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.
Full loot doesn't help against inflation because the items remain in the system.
I do however agree EvE's approach is much better in this regard, with a substantial part of the "loot" (in this case ship+cargo) being destroyed. That's an actual sink.
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.
Which actually IS the solution most people choose, and why sandbox games with open world are doomed to always be niche games. :P
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.)
I'll say it again, the moment you consider freedom to mean "freedom from" something, it becomes a meaningless word in the context of this discussion. Every piece of game design is hindering SOMEBODY'S freedom SOMEHOW if you use it in that way. Your freedom to not be killed hinders somebody else's freedom to kill you. Somebody's freedom to harvest that tree hinders somebody else's freedom to harvest that tree. Do you see how ridiculous this is? The word freedom means you're free to do what you want. If somebody is stopping you, you're free to fight back.
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.
Which actually IS the solution most people choose, and why sandbox games with open world are doomed to always be niche games. :P
yeh .. and that is also why devs are backing away from open world MMOs because they know this. Note that this problem does not exist for single player open world games.
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.
Which actually IS the solution most people choose, and why sandbox games with open world are doomed to always be niche games. :P
Thats fine, doomed is a rather drastic word to use. I guess if you like camping one spawn with 50 people waiting for the one mob so you can get to your next fetch quest is a populated fun environment, then good on you. You have 1000 games out there just for you already but you are here complaining about 1 of what? 5 games that are designed around PvP full loot?
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.
Why is it always that extreme though. Either you love full loot gank a thons or you quiver in a corner frightened of the world and need everything boiled before you touch it. I was clear in my original post that I don't have anything against PVP itself but that hasn't stopped the extremists from going on and on.
A few times now people have thrown around carebear and WOW and you aren't tough enough to hang out with us. You would think these games are mafia initiations the way some of the people talk who consider themselves the toughest of the tough. Are there drive-by MMO fruitings going on or what in the hardcore minds. Sorry but I do imagine the gankers as the guy in his mom's basement calling out for cheetos because he's camping a noob.
Isn't there something in the middle - sure is - a little something called compromise that people don't like to think about. A cookie for you and a cookie for me and we all get crumbs on our fingers. You keep offering me the cookie monster plushie when I want a shortbread cookie. You may like that dark chocolate cookie with sprinkles but sprinkled souls don't make my tummy feel well. With some work toward systems that not only reward but punish aligned behavior can't all side play their way in the same place.
If I just wanted to PVP as my whole game I'd play a MOBA or a FPS. It makes me wonder why gankers don't and it still comes back to needing some form of unfairness on their side - an even match of 10 vs 10, heresy, we like 5 vs one and PVE is for suckers. Does it even make sense to play an MMO over those other games if all you want is pure PVP and anyone who wants a break sometimes is a carebear cuddling exclamation point chaser. I don't even know why that crap comes up - we are talking about sandboxes not themepark quest games. Both WOW and RIFT I played on PVP servers and leveled on them. I think I've told my stories here about protecting ppl trying to level in Stranglethorn who were getting attacked by Alliance constantly - that was where my main hung out when not raiding. It was a responsibility to us back then to protect those coming up from someone much higher level than them who two shots them. I literally waited for someone to complain in chat then came over and protected them. Even in a themepark game I stick around PVP. You are proving my point to suggest a themepark game, there aren't enough PVP games that are sandbox and not full loot and the future doesn't look bright in new releases. Just saying.
I saw someone mention a building game that looks like it's for kids and other places that are only PVE but again, I don't think PVP + Sandbox has to equal full loot maelstroms.
People only have one view on here and its black or white. You are either the extreme griefer or the extreme carebear with no middle ground.
I like the games like Darkfall where you never know who is around you, where the world is always changing politically and there is more to do than quest and run dungeons. I don't like fighting mindless npc's, there is no challenge in that. People are unpredictable, you never know how they will attack or use the terrain to fight you. Darkfall has a lot wrong with it so don't hang on that as my example, I don't currently play it because of everything wrong with it. Nobody in guilds I was in when playing Darkfall set out to go camp noobs or grief people that I can remember, usually if we killed a noob we would rez and give him some stuff. There was no return on doing it, the fun part was getting into large fights with other guilds over territory or resources.
ESO was a pretty good game, but I literally couldn't play it longer than an hour because I would fall asleep because the world was so boring. There was never any danger to anything, you knew where everything was already and just ran around like a messenger delivering goods and services. That type of game is fine, its not for me but I'm not over there complaining that I want an open world with full loot PvP, it wouldn't work in their game structure. You have to design a game around that type of play for it to mean anything.
WoW and Rift were your experiences in open world PvP, both horrible in that respect because there was no reason for it. The games were not designed to be like that so obviously it just was a tacked on extra for them. Go play a real game that was designed around open world PvP to get a true meaning of it.
Because by definition a Sandbox requires other players to be the content, a Sandbox that doesnt have PVP is just minecraft with whistles.
Now a PVE game with Sandbox elements is what you are looking for (PVE does not always equal theme park but requires theme park elements as players require antagonists and goals in order to keep playing).
So what you are looking for is an open world game, with crafting and potentially item decay (otherwise there cant be a proper player driven economy) but with PVE goals (such as raids, dungeons, NPC factions to take down etc).
Such a game would defy classification as either a sandbox or a Theme Park, it would be more akin to say Archage but with a wow style dungeon progression, or what EQnext is aiming to do but with specifically pve servers.
The problem is this, if the player character is to strive for anything they need something to strive against, to do this you either have to keep a conveyor belt of content (Which descends into Themepark realms) or let other players be the baddies, to let other players be the baddies they have to be able to affect the rest of the player base.
So how would you suggest this is achieved without PvP, I dont have the answer, if some one comes up with the answer and executes it well, then they will find them selves in receipt of a large portion of my gaming funds because a truley open world player driven PvE centric game is something I would play for a LONG time.
For now EQN seems to be the only game really gunning for this niche, but I dont expect it will be long before others do.
Nah, not the only ones. I've played Darkfall and Haven and Hearth. Both were full loot. Mentioned both of them in other posts in this thread but I don't expect you to have read the whole thing. I'm mentioning PVP in those games because when I get the choice of a PVP or PVE server I've usually chosen the PVP version. Ryzom I did group PVP in the world for settlement fights and in LOTRO I played the monster player side instead of your normal toon. And I played Warhammer - who didn't play that for the PVP. I think that's indicative of liking PVP to put yourself into it intentionally. I left GW2 when they talked about putting in a gear grind and a dungeon because I spent all my time in the PVP zones. I kinda' know from my history that PVP suits me. But again, I don't see these games as just PVP - PVP and crafting are what I do most and sandboxes usually have good crafting so give them up. Make some more because I'll take 'em.
I'm talking about the entire game world built around being full loot PvP, not having PvP thrown in as an extra feature. You take any of those games and their first and foremost designs were based around PvE. In a PvE centered game you really have no reason to PvP in the world, most usually add an arena type feature which is nothing close to what I think we are talking about here.
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.
I do. You think that *your* freedom to attack any player anywhere trumps *my* freedom to NOT be attacked by any player anywhere.
To me, that is bullcrap. One's "freedom" to murder IRL does NOT trump another's "freedom" to live and work safely. Or do you disagree? It sure sounds like you disagree, to me.
OWFLPvP is a fine mechanic, for those that want it. But the topic is about the term "sandbox" seemingly automatically equated with this.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Holophonist I'll say it again, the moment you consider freedom to mean "freedom from" something, it becomes a meaningless word in the context of this discussion. Every piece of game design is hindering SOMEBODY'S freedom SOMEHOW if you use it in that way. Your freedom to not be killed hinders somebody else's freedom to kill you. Somebody's freedom to harvest that tree hinders somebody else's freedom to harvest that tree. Do you see how ridiculous this is? The word freedom means you're free to do what you want. If somebody is stopping you, you're free to fight back.
May I suggest you take a gander at the United States' Declaration of Independence. Look at how "Freedom froms" there are. Meaningless? I think not.
Condensed version: Freedom from tyranny Freedom from oppression Freedom from taxation without representation
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
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.
This is very true. And I, personally, do not play these games. My freedom of choice being exercised
However, if a player seeks an open world "sandbox" MMO in which to enjoy their playtime without PvP, the pickings are slim. This is what the OP is getting at.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
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.
I do. You think that *your* freedom to attack any player anywhere trumps *my* freedom to NOT be attacked by any player anywhere.
To me, that is bullcrap. One's "freedom" to murder IRL does NOT trump another's "freedom" to live and work safely. Or do you disagree? It sure sounds like you disagree, to me.
OWFLPvP is a fine mechanic, for those that want it. But the topic is about the term "sandbox" seemingly automatically equated with this.
It has nothing to do with trumping one freedom over another. In the game I'm talking about, I'd be "free" to attack you (with penalties) and you'd be free to defend yourself. The game you want doesn't even allow for the possibility. It's MORE restrictive.
