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
Well you have to consider the entities conducting the PvP and rules that apply to them. ALso the nature of the PvP competition.
There are different aspects to guild competition, there are different aspects to player competition ... you get the point. ALso you cannot replace different entities in the same PvP rule set as it won't make sense (players in context of guild PvP as an example. death of a guild is different than death of a player ...).
The problem with most people on this forum (you seem to be an exception :-)) is that they do not consider the ruleset in relation to the entity. That's a capital mistake. For them PvP is only player competition in a fight to the death. There are different forms and rulesets of PvP even within the same game.
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
I am all for open world PvP but only if you have to actively consent to it, i.e. flagging yourself.
There arent any games that do well that have a forced PvP map let alone the whole world.
PvP and ganking (which is what PvP turns into eventually) kills any sort of 'sandbox' feel to games. Because it is the over riding mechanic of the game. You can have all the crafting and building and exploring you want but if all that involves risking getting killed (and looted or losing items or durability or advancement) it takes away from everything the game has to offer.
If the chances of me getting to the top of a mountain that may or may not have something like a cool crafting item, station, NPC, or just a nice view are low then why bother?
Sandbox just means you have options, but if all those options are marred because youre going ot get gang raped every time you leave a safe spot that means you have no options and makes the whole 'sand box' moniker a misnomer at best and basically a lie.
Flagging systems are awful. That completely misses the point of open world pvp. It's NOT just about fighting when you want to fight. It's about risk. What good is risk if it 's self imposed? And further, why would I put myself at risk when other people don't have to? Why would I put myself at that disadvantage? Also, why would harvesters or crafters or pve players ever flag themselves for pvp? Again, flagging systems are just awful.
Open world pvp doesn't have to mean all out ganking. Look at UO, the majority of open world encounters were between blue players who didn't attack each other, and that's an old game that didn't even put much effort into crime deterrence.
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
WHat PVP game really offers real freedom though? You may shed the training wheels many themeparks place on you (questing).. instead your playtime is governed by those around you, you still have no real freedom to play as you want. Your gaming experience is what the guy next to you decides it is, if he/she decides it means fighting him/her off, that's what it will be.
I'm not sure what you mean by "real freedom" but games like UO, EVE, even Darkfall, offer much more freedom than your typical themepark.
Originally posted by SojhinYou are missing something though. Rules only work with the consent of the people. If you have 'rules and order' without consent it does equal a form of tyranny.
It has nothing to do with consent.
The system does not become tyrannical because you disagree with rules. That is what makes one an anarchist, concepts you seem to be mistaking here.
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
I am all for open world PvP but only if you have to actively consent to it, i.e. flagging yourself.
There arent any games that do well that have a forced PvP map let alone the whole world.
PvP and ganking (which is what PvP turns into eventually) kills any sort of 'sandbox' feel to games. Because it is the over riding mechanic of the game. You can have all the crafting and building and exploring you want but if all that involves risking getting killed (and looted or losing items or durability or advancement) it takes away from everything the game has to offer.
If the chances of me getting to the top of a mountain that may or may not have something like a cool crafting item, station, NPC, or just a nice view are low then why bother?
Sandbox just means you have options, but if all those options are marred because youre going ot get gang raped every time you leave a safe spot that means you have no options and makes the whole 'sand box' moniker a misnomer at best and basically a lie.
Flagging systems are awful. That completely misses the point of open world pvp. It's NOT just about fighting when you want to fight. It's about risk. What good is risk if it 's self imposed? And further, why would I put myself at risk when other people don't have to? Why would I put myself at that disadvantage? Also, why would harvesters or crafters or pve players ever flag themselves for pvp? Again, flagging systems are just awful.
Open world pvp doesn't have to mean all out ganking. Look at UO, the majority of open world encounters were between blue players who didn't attack each other, and that's an old game that didn't even put much effort into crime deterrence.
So, someone offline isn't flagging themselves? That's self imposed flagging to be able to leave when things get hard.
No, somebody being offline isn't flagging themselves. You can't gain experience, gold, resources, etc while offline. If you consider the ability to not log on a flagging system, then are you saying every hardcore ffa pvp game had a flagging system?
What risk is there in attacking someone weaker in stats than you or grouping up on them. It's not like ganking is a solo sport at all times. That would be giving gankers a lot of credit to suggest that they not only choose fair fights but fights where they could lose. By your own logic, a crafter won't flag themselves when it's dangerous and the ganker won't attack when it's dangerous or can just logout and unflag themselves. Since they don't craft, only take crafting supplies from others, they only have to return when the pickin's are good again.
It's an open world, there's always risk. The risk of attacking somebody weaker than you is the fact that anybody can come along and attack you back. Playing a murderer in UO was extremely risky.
The rest of this paragraph doesn't even seem to be coherent. What is this about a crafter logging out?
That's why I mentioned a system that tried to do some policing with being able to kill people who went offline to run from trouble. Then they don't have that unflag system that you too don't like.
Are you talking about somebody logging out to avoid imminent danger? I don't think there are any pvp games that allow you to do that.
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
I am all for open world PvP but only if you have to actively consent to it, i.e. flagging yourself.
There arent any games that do well that have a forced PvP map let alone the whole world.
PvP and ganking (which is what PvP turns into eventually) kills any sort of 'sandbox' feel to games. Because it is the over riding mechanic of the game. You can have all the crafting and building and exploring you want but if all that involves risking getting killed (and looted or losing items or durability or advancement) it takes away from everything the game has to offer.
If the chances of me getting to the top of a mountain that may or may not have something like a cool crafting item, station, NPC, or just a nice view are low then why bother?
Sandbox just means you have options, but if all those options are marred because youre going ot get gang raped every time you leave a safe spot that means you have no options and makes the whole 'sand box' moniker a misnomer at best and basically a lie.
Flagging systems are awful. That completely misses the point of open world pvp. It's NOT just about fighting when you want to fight. It's about risk. What good is risk if it 's self imposed? And further, why would I put myself at risk when other people don't have to? Why would I put myself at that disadvantage? Also, why would harvesters or crafters or pve players ever flag themselves for pvp? Again, flagging systems are just awful.
Open world pvp doesn't have to mean all out ganking. Look at UO, the majority of open world encounters were between blue players who didn't attack each other, and that's an old game that didn't even put much effort into crime deterrence.
So, someone offline isn't flagging themselves? That's self imposed flagging to be able to leave when things get hard.
No, somebody being offline isn't flagging themselves. You can't gain experience, gold, resources, etc while offline. If you consider the ability to not log on a flagging system, then are you saying every hardcore ffa pvp game had a flagging system?
What risk is there in attacking someone weaker in stats than you or grouping up on them. It's not like ganking is a solo sport at all times. That would be giving gankers a lot of credit to suggest that they not only choose fair fights but fights where they could lose. By your own logic, a crafter won't flag themselves when it's dangerous and the ganker won't attack when it's dangerous or can just logout and unflag themselves. Since they don't craft, only take crafting supplies from others, they only have to return when the pickin's are good again.
It's an open world, there's always risk. The risk of attacking somebody weaker than you is the fact that anybody can come along and attack you back. Playing a murderer in UO was extremely risky.
The rest of this paragraph doesn't even seem to be coherent. What is this about a crafter logging out?
That's why I mentioned a system that tried to do some policing with being able to kill people who went offline to run from trouble. Then they don't have that unflag system that you too don't like.
Are you talking about somebody logging out to avoid imminent danger? I don't think there are any pvp games that allow you to do that.
I'm talking about those dorks that logout when their team starts losing or they come up on competition. They take the easy road by unflagging and leaving the situation. Again, they want odds in their favor to stay flagged. So the pin you put on someone who is just gathering materials who asks to stop participating in PVP part-time to complete a task should be given too to the people who logout when odds aren't in their favor - I added more to the other post and categorize it under a characteristic of cowardice. I've never considered myself ganked when I fought one person face to face in the open world but when my back is turned and I've got 3 mobs on me, yeah, I consider that a gank.
I don't even understand what your point is right now. I don't think anybody is advocating for the ability to log out in the middle of danger. And yeah attacking somebody when they're fighting mobs is ganking, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's the kind of riskiness I'm talking about. When I'm out in the world harvesting or pveing, I want it to feel dangerous. I want there to be consequences to me taking on too many mobs at once, or waiting too long to bank that gold I've farmed, or not keeping my head on a swivel to make sure nobody is sneaking up on me.
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
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
I am all for open world PvP but only if you have to actively consent to it, i.e. flagging yourself.
There arent any games that do well that have a forced PvP map let alone the whole world.
PvP and ganking (which is what PvP turns into eventually) kills any sort of 'sandbox' feel to games. Because it is the over riding mechanic of the game. You can have all the crafting and building and exploring you want but if all that involves risking getting killed (and looted or losing items or durability or advancement) it takes away from everything the game has to offer.
If the chances of me getting to the top of a mountain that may or may not have something like a cool crafting item, station, NPC, or just a nice view are low then why bother?
Sandbox just means you have options, but if all those options are marred because youre going ot get gang raped every time you leave a safe spot that means you have no options and makes the whole 'sand box' moniker a misnomer at best and basically a lie.
Flagging systems are awful. That completely misses the point of open world pvp. It's NOT just about fighting when you want to fight. It's about risk. What good is risk if it 's self imposed? And further, why would I put myself at risk when other people don't have to? Why would I put myself at that disadvantage? Also, why would harvesters or crