boon to your crafting system. You don't outgrow your early equipment and sell it on or recycle it. Starting crafters will find a market for the stuff they make.
Devs like easy solutions for these problems. They also like easy tools for the sandbox that players can occupy themselves with. Troubles arise when they don't give players the tools with which to deal with their full pvp environments. I don't know about Mortal Online or Darkfall, but anyone complaining about how they can't deal with the system in EVE needs to learn how to play the game. PVP in EVE is purely consensual, the hardest part is convincing your opponent that they can win if they take a fight with you. I have merrily beared my way through a dozen high-sec wars on my pve alt and made hundreds of trips through 'dangerous' space to move things around and do exploration. You don't get ganked in EVE, you fuck up and don't use your tools, you get greedy and try to rush movements when you should wait or fail to wait around for a buddy to scout for you.
More devs need to give players the tools to deal with the pvp systems they also give the players. I don't care what kind of logical hoops you have to jump through to fit local channels or d-scan into your game. You need to have them or something which fulfills the same purpose. I don't care if your game is fantasy, call the shit magic and make it happen. Give your players maps to see activity all over your world. Fucking do it. Full loot games without these tools suck, games that cater to people who want them structured so that they are never in danger of unwanted pvp without having to do anything to avoid it also suck.
What problem? Just have account bind items, and problem solved. In fact, in hack-n-slash MMOs, you don't even need an economy.