Here, I'll do it your way. Why does YOUR freedom to harvest without being attacked trump MY freedom to kill you (even though I don't even play a PK in these games)? Why does YOUR freedom to harvest that tree trump MY freedom to harvest the tree? Your version of the word freedom is MEANINGLESS.
Originally posted by Holophonist I'll say it again, the moment you consider freedom to mean "freedom from" something, it becomes a meaningless word in the context of this discussion. Every piece of game design is hindering SOMEBODY'S freedom SOMEHOW if you use it in that way. Your freedom to not be killed hinders somebody else's freedom to kill you. Somebody's freedom to harvest that tree hinders somebody else's freedom to harvest that tree. Do you see how ridiculous this is? The word freedom means you're free to do what you want. If somebody is stopping you, you're free to fight back.
May I suggest you take a gander at the United States' Declaration of Independence. Look at how "Freedom froms" there are. Meaningless? I think not.
Condensed version: Freedom from tyranny Freedom from oppression Freedom from taxation without representation
When we're talking about which game type has MORE freedom, then the way you're using the word doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Holophonist It has nothing to do with trumping one freedom over another. In the game I'm talking about, I'd be "free" to attack you (with penalties) and you'd be free to defend yourself. The game you want doesn't even allow for the possibility. It's MORE restrictive.
Your logic is truly "dizzying." I give up...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
The title of this discussion is "Sandbox = PVP gank game in upcoming games - why?". The question have is WHAT UPCOMING GAMES are we talking about? I cannot think of any. Doesn't mean there aren't any just that if there are I have not heard of them. And as such, it really does not give context to that which I assume is supposed to be discussed.
Originally posted by Holophonist It has nothing to do with trumping one freedom over another. In the game I'm talking about, I'd be "free" to attack you (with penalties) and you'd be free to defend yourself. The game you want doesn't even allow for the possibility. It's MORE restrictive.
Your logic is truly "dizzying." I give up...
Here's another way to put it: In an ow pvp game, the game isn't restricting your freedoms, the players are.
Originally posted by Holophonist It has nothing to do with trumping one freedom over another. In the game I'm talking about, I'd be "free" to attack you (with penalties) and you'd be free to defend yourself. The game you want doesn't even allow for the possibility. It's MORE restrictive.
Your logic is truly "dizzying." I give up...
Here's another way to put it: In an ow pvp game, the game isn't restricting your freedoms, the players are.
Holophonist still fighting the good fight!!
Freedom is a confusing concept sometimes.
Like, am I free to punch my neighbor?
I like games where i'm not free to go around and punch everyone I want, but I have the capability to do so.
The freedom word though in the context of games makes it hard to understand if we're talking about capability, rules, or what.
I want the capability to PK folks in the open world and in turn be PKed. And I enjoy when the game doesn't exactly allow me to be free to do so without penalty.
Like EVE in .9 space where I can shoot any newbie I want but the police show up and blow my ship up and its just not worth it really. Thats fun stuff. Am I free to shoot newbies in .9 space? I'm not sure? Do I have the capability to do so? Absolutely.
I'm talking about the entire game world built around being full loot PvP, not having PvP thrown in as an extra feature. You take any of those games and their first and foremost designs were based around PvE. In a PvE centered game you really have no reason to PvP in the world, most usually add an arena type feature which is nothing close to what I think we are talking about here.
Name games that fit your criteria for full loot - I'm shocked you don't consider the first two valid. If they are from the 90s, no I wasn't playing MMOs then. Warhammer may have had a PVE feel but it was built completely around PVP. Did you even read what I typed or are you just coming up with retorts quickly.
There are NONE. Darkfall is the closest to what I'm talking about but its not the best model to base anything off of. I tried Warhammer but it didn't stick for me, plus at that time in my life I was not really gaming much at all. I'm looking forward to see where they go with Crowfall and I backed Camelot Unchained because they seemed to be focusing on what I want in a game. Make PvP the center of your game and design it from there, what I'm saying is most of the games you mentioned even though you you opted in to PvP were not designed to be centered around PvP.
I'm talking about games coming out, not the past. I want to see a game designed fully around these mechanics and not having them as an after thought or a different server rule set.
The title of this discussion is "Sandbox = PVP gank game in upcoming games - why?". The question have is WHAT UPCOMING GAMES are we talking about? I cannot think of any. Doesn't mean there aren't any just that if there are I have not heard of them. And as such, it really does not give context to that which I assume is supposed to be discussed.
The reason for this is that there is no meat on this bone to use a expression and I would hazard to say there is no bone on this bone as the argument that the anti open world pvp crowd often express is more based on emotion then logic.
Examples of this follows from this thread.
The appeals to emotion, circular reasoning, the usage of absolute statements, and the construction of strawman arguments.
