Like a sandbox in RL, you can build, shape and create. Thats all you need to make a Sandbox MMO.
That's a narrow view. In RL you can knock down someone else's sand castle. Throw sand in their eyes. Kill them, take their stuff. Risk, loss, fear, conflict all make life exciting as they do in sandbox games.
Any sandbox games without conflict and competition between players would be dull and wouldn't work. I would find it hard to call something a game where everyone just builds things and goes around and a visits other peoples creations in peace.
Then you have sandboxes where teachers and parents are watching and you get sent home if you are a jurk, sometimes you may never be permitted to go back to that sandbox. Rules have nothing to do with Sandbox. Only the ability to make content in that game and shape it.
Making content is only half of the sandbox. Destruction is essential.
The whole point of sandbox games is freedom. Putting limits on a sandbox game would make it a sandpark. Simple as that
Ok, if freedom is the point of sandbox, people who want the freedom of not wanting someone attacking them or breaking what they build does not matter? Again, rule sets have nothing to do with Sandbox. Only the ability to build, create content. Sandbox games that have PvP is awesome fun but again, PvP is not a sandbox feature unless you can build PvP content as a player.
Sandbox doesn't mean complete freedom. It's a system of how leveling works. In just about every sandbox ever, if there's a rock on the ground, doesn't mean I can pick it up if I want to, or there's grass everywhere that I can eat if I want to. I believe that if someone would come out with a PvE sandbox it would do much better than a PvP sandbox, or even better have 2 separate servers, then you can get both sides.
The risk that comes with PvP appeals to PvP players. If you like PvP, you'd love to run over and kill someone and steal their stuff and/or tear down their house or whatever. PvE players want no part in this, and if you go by the numbers of most games, PvE numbers outweigh PvP numbers in games that have both. What the OP is asking (I think) is why does every sandbox have to be PvP. As I first stated, sandbox is just a means of leveling and character progression, it in no way means PvP.
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.
Wrong on so many levels. Crafting as the primary source for gear acquisition is horrible game design when in the entirety of the RPG genre it is finding gear that is more thrilling and more rewarding. I never once sat around the kitchen table and greedily rubbed my hands in anticipation of "crafting" a piece of gear while playing D&D.
You can harness the love of both Loot Drops and Crafting by having a dynamic loot system that ensures unneeded loots gets disenchanted for base components to augment found loot. A system in which Asheron's Call was heavily invested in is the perfect mix of the 2.
And because your constantly looking for stat upgrades you'll never acquire the best in every slot in such a system so no need to worry about silly things like durability loss.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Do people ever stop to ask themselves why carebears are playing a full open world PVP game in the first place? They try to make it seem like the second that one of these kinds of games releases that there will be hundreds or thousands of completely docile and brain dead defenseless children (who average probably around age 25-30) who suddenly buy the games against their will and are forced to install them on their computer and be online 15 hours a day and perpetually get ganked by the refuse of society. This is the picture that is painted, I just find it odd nobody actually considers how ridiculous the idea is.
You play one of these games with the knowledge of what can happen, those "carebears" are just PVPers who aren't very good. They would much rather be on the other side of the fence, in nearly all cases. You don't move to a warzone to farm cabbages.
Though there are some of us who enjoy the challenge and very much would like to grow cabbages in a hostile place and have to fend off anti social scum from our land. If you're not one of these kind of people, and take no enjoyment from being a character in a world where a lot of bad things can happen to you and around you, then play something safer that holds your hand and protects you.
I for one like the feeling of not being safe, because it's a game and I need that level of excitement and fear in them to make it worth my while to really get invested into an online world. Without it they don't feel like worlds, they feel like amusement parks. Those are fun, but if you lived at Disneyland your whole life, you'd get bored eventually.
It's been brought up plenty of times but it falls on deaf ears.
It doesn't fall on deaf ears. It's just recognized for the straw man it is that tries to frame the discussion as good PVPer's opinions vs. bad PVPer's opinions.
