Originally posted by VengeSunsoar 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.
That is a little too general.
You could say the pvp person is hindering the other's freedom if there is an area the other player wants to go to but the pvp person stops them from going by PKing them.
But the flip side of it is a situation where the PVE player is killing all the mobs in an area and the PVP player gets creamed by guards if he attacks the PVE player. In that situation the PVP player does not remain "free to do what they want," because they are a corpse.
Its better to just not overgeneralize and try to make a blanket statement implying that pvp players are encroaching on PVE player freedom just by viture of PVPing.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar 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.
The same situation you seem to be hanging on is about a game designed around PvE that throws PvP into the mix as an after thought. This freedom you are talking about was given up when the player decided to opt in to a PvP server or area so the argument is moot.
I don't see your logic in all of these freedom arguments.
When pvp player attacks a pve player the pvp player is limiting the pve players freedom. When a pve player asks for systems that limit a pvp players ability to attack them the pve player is limiting the pvp players freedom.
Some freedoms are not compatible. The ability to attack anyone is not compatible with another person's desire to not be attacked.
It's only a question of which limit do you prefer.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm not implying it. I'm starting it outright.
When pvp player attacks a pve player the pvp player is limiting the pve players freedom. When a pve player asks for systems that limit a pvp players ability to attack them the pve player is limiting the pvp players freedom.
Some freedoms are not compatible. The ability to attack anyone is not compatible with another person's desire to not be attacked.
It's only a question of which limit do you prefer.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why the hell is this person playing a game where there is PvP if they are so worried about freedom? Why is this person even playing a MMO when they seem to want a single player game?
A desire to not be attacked is just that. A desire.
The state of being free is one where we can act, think, speak, etc.. as we please.
So long as the PVP player is not forcing the PVE person to think any certain way, desire any certain things, act any certain way, or do or not do any certain things.. no freedom is lost.
If you start defining your freedom as something tied to desires that can or can not be fulfilled the word gets pretty crazy.
I have a desire for everyone to like PVP games. You aren't encroaching on any of my freedoms by not liking PVP games. You just don't jive with what I want in the world and thats OK. Somtimes we don't get what we want.
A desire to not be attacked is just that. A desire.
The state of being free is one where we can act, think, speak, etc.. as we please.
So long as the PVP player is not forcing the PVE person to think any certain way, desire any certain things, act any certain way, or do or not do any certain things.. no freedom is lost.
If you start defining your freedom as something tied to desires that can or can not be fulfilled the word gets pretty crazy.
I have a desire for everyone to like PVP games. You aren't encroaching on any of my freedoms by not liking PVP games. You just don't jive with what I want in the world and thats OK. Somtimes we don't get what we want.
What you describe is freedom in real life. Freedom in real life and freedom in a video game are two entirely different things. If the "restrictions" in a video game mirrored those in real life, actively stopping PvP 99.9% of the time, wouldn't that bother PvP players that want to attack others with reasonable, but not entirely inhibiting, penalties? Wouldn't it be strange to know that the majority of those around you in real life will attack if you have nice things, they get bored, or just want to test their skill against yours?
The only real life instance that makes sense is war, where people are in specified areas that are for that purpose. If there is a desire to make PvP sandboxes like real life, having separate areas of a game world that offer those play style would make sense. That's the only way I see the two systems living side by side where each doesn't think the other hinders their style.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar The desire to attack is just a desire. The freedom is when you are allowed to attack.
Conversely the freedom to live in peace comes when others are not allowed to attack you.
You can have the freedom to live in peace in a world where PVP can happen to you.
Thats kinda how IRL works.
If I punch my neighbor I haven't necessarily encroached on his freedom. As in my example earlier, my freedoms as the aggressor could be in danger after such an act.
If I tell my neighbor I will punch him if he tries to exit his house then i've possibly encroached on his freedom.
It would be better to say someone has or does not have the right to live in peace. The word freedom is being used pretty loosely there.
If you punch your neighbor you have encroached on his freedom. You have limited hid freedom from harm. You have temporarily reduced his freedom to live in peace.
Living in peace is a freedom . When you attack someone you diminish that. The right top live in peace is a freedom.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
What you describe is freedom in real life. Freedom in real life and freedom in a video game are two entirely different things. If the "restrictions" in a video game mirrored those in real life, actively stopping PvP 99.9% of the time, wouldn't that bother PvP players that want to attack others with reasonable, but not entirely inhibiting, penalties? Wouldn't it be strange to know that the majority of those around you in real life will attack if you have nice things, they get bored, or just want to test their skill against yours?
The only real life instance that makes sense is war, where people are in specified areas that are for that purpose. If there is a desire to make PvP sandboxes like real life, having separate areas of a game world that offer those play style would make sense. That's the only way I see the two systems living side by side where each doesn't think the other hinders their style.
The word freedom works the same way in video games and IRL as far as I can tell.
I can't understand from your post how or why the word should mean different things IRL and in video games. Could you explain it another way maybe?
In most areas of the world where humans live there are significant repercussions for attacking someone and taking away the ability to live ib peace to live without fear of being attacked precisely because it is a freedom.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar If you punch your neighbor you have encroached on his freedom. You have limited hid freedom from harm. You have temporarily reduced his freedom to live in peace.
Living in peace is a freedom . When you attack someone you diminish that. The right top live in peace is a freedom.
Ok I guess we're just going to disagree.
I don't subscribe to your definition of the word "freedom" and there is no point in arguing about this if your definition of the word freedom is radically different from mine. And thats all this is, we have completely different definitions of the word.
What you describe is freedom in real life. Freedom in real life and freedom in a video game are two entirely different things. If the "restrictions" in a video game mirrored those in real life, actively stopping PvP 99.9% of the time, wouldn't that bother PvP players that want to attack others with reasonable, but not entirely inhibiting, penalties? Wouldn't it be strange to know that the majority of those around you in real life will attack if you have nice things, they get bored, or just want to test their skill against yours?
The only real life instance that makes sense is war, where people are in specified areas that are for that purpose. If there is a desire to make PvP sandboxes like real life, having separate areas of a game world that offer those play style would make sense. That's the only way I see the two systems living side by side where each doesn't think the other hinders their style.
The word freedom works the same way in video games and IRL as far as I can tell.
I can't understand from your post how or why the word should mean different things IRL and in video games. Could you explain it another way maybe?
Freedom of action is directly related to the consequences of those actions. While you are correct that in real life you have the freedom to do as you please, just like in a video game that allows that functionality, it's the typical consequences that make real life freedom not compatible with video game freedom. It would create a gameplay experience that, while "realistic", would not be very fun for either PvPers or those who wish not to.
For example, permadeath would be implemented and characters would start from scratch with nothing of their previous character upon death. The typical balance of easy to get equipment or skill up would not be so, since in real life things take a long time to get, including knowledge. Simply attacking another player, even if you didn't kill them, would have, if caught, your character in a jail for, say, a week of in game time?
From a PvPers perspective does this sound fun? It's what realistic freedom would look like. It doesn't sound fun to me because the point of playing a video game is to use your free time to play something you enjoy. Just like PvPers want to test their skills against others with reasonable consequences, because that's what they want to spend their time doing, so too do PvEers (that want a choice of PvP) want to spend their time doing PvE stuffs.
This isn't about one style being better than the other. This thread was about why there isn't more sandbox games that offer no or restricted PvP. What is inevitably brought up is freedom and while that may be freedom for those that want PvP it isn't for those that wish not to. The good news is that there are titles that are coming out offering playstyles for both. In fact complete, 100% sandbox titles that are just about done in the oven (below).
The right thing to do is compromise; and that means restrictions.
But is that the right thing to do?
My view is that compromise has got us the last 10 years of stagnant gaming.
While my view is that its brought the genre out of the dark ages. Many of the older MMOs already started this (like UO adding Trammel/Felucca) but WoW was the one that opened the doors completely.
And I've very much enjoyed those 10 years of "stagnant" gaming. Here's to 10 more of them!
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 Quirhid The right thing to do is compromise; and that means restrictions.
Compromise is worst thing that can happen, we need two subgenres:
- PvE candylands for handicapped PvE players
- FFA sandboxes for PvP players
I hope there comes a day when the same game can support both rulesets and balance content accordingly. An alt on a pve mortal online server would be fun for days when I don't feel like skulking around
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server. Then see what servers has the most players, then see what servers retains the most players. In games that have done that the numbers are clear.
Most games dont do it anymore because they dont ant to have to develop two games at once and make changes on the PvP server they wouldnt have to make on the PvE server (in the name of 'balance'). Or worse yet change everything on both servers and piss everyone off.
This thought that 'sand box' MUST have PvP is ludicrous from its origin. Especially open world (forced) PvP where you have n choice BUT to be open to attack. Sure the strawman is "dont play the game" which was my point 30 pages ago(comment deleted)...if people that dont PvP dont play the game then you have 20 guys all running around a game guys took years to make and spent a lot of (other peoples) money on to put out there.
Without some restrictions games become unplayable very quickly. At least for most (vast majority) of players. Yet the PvP zealots claim these restrictions make the game 'non sand box' but that is the way these guys view the world.
Make a game with a lot of horizontal progressions, sprinkle in some RP aspects, a lot of exploration, decent (but not overly micromanaged) crafting system, 'cool' factor, and 'litle things' content and you have a decent chance at a decent game.
People just assume PvP is the easiest 'player made content' there is and that PvP alone will help bridge gaps between developed content in games. But in a full PvP game with little to know restrictions the results are not going to have the desired effect. Its been proven time and time again.
EVE is the game everyone holds up as 'proof' PvP works. Yet EVE numbers are fake. Theyre based on a game where the population is years old, has plateuad and died off. The numbers now are simply guys with trillions of Isk and dozens of PLEX playing for free. In so way shape or form should that game be used as an example or a case study in how a game being developed in 2015 should go about doing it the 'right' way. It is basically a free to play game with a niche player base who has spent literally tears advancing their toons to where they are now. Not to mention EVE isnt even a PvP game and for the most part 99% of the accounts in it dont go into space where they can be attacked (without major repercussions to the attacker). So while there might always be a risk to getting attacked, the chances of it for most (unless theyre carrying something someone might want) are almost nil.
I played that game for about 5 years, I lost a single ship (on my generic account) and that was only when I first started playing and took a set up contract and people knew what I was carrying. So to think that it is some example of 'perfection' is crazy.
Yes, players in a pvp game should be able to attack other players, but there should be consequences. All this philosophical bull feces about what is or isnt freedom isn't necessary or productive. The fact of the matter is, without consequences people will misuse their freedom to oppress others. Therefore, there must be some system of laws and justice to discourage excessive and senseless violence.
Guards are an obvious choice for protecting player freedoms within a city. Beyond that, if the average player is a random PK and player justice isn't viable, you could have a player reputation system that ruins their reputation with all major cities and factions which makes certain content in the game problematic to access without first fixing your reputation. There is also jail and court trial systems and so forth. In a game with player politics and player elected officials, they could choose to raise or lower the amount of permitted violence, as well as increase the amount of guards within and without cities in areas which they govern.
The main problem with many of these OW PvP games is that there just isn't much to do other than PvP. In past games with real content, players that were random PKs were basically unable to safely go anywhere near a dungeon. Without the ability to progress normally, RPKs had to band together and struggle to accomplish anything. As always, the issue is content. Without something worthwhile to accomplish that requires etiquette and a good reputation, theres absolutely no reason not to attack everyone you see.
Theres lots of way to fix the problem, but talking about whether players should be able to attack each other on a PvP server is accomplishing nothing.
Comments
That is a little too general.
You could say the pvp person is hindering the other's freedom if there is an area the other player wants to go to but the pvp person stops them from going by PKing them.
But the flip side of it is a situation where the PVE player is killing all the mobs in an area and the PVP player gets creamed by guards if he attacks the PVE player. In that situation the PVP player does not remain "free to do what they want," because they are a corpse.
Its better to just not overgeneralize and try to make a blanket statement implying that pvp players are encroaching on PVE player freedom just by viture of PVPing.
The same situation you seem to be hanging on is about a game designed around PvE that throws PvP into the mix as an after thought. This freedom you are talking about was given up when the player decided to opt in to a PvP server or area so the argument is moot.
I don't see your logic in all of these freedom arguments.
And its a good thing.
A life with no problems is a joyless and meaningless one.
Without conflict there can be no victory!
When pvp player attacks a pve player the pvp player is limiting the pve players freedom. When a pve player asks for systems that limit a pvp players ability to attack them the pve player is limiting the pvp players freedom.
Some freedoms are not compatible. The ability to attack anyone is not compatible with another person's desire to not be attacked.
It's only a question of which limit do you prefer.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Why the hell is this person playing a game where there is PvP if they are so worried about freedom? Why is this person even playing a MMO when they seem to want a single player game?
I'm sorry you are not capable of following or having a discussion
A desire to not be attacked is just that. A desire.
The state of being free is one where we can act, think, speak, etc.. as we please.
So long as the PVP player is not forcing the PVE person to think any certain way, desire any certain things, act any certain way, or do or not do any certain things.. no freedom is lost.
If you start defining your freedom as something tied to desires that can or can not be fulfilled the word gets pretty crazy.
I have a desire for everyone to like PVP games. You aren't encroaching on any of my freedoms by not liking PVP games. You just don't jive with what I want in the world and thats OK. Somtimes we don't get what we want.
Conversely the freedom to live in peace comes when others are not allowed to attack you.
What you describe is freedom in real life. Freedom in real life and freedom in a video game are two entirely different things. If the "restrictions" in a video game mirrored those in real life, actively stopping PvP 99.9% of the time, wouldn't that bother PvP players that want to attack others with reasonable, but not entirely inhibiting, penalties? Wouldn't it be strange to know that the majority of those around you in real life will attack if you have nice things, they get bored, or just want to test their skill against yours?
The only real life instance that makes sense is war, where people are in specified areas that are for that purpose. If there is a desire to make PvP sandboxes like real life, having separate areas of a game world that offer those play style would make sense. That's the only way I see the two systems living side by side where each doesn't think the other hinders their style.
You can have the freedom to live in peace in a world where PVP can happen to you.
Thats kinda how IRL works.
If I punch my neighbor I haven't necessarily encroached on his freedom. As in my example earlier, my freedoms as the aggressor could be in danger after such an act.
If I tell my neighbor I will punch him if he tries to exit his house then i've possibly encroached on his freedom.
It would be better to say someone has or does not have the right to live in peace. The word freedom is being used pretty loosely there.
Living in peace is a freedom . When you attack someone you diminish that. The right top live in peace is a freedom.
The word freedom works the same way in video games and IRL as far as I can tell.
I can't understand from your post how or why the word should mean different things IRL and in video games. Could you explain it another way maybe?
Ok I guess we're just going to disagree.
I don't subscribe to your definition of the word "freedom" and there is no point in arguing about this if your definition of the word freedom is radically different from mine. And thats all this is, we have completely different definitions of the word.
The right thing to do is compromise; and that means restrictions.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Freedom of action is directly related to the consequences of those actions. While you are correct that in real life you have the freedom to do as you please, just like in a video game that allows that functionality, it's the typical consequences that make real life freedom not compatible with video game freedom. It would create a gameplay experience that, while "realistic", would not be very fun for either PvPers or those who wish not to.
For example, permadeath would be implemented and characters would start from scratch with nothing of their previous character upon death. The typical balance of easy to get equipment or skill up would not be so, since in real life things take a long time to get, including knowledge. Simply attacking another player, even if you didn't kill them, would have, if caught, your character in a jail for, say, a week of in game time?
From a PvPers perspective does this sound fun? It's what realistic freedom would look like. It doesn't sound fun to me because the point of playing a video game is to use your free time to play something you enjoy. Just like PvPers want to test their skills against others with reasonable consequences, because that's what they want to spend their time doing, so too do PvEers (that want a choice of PvP) want to spend their time doing PvE stuffs.
This isn't about one style being better than the other. This thread was about why there isn't more sandbox games that offer no or restricted PvP. What is inevitably brought up is freedom and while that may be freedom for those that want PvP it isn't for those that wish not to. The good news is that there are titles that are coming out offering playstyles for both. In fact complete, 100% sandbox titles that are just about done in the oven (below).
But is that the right thing to do?
My view is that compromise has got us the last 10 years of stagnant gaming.
While my view is that its brought the genre out of the dark ages. Many of the older MMOs already started this (like UO adding Trammel/Felucca) but WoW was the one that opened the doors completely.
And I've very much enjoyed those 10 years of "stagnant" gaming. Here's to 10 more of them!
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/
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I hope there comes a day when the same game can support both rulesets and balance content accordingly. An alt on a pve mortal online server would be fun for days when I don't feel like skulking around
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server. Then see what servers has the most players, then see what servers retains the most players. In games that have done that the numbers are clear.
Most games dont do it anymore because they dont ant to have to develop two games at once and make changes on the PvP server they wouldnt have to make on the PvE server (in the name of 'balance'). Or worse yet change everything on both servers and piss everyone off.
This thought that 'sand box' MUST have PvP is ludicrous from its origin. Especially open world (forced) PvP where you have n choice BUT to be open to attack. Sure the strawman is "dont play the game" which was my point 30 pages ago(comment deleted)...if people that dont PvP dont play the game then you have 20 guys all running around a game guys took years to make and spent a lot of (other peoples) money on to put out there.
Without some restrictions games become unplayable very quickly. At least for most (vast majority) of players. Yet the PvP zealots claim these restrictions make the game 'non sand box' but that is the way these guys view the world.
Make a game with a lot of horizontal progressions, sprinkle in some RP aspects, a lot of exploration, decent (but not overly micromanaged) crafting system, 'cool' factor, and 'litle things' content and you have a decent chance at a decent game.
People just assume PvP is the easiest 'player made content' there is and that PvP alone will help bridge gaps between developed content in games. But in a full PvP game with little to know restrictions the results are not going to have the desired effect. Its been proven time and time again.
EVE is the game everyone holds up as 'proof' PvP works. Yet EVE numbers are fake. Theyre based on a game where the population is years old, has plateuad and died off. The numbers now are simply guys with trillions of Isk and dozens of PLEX playing for free. In so way shape or form should that game be used as an example or a case study in how a game being developed in 2015 should go about doing it the 'right' way. It is basically a free to play game with a niche player base who has spent literally tears advancing their toons to where they are now. Not to mention EVE isnt even a PvP game and for the most part 99% of the accounts in it dont go into space where they can be attacked (without major repercussions to the attacker). So while there might always be a risk to getting attacked, the chances of it for most (unless theyre carrying something someone might want) are almost nil.
I played that game for about 5 years, I lost a single ship (on my generic account) and that was only when I first started playing and took a set up contract and people knew what I was carrying. So to think that it is some example of 'perfection' is crazy.
Yes, players in a pvp game should be able to attack other players, but there should be consequences. All this philosophical bull feces about what is or isnt freedom isn't necessary or productive. The fact of the matter is, without consequences people will misuse their freedom to oppress others. Therefore, there must be some system of laws and justice to discourage excessive and senseless violence.
Guards are an obvious choice for protecting player freedoms within a city. Beyond that, if the average player is a random PK and player justice isn't viable, you could have a player reputation system that ruins their reputation with all major cities and factions which makes certain content in the game problematic to access without first fixing your reputation. There is also jail and court trial systems and so forth. In a game with player politics and player elected officials, they could choose to raise or lower the amount of permitted violence, as well as increase the amount of guards within and without cities in areas which they govern.
The main problem with many of these OW PvP games is that there just isn't much to do other than PvP. In past games with real content, players that were random PKs were basically unable to safely go anywhere near a dungeon. Without the ability to progress normally, RPKs had to band together and struggle to accomplish anything. As always, the issue is content. Without something worthwhile to accomplish that requires etiquette and a good reputation, theres absolutely no reason not to attack everyone you see.
Theres lots of way to fix the problem, but talking about whether players should be able to attack each other on a PvP server is accomplishing nothing.