Emotional and Strawman
The OP own opening post...."Gankers are bad, open world pvp is just gankers" (simplified version).
"'Ive seen what happens in full-loot gank games and it's usually just people outnumbering one guy carrying herbs or wood they cut."
"I never felt comfortable with full-loot or ganking people over and over trying to keep them stuck in a spot." (emotion coupled with strawman argument again)
The use of Absolute statements that a good roadrunner test of logic easily defeats.
"The only instances in which mmo PvP is fun/fair/competitive in structured mini-games that are isolated from the game world."
"The PvP sandbox people want doesn't exist, will never exist, and has never existed."
The use of ad hominem attacks.
"There must be some book out there putting the two together or is it just the way a psychopath imagines a game - everyone is only there to be a loot box."
On gankers, "characteristics of cowardice."
"gankers are criminal, psychopath, asshat, jobless, and live in moms basement" (simplified version)
..."Because the indie developers making those games are arrogant idiots."
That's right. The players are restricting other players freedom.
The moment a players hinders another, the second player had less freedom. They are no longer free to do what they wanted. Only the pvp player remains free to do what they want.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
Full loot doesn't help against inflation because the items remain in the system.
I do however agree EvE's approach is much better in this regard, with a substantial part of the "loot" (in this case ship+cargo) being destroyed. That's an actual sink.
Which actually IS the solution most people choose, and why sandbox games with open world are doomed to always be niche games. :P
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/
yeh .. and that is also why devs are backing away from open world MMOs because they know this. Note that this problem does not exist for single player open world games.
Thats fine, doomed is a rather drastic word to use. I guess if you like camping one spawn with 50 people waiting for the one mob so you can get to your next fetch quest is a populated fun environment, then good on you. You have 1000 games out there just for you already but you are here complaining about 1 of what? 5 games that are designed around PvP full loot?
People only have one view on here and its black or white. You are either the extreme griefer or the extreme carebear with no middle ground.
I like the games like Darkfall where you never know who is around you, where the world is always changing politically and there is more to do than quest and run dungeons. I don't like fighting mindless npc's, there is no challenge in that. People are unpredictable, you never know how they will attack or use the terrain to fight you. Darkfall has a lot wrong with it so don't hang on that as my example, I don't currently play it because of everything wrong with it. Nobody in guilds I was in when playing Darkfall set out to go camp noobs or grief people that I can remember, usually if we killed a noob we would rez and give him some stuff. There was no return on doing it, the fun part was getting into large fights with other guilds over territory or resources.
ESO was a pretty good game, but I literally couldn't play it longer than an hour because I would fall asleep because the world was so boring. There was never any danger to anything, you knew where everything was already and just ran around like a messenger delivering goods and services. That type of game is fine, its not for me but I'm not over there complaining that I want an open world with full loot PvP, it wouldn't work in their game structure. You have to design a game around that type of play for it to mean anything.
WoW and Rift were your experiences in open world PvP, both horrible in that respect because there was no reason for it. The games were not designed to be like that so obviously it just was a tacked on extra for them. Go play a real game that was designed around open world PvP to get a true meaning of it.
Because by definition a Sandbox requires other players to be the content, a Sandbox that doesnt have PVP is just minecraft with whistles.
Now a PVE game with Sandbox elements is what you are looking for (PVE does not always equal theme park but requires theme park elements as players require antagonists and goals in order to keep playing).
So what you are looking for is an open world game, with crafting and potentially item decay (otherwise there cant be a proper player driven economy) but with PVE goals (such as raids, dungeons, NPC factions to take down etc).
Such a game would defy classification as either a sandbox or a Theme Park, it would be more akin to say Archage but with a wow style dungeon progression, or what EQnext is aiming to do but with specifically pve servers.
The problem is this, if the player character is to strive for anything they need something to strive against, to do this you either have to keep a conveyor belt of content (Which descends into Themepark realms) or let other players be the baddies, to let other players be the baddies they have to be able to affect the rest of the player base.
So how would you suggest this is achieved without PvP, I dont have the answer, if some one comes up with the answer and executes it well, then they will find them selves in receipt of a large portion of my gaming funds because a truley open world player driven PvE centric game is something I would play for a LONG time.
For now EQN seems to be the only game really gunning for this niche, but I dont expect it will be long before others do.
I'm talking about the entire game world built around being full loot PvP, not having PvP thrown in as an extra feature. You take any of those games and their first and foremost designs were based around PvE. In a PvE centered game you really have no reason to PvP in the world, most usually add an arena type feature which is nothing close to what I think we are talking about here.
To me, that is bullcrap. One's "freedom" to murder IRL does NOT trump another's "freedom" to live and work safely. Or do you disagree? It sure sounds like you disagree, to me.
OWFLPvP is a fine mechanic, for those that want it. But the topic is about the term "sandbox" seemingly automatically equated with this.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Condensed version:
Freedom from tyranny
Freedom from oppression
Freedom from taxation without representation
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
However, if a player seeks an open world "sandbox" MMO in which to enjoy their playtime without PvP, the pickings are slim. This is what the OP is getting at.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
It has nothing to do with trumping one freedom over another. In the game I'm talking about, I'd be "free" to attack you (with penalties) and you'd be free to defend yourself. The game you want doesn't even allow for the possibility. It's MORE restrictive.
Here, I'll do it your way. Why does YOUR freedom to harvest without being attacked trump MY freedom to kill you (even though I don't even play a PK in these games)? Why does YOUR freedom to harvest that tree trump MY freedom to harvest the tree? Your version of the word freedom is MEANINGLESS.
When we're talking about which game type has MORE freedom, then the way you're using the word doesn't make sense.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The title of this discussion is "Sandbox = PVP gank game in upcoming games - why?". The question have is WHAT UPCOMING GAMES are we talking about? I cannot think of any. Doesn't mean there aren't any just that if there are I have not heard of them. And as such, it really does not give context to that which I assume is supposed to be discussed.
Let's party like it is 1863!
Here's another way to put it: In an ow pvp game, the game isn't restricting your freedoms, the players are.
Holophonist still fighting the good fight!!
Freedom is a confusing concept sometimes.
Like, am I free to punch my neighbor?
I like games where i'm not free to go around and punch everyone I want, but I have the capability to do so.
The freedom word though in the context of games makes it hard to understand if we're talking about capability, rules, or what.
I want the capability to PK folks in the open world and in turn be PKed. And I enjoy when the game doesn't exactly allow me to be free to do so without penalty.
Like EVE in .9 space where I can shoot any newbie I want but the police show up and blow my ship up and its just not worth it really. Thats fun stuff. Am I free to shoot newbies in .9 space? I'm not sure? Do I have the capability to do so? Absolutely.
There are NONE. Darkfall is the closest to what I'm talking about but its not the best model to base anything off of. I tried Warhammer but it didn't stick for me, plus at that time in my life I was not really gaming much at all. I'm looking forward to see where they go with Crowfall and I backed Camelot Unchained because they seemed to be focusing on what I want in a game. Make PvP the center of your game and design it from there, what I'm saying is most of the games you mentioned even though you you opted in to PvP were not designed to be centered around PvP.
I'm talking about games coming out, not the past. I want to see a game designed fully around these mechanics and not having them as an after thought or a different server rule set.
The reason for this is that there is no meat on this bone to use a expression and I would hazard to say there is no bone on this bone as the argument that the anti open world pvp crowd often express is more based on emotion then logic.
Examples of this follows from this thread.
The appeals to emotion, circular reasoning, the usage of absolute statements, and the construction of strawman arguments.
Emotional and Strawman
The OP own opening post...."Gankers are bad, open world pvp is just gankers" (simplified version).
"'Ive seen what happens in full-loot gank games and it's usually just people outnumbering one guy carrying herbs or wood they cut."
"I never felt comfortable with full-loot or ganking people over and over trying to keep them stuck in a spot." (emotion coupled with strawman argument again)
The use of Absolute statements that a good roadrunner test of logic easily defeats.
"The only instances in which mmo PvP is fun/fair/competitive in structured mini-games that are isolated from the game world."
"The PvP sandbox people want doesn't exist, will never exist, and has never existed."
The use of ad hominem attacks.
"There must be some book out there putting the two together or is it just the way a psychopath imagines a game - everyone is only there to be a loot box."
On gankers, "characteristics of cowardice."
"gankers are criminal, psychopath, asshat, jobless, and live in moms basement" (simplified version)
..."Because the indie developers making those games are arrogant idiots."
So you don't think players are bored to death - when they've played through the
AAA voice acting campaign for the first time with 1 character similar to our 'newest' free to play mmo ESO?
It's a good reason why rts, fps, moba, survival, chess online games are popular games, because it involves competition,
and communication among 'human' players, and it's easy to get into for casual gamers with all the grind involved
in a typical MMO setting like ESO to compete in PvP.
You won't get the same experience with AI, and npc characters - it doesn't matter how well the lore is written.
The moment a players hinders another, the second player had less freedom. They are no longer free to do what they wanted. Only the pvp player remains free to do what they want.