It's a ridiculous notion when what is being discussed is what PVP rule set do the majority of PVPers enjoy the most or feel the most comfortable with. And for me, as an avid PVPer who has played under countless types of rule sets, the separation of PVP from PVE in a manner similar to how DAoC and ESO do it is the best option.
You have a 24/7 huge persistent zone with very good PVP together with chill-out zones that are not just the domain of "carebears" but just a place where even hardcore PVPers can go do something different for a while if they want to use that option.
Saying that everyone MUST PVP all the time is about as idiotic as saying everyone must do any other thing all the time. It should be an option in game where you go in with your eyes open, expecting it, exactly the same way you chose to, in a macro scale, play or not play a PVP game. Choosing when and how you PVP is the micro in-game version of that macro decision.
All these other mentions of Disneyland, rides, and other themepark cliches in the discussion are just trolling from people that, frankly, I don't believe are even good PVPers... pretty easy to sound tough in a forum.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Name a game with any sort of open type PvP and then look at how many peopel go to those places on purpose. You will find then aswers very quickly.
A dozen years ago sure. Open world PvP in WoW was pretty decent on PvP servers. Because it was something new and different. It wasnt all that great by todays standards but the number of people doing it was what mattered.
People expect a hell of alot more these dyas. But for the most part most people have also been desensitized to PvP so they dont really want it. Back then the whole ranking system also meant people did it out of curiosity because it was a way to get new or better gear.
That was the start of the "WoWification" of MMOs where a lot of stuff revolved around gear or obtaining new and better gear.
Since a lot of games also incorporate this ideology it carries on those that dont are usually seen as inferior. Or cheap or whatever.
The reasons people play MMOs are very widespread these days, that is due to the sheer number of games that have tried different approaches and some of these approached people liked and took to. Unforutanely no game has all of the 'best' approaches. And I doubt one ever will. Thats why everyone keeps looking for the next big thing because they dont like anything thats around now or the ones they do like no one plays or theyre so old theyre outdated.
Originally posted by vandal5627 sandbox = ghost town in 3 months = ftp ftw in 6 months = closed down in less than a year = why devs don't create a sandbox.
Replace sandbox with themepark and its correct.
This is exactly what is happening (since 10 years) with all themeparks, not sandboxes.
Uhhh...I don't see many themeparks closing down. As a matter of fact, the majority are still running and very profitable. Also, it's not happening to sandboxes because a true sandbox game doesn't exist. It has to be mixed with themeparks to be viable.
There is more failed themeparks than failed sandboxes (fact).
If they were VERY profitable, they wouldnt go F2P
Out of curiosity, if true sandbox doesn't exist, then what is true themepark?
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Simply wrong. There are PvE only sandbox games.
I would not call a PvE only game a sandbox.
A sandbox allows one person to take another's stuff. In this magical sandbox one can throw another into the sand and attempt to pile driver em when they are down. At the same time it has the option of bystanders deciding to pile on or avenge. Some can just ignore this conflict and hope it does not come at them while they go about making things with the sand but the threat is there all the same.
Remove the threat and you remove much of the creativity to have 'meaningful' play experiences. When you cannot influence another player what you have is really a game that is a player created sandpark but never a sandbox.
Looting someone has nothing to do with Sandbox play. Like a sandbox in RL, you can build, shape and create. Thats all you need to make a Sandbox MMO. The ability to build, shape and create in the game. From story to building a home or town. Sandbox char would be the freedom to build your own class, much freedom in skills. PvP in itself is not a sandbox feature unless you get to make your own PvP games, just like Landmark does.
If you build shape and create without pvp you are creating a sandpark.
A dozen years ago sure. Open world PvP in WoW was pretty decent on PvP servers. Because it was something new and different. It wasnt all that great by todays standards but the number of people doing it was what mattered.
Eh, it still wasn't decent even by the standards of the day. In 2003 the PVP scene was things like C&C:Generals, BF1942, RTCW:Enemy Territory, Jedi Knight 2, and maybe some Mechwarrior 4 or Rise of Nations. All of these games have awesome competitive, skill-centric PVP. Whereas world PVP was mostly just a lot of empty one-sided ganking which rarely amounted to anything interesting or skillful.
Admittedly even I tried to enjoy MMORPG PVP for a year before realizing the non-skill factors just make it bad PVP compared to what I can find in other genres. So I agree with your 'new and different' comment (though mostly in the context of battlegrounds, not world PVP which was obviously flawed right from the start and just a massive waste of time and a vacuum that sucked the fun out of the game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
The only comment I've ever seen about this was someone saying that sandboxes needed something to halt growth and that was other player conflict at random times.
I remember playing Runescape for years and you weren't forced to fight and the world didn't fall apart. I didn't even reach the max level in everything without resistance. Same for Wurm Online, they had PVE servers where people just built and grew their characters and mobs were dangerous enough, you didn't need players around attacking to have concern about losing things.
I'm seeing a lot of new games that seem to equate a sandbox with a need for PVP. Not just PVP but full-loot PVP. It's becoming a trend, read about a game, catch someone saying it's PVP all gank all the time and I'm really wondering why people think that the two need to be coupled together.
I've seen what happens in full-loot gank games and it's usually just people outnumbering one guy carrying herbs or wood they cut. It's just 5 people who take things from new people constantly until they run them off. I don't get it - why aren't people trying to make a sandbox that doesn't force PVP. 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.
Don't get me wrong, I PVP in every game I play - it's my end-game with not liking dungeons but I never felt comfortable with full-loot or ganking people over and over trying to keep them stuck in a spot. It's not PVP itself that rubs me wrong.
Because every new dev team thinks the last one did something wrong, they think there is some mechanic that can stop that behavior, it's always going to be different in their game. They will stop the gank and grief mentality in it's tracks. Sadly it never happens.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by vandal5627 sandbox = ghost town in 3 months = ftp ftw in 6 months = closed down in less than a year = why devs don't create a sandbox.
Replace sandbox with themepark and its correct.
This is exactly what is happening (since 10 years) with all themeparks, not sandboxes.
Uhhh...I don't see many themeparks closing down. As a matter of fact, the majority are still running and very profitable. Also, it's not happening to sandboxes because a true sandbox game doesn't exist. It has to be mixed with themeparks to be viable.
There is more failed themeparks than failed sandboxes (fact).
If they were VERY profitable, they wouldnt go F2P
Out of curiosity, if true sandbox doesn't exist, then what is true themepark?
1. Uh... how many sandboxes out there compared to themeparks...you can probably count them on one hand. FACT
2. P2P, F2P, B2P, does it matter? They still exist and making plenty of money.
3. Ok, SANNNNDPARRRRRK.....but you people seem to want nothing to do with themeparks but if you look at any games, what side is more prevalent? FACT...THEMEPARKS...
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
why, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, so there is no magic invinicble mode where only the scripted bots are there to be farmed in some forced "co-op only" candyland.
if you want themepark instead, there is plenty to choose from, sandbox is not for everyone.
Sandbox= compete with players in a meaningful way
Themepark = compete with scripted NPC bots, have some sad excuse secluded meaningless PvP arena
Somes have fun do sandbox stuffs , others just want come and kill and loot and survive with less skilled players
5v1? how matter if its mean profit to group?
At momment you signup/buy sandbox game accepty in fact you going get ganked / grief (and grief its another stupid term)
if game allowed and you dont like
"ADAPT OR QUIT" (often used in entropia)
No one is trying to force an already exiting game to turn PvE focused. What the OP and people like me are asking is why not CREATE NEW PVE SANDBOXES.
Because Devs want to make money, not to make a small minority of people happy.
If devs are looking to make money, creating a MMO is a terrible idea...
I'm pretty sure I didnt say if devs want to make money, they should make an MMO. But if they are making an MMO and want to make money, it's definitely not a sandbox MMO. They ain't stupid.
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.
Perfectly said which is probably why I can't think of any PvP-focused game with much depth.
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Simply wrong. There are PvE only sandbox games.
I would not call a PvE only game a sandbox.
A sandbox allows one person to take another's stuff. In this magical sandbox one can throw another into the sand and attempt to pile driver em when they are down. At the same time it has the option of bystanders deciding to pile on or avenge. Some can just ignore this conflict and hope it does not come at them while they go about making things with the sand but the threat is there all the same.
Remove the threat and you remove much of the creativity to have 'meaningful' play experiences. When you cannot influence another player what you have is really a game that is a player created sandpark but never a sandbox.
Looting someone has nothing to do with Sandbox play. Like a sandbox in RL, you can build, shape and create. Thats all you need to make a Sandbox MMO. The ability to build, shape and create in the game. From story to building a home or town. Sandbox char would be the freedom to build your own class, much freedom in skills. PvP in itself is not a sandbox feature unless you get to make your own PvP games, just like Landmark does.
If you build shape and create without pvp you are creating a sandpark.
No, a Sandpark is a term MMOers have given Sandbox games that added themepark elements.
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
why, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, so there is no magic invinicble mode where only the scripted bots are there to be farmed in some forced "co-op only" candyland.
if you want themepark instead, there is plenty to choose from, sandbox is not for everyone.
Sandbox= compete with players in a meaningful way
Themepark = compete with scripted NPC bots, have some sad excuse secluded meaningless PvP arena
News flash, you can have a Sandbox game that has zero combat with NPCs and players.
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
why, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, so there is no magic invinicble mode where only the scripted bots are there to be farmed in some forced "co-op only" candyland.
if you want themepark instead, there is plenty to choose from, sandbox is not for everyone.
Sandbox= compete with players in a meaningful way
Themepark = compete with scripted NPC bots, have some sad excuse secluded meaningless PvP arena
Realism would mean it has penalties and consequence to offset the impact murder brings to the game, none have really achieved that. Because these folks don't want realism, if penalties are strict enough,,realism means they have to stop PVPing (their idea of PVP anyway). Few of them want that. IF these games were really realistic, no one would want to gank, the few who did would really suffer for it.
Anyway, SWG's PRE-cu system was a perfect compromise, people could opt in to different levels of open PVP. OR opt out completely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by 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.
Apple and Micorsoft are rivals. Do they kill each other? I'm sure they sometimes would like to, but they do not
Rivalries take many forms, not just superior fighting power. Become the best crafter is a huge draw for rivalries. Have the "coolest home" is another one. Become the best cartographer or guide by exploring. Join a player city and help make it the best in the game. Help a guild to achieve "server firsts", like dungeon completions.
Fighting vs NPCs is fine. It can break weapons, wear out armor, and provide materials for crafting or even guard material gathering spots. There is no need for PvP except to fight other players. It provides nothing else besides that.
actualy they DO kill each other. you have to translate the killing to the rule set available. law suits, patent wars, media campaigns etc. those are attempts to hurt each other on the level that's available. it's the same as a duel in the game. the one that loses does suffer a small death (loss of gear/experience etc.) and the game continues.
you have to see things in perspective and not jump to unrelated extremes.
Isn't that kind of PvP also possible within game rules? Ever "play" in the auction houses? Sell your item for just little below what another player has theirs listed for? Maybe buy up items selling for less then your own and then re-list them at your current price?
PvP can take on may varied aspects, but generally speaking, it is thought of in terms of fighting only. Now, if *you* want to broaden the term, I'll adjust my responses accordingly
- 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 Nanfoodle Like a sandbox in RL, you can build, shape and create. Thats all you need to make a Sandbox MMO.
That's a narrow view. In RL you can knock down someone else's sand castle. Throw sand in their eyes. Kill them, take their stuff. Risk, loss, fear, conflict all make life exciting as they do in sandbox games.Any sandbox games without conflict and competition between players would be dull and wouldn't work. I would find it hard to call something a game where everyone just builds things and goes around and a visits other peoples creations in peace.
You forgot a very important aspect that most PvP MMOs neglect: Consequences. I would play, and enjoy PvP games if there were consequences for the "dick" players. But there is none.
- 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 Nanfoodle Like a sandbox in RL, you can build, shape and create. Thats all you need to make a Sandbox MMO.
That's a narrow view. In RL you can knock down someone else's sand castle. Throw sand in their eyes. Kill them, take their stuff. Risk, loss, fear, conflict all make life exciting as they do in sandbox games.
Any sandbox games without conflict and competition between players would be dull and wouldn't work. I would find it hard to call something a game where everyone just builds things and goes around and a visits other peoples creations in peace.
You forgot a very important aspect that most PvP MMOs neglect: Consequences. I would play, and enjoy PvP games if there were consequences for the "dick" players. But there is none.
Consequences come from other players interacting with the actions of other players. When you insert artificial consequences that stop an action without the consent of the people you have a form of tyranny!
If you do not like 'dick' players you look for fellow like minded people and create a anti 'dick' force or guild(s).
Originally posted by Nanfoodle Like a sandbox in RL, you can build, shape and create. Thats all you need to make a Sandbox MMO.
That's a narrow view. In RL you can knock down someone else's sand castle. Throw sand in their eyes. Kill them, take their stuff. Risk, loss, fear, conflict all make life exciting as they do in sandbox games.Any sandbox games without conflict and competition between players would be dull and wouldn't work. I would find it hard to call something a game where everyone just builds things and goes around and a visits other peoples creations in peace.
You forgot a very important aspect that most PvP MMOs neglect: Consequences. I would play, and enjoy PvP games if there were consequences for the "dick" players. But there is none.
Consequences come from other players interacting with the actions of other players. When you insert artificial consequences that stop an action without the consent of the people you have a form of tyranny!If you do not like 'dick' players you look for fellow like minded people and create a anti 'dick' force or guild(s).
Can you name me one law (in real life) that prevents a crime? There are none. What laws do, is say, "If you do THAT, then THIS will happen to you." The option is still, and always will be there.
Are you an Anarchist, by any chance?
- 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 Consequences come from other players interacting with the actions of other players. When you insert artificial consequences that stop an action without the consent of the people you have a form of tyranny!
Rules and order =/= tyranny as much as freedom =/= anarchy.
This is simple, because any of these sandbox games that have pvp bascally end up as nothing but a openworld deathmatch and little else. Westerner's can't seem to go a day without ganking someone in those games. These games with pvp also ultimetly flop, because people get sick of being ganked by people they cannot fight back against, having all their stuff taken, and having their progress mostly reset everytime. People get sick of it and quit, then even the gankers quit because they chase any new player away, then the game dies. Grav did it best, there is a 15-30 min timer on the open pvp server before anyone can loot their stuff, it really has lowered the open gankfest these games tend to be since most gankers won't sit there for that long to loot it. there is still ganking, but not nearly as much as in other games without a loot timer.
Bascally these games do not work in the west, in the east there is alot less ganking in these kinds of games due to having actual respect for other players, that and they tend to be tight knit, you kill the wrong person in the wrong guild and your life can become hell because they will hunt you down, something you never see in western players, at best you'll get a "hahaha you suck!" (or something simmlar) from your guild or something if your lucky.
Most of the sandbox multiplayer games have open pvp, and like I said they bascally devolve almost immedatly into openworld gankfest #927163. The reason they are assumed to be that is due to most of them actually being that.
However some games are smart about it, like The repopulation, the open pvp has no looting AND its only in a seperate zone, however this zone is also where player cities and such will be. There is a hardcore ruleset server coming with looting too later on, thou I suspect it'll be pretty empty compared to the pve one.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Comments
Ok, if freedom is the point of sandbox, people who want the freedom of not wanting someone attacking them or breaking what they build does not matter? Again, rule sets have nothing to do with Sandbox. Only the ability to build, create content. Sandbox games that have PvP is awesome fun but again, PvP is not a sandbox feature unless you can build PvP content as a player.
Sandbox doesn't mean complete freedom. It's a system of how leveling works. In just about every sandbox ever, if there's a rock on the ground, doesn't mean I can pick it up if I want to, or there's grass everywhere that I can eat if I want to. I believe that if someone would come out with a PvE sandbox it would do much better than a PvP sandbox, or even better have 2 separate servers, then you can get both sides.
The risk that comes with PvP appeals to PvP players. If you like PvP, you'd love to run over and kill someone and steal their stuff and/or tear down their house or whatever. PvE players want no part in this, and if you go by the numbers of most games, PvE numbers outweigh PvP numbers in games that have both. What the OP is asking (I think) is why does every sandbox have to be PvP. As I first stated, sandbox is just a means of leveling and character progression, it in no way means PvP.
Wrong on so many levels. Crafting as the primary source for gear acquisition is horrible game design when in the entirety of the RPG genre it is finding gear that is more thrilling and more rewarding. I never once sat around the kitchen table and greedily rubbed my hands in anticipation of "crafting" a piece of gear while playing D&D.
You can harness the love of both Loot Drops and Crafting by having a dynamic loot system that ensures unneeded loots gets disenchanted for base components to augment found loot. A system in which Asheron's Call was heavily invested in is the perfect mix of the 2.
And because your constantly looking for stat upgrades you'll never acquire the best in every slot in such a system so no need to worry about silly things like durability loss.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
It doesn't fall on deaf ears. It's just recognized for the straw man it is that tries to frame the discussion as good PVPer's opinions vs. bad PVPer's opinions.
It's a ridiculous notion when what is being discussed is what PVP rule set do the majority of PVPers enjoy the most or feel the most comfortable with. And for me, as an avid PVPer who has played under countless types of rule sets, the separation of PVP from PVE in a manner similar to how DAoC and ESO do it is the best option.
You have a 24/7 huge persistent zone with very good PVP together with chill-out zones that are not just the domain of "carebears" but just a place where even hardcore PVPers can go do something different for a while if they want to use that option.
Saying that everyone MUST PVP all the time is about as idiotic as saying everyone must do any other thing all the time. It should be an option in game where you go in with your eyes open, expecting it, exactly the same way you chose to, in a macro scale, play or not play a PVP game. Choosing when and how you PVP is the micro in-game version of that macro decision.
All these other mentions of Disneyland, rides, and other themepark cliches in the discussion are just trolling from people that, frankly, I don't believe are even good PVPers... pretty easy to sound tough in a forum.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
No one is trying to force an already exiting game to turn PvE focused. What the OP and people like me are asking is why not CREATE NEW PVE SANDBOXES.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Name a game with any sort of open type PvP and then look at how many peopel go to those places on purpose. You will find then aswers very quickly.
A dozen years ago sure. Open world PvP in WoW was pretty decent on PvP servers. Because it was something new and different. It wasnt all that great by todays standards but the number of people doing it was what mattered.
People expect a hell of alot more these dyas. But for the most part most people have also been desensitized to PvP so they dont really want it. Back then the whole ranking system also meant people did it out of curiosity because it was a way to get new or better gear.
That was the start of the "WoWification" of MMOs where a lot of stuff revolved around gear or obtaining new and better gear.
Since a lot of games also incorporate this ideology it carries on those that dont are usually seen as inferior. Or cheap or whatever.
The reasons people play MMOs are very widespread these days, that is due to the sheer number of games that have tried different approaches and some of these approached people liked and took to. Unforutanely no game has all of the 'best' approaches. And I doubt one ever will. Thats why everyone keeps looking for the next big thing because they dont like anything thats around now or the ones they do like no one plays or theyre so old theyre outdated.
Because Devs want to make money, not to make a small minority of people happy.
If you build shape and create without pvp you are creating a sandpark.
Eh, it still wasn't decent even by the standards of the day. In 2003 the PVP scene was things like C&C:Generals, BF1942, RTCW:Enemy Territory, Jedi Knight 2, and maybe some Mechwarrior 4 or Rise of Nations. All of these games have awesome competitive, skill-centric PVP. Whereas world PVP was mostly just a lot of empty one-sided ganking which rarely amounted to anything interesting or skillful.
Admittedly even I tried to enjoy MMORPG PVP for a year before realizing the non-skill factors just make it bad PVP compared to what I can find in other genres. So I agree with your 'new and different' comment (though mostly in the context of battlegrounds, not world PVP which was obviously flawed right from the start and just a massive waste of time and a vacuum that sucked the fun out of the game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Because every new dev team thinks the last one did something wrong, they think there is some mechanic that can stop that behavior, it's always going to be different in their game. They will stop the gank and grief mentality in it's tracks. Sadly it never happens.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
1. Uh... how many sandboxes out there compared to themeparks...you can probably count them on one hand. FACT
2. P2P, F2P, B2P, does it matter? They still exist and making plenty of money.
3. Ok, SANNNNDPARRRRRK.....but you people seem to want nothing to do with themeparks but if you look at any games, what side is more prevalent? FACT...THEMEPARKS...
If devs are looking to make money, creating a MMO is a terrible idea...
why, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, so there is no magic invinicble mode where only the scripted bots are there to be farmed in some forced "co-op only" candyland.
if you want themepark instead, there is plenty to choose from, sandbox is not for everyone.
Sandbox= compete with players in a meaningful way
Themepark = compete with scripted NPC bots, have some sad excuse secluded meaningless PvP arena
I'm pretty sure I didnt say if devs want to make money, they should make an MMO. But if they are making an MMO and want to make money, it's definitely not a sandbox MMO. They ain't stupid.
Perfectly said which is probably why I can't think of any PvP-focused game with much depth.
No, a Sandpark is a term MMOers have given Sandbox games that added themepark elements.
News flash, you can have a Sandbox game that has zero combat with NPCs and players.
Realism would mean it has penalties and consequence to offset the impact murder brings to the game, none have really achieved that. Because these folks don't want realism, if penalties are strict enough,,realism means they have to stop PVPing (their idea of PVP anyway). Few of them want that. IF these games were really realistic, no one would want to gank, the few who did would really suffer for it.
Anyway, SWG's PRE-cu system was a perfect compromise, people could opt in to different levels of open PVP. OR opt out completely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
PvP can take on may varied aspects, but generally speaking, it is thought of in terms of fighting only. Now, if *you* want to broaden the term, I'll adjust my responses accordingly
- 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
- 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
Consequences come from other players interacting with the actions of other players. When you insert artificial consequences that stop an action without the consent of the people you have a form of tyranny!
If you do not like 'dick' players you look for fellow like minded people and create a anti 'dick' force or guild(s).
Are you an Anarchist, by any chance?
- 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
Rules and order =/= tyranny as much as freedom =/= anarchy.
This is simple, because any of these sandbox games that have pvp bascally end up as nothing but a openworld deathmatch and little else. Westerner's can't seem to go a day without ganking someone in those games. These games with pvp also ultimetly flop, because people get sick of being ganked by people they cannot fight back against, having all their stuff taken, and having their progress mostly reset everytime. People get sick of it and quit, then even the gankers quit because they chase any new player away, then the game dies. Grav did it best, there is a 15-30 min timer on the open pvp server before anyone can loot their stuff, it really has lowered the open gankfest these games tend to be since most gankers won't sit there for that long to loot it. there is still ganking, but not nearly as much as in other games without a loot timer.
Bascally these games do not work in the west, in the east there is alot less ganking in these kinds of games due to having actual respect for other players, that and they tend to be tight knit, you kill the wrong person in the wrong guild and your life can become hell because they will hunt you down, something you never see in western players, at best you'll get a "hahaha you suck!" (or something simmlar) from your guild or something if your lucky.
Most of the sandbox multiplayer games have open pvp, and like I said they bascally devolve almost immedatly into openworld gankfest #927163. The reason they are assumed to be that is due to most of them actually being that.
However some games are smart about it, like The repopulation, the open pvp has no looting AND its only in a seperate zone, however this zone is also where player cities and such will be. There is a hardcore ruleset server coming with looting too later on, thou I suspect it'll be pretty empty compared to the pve one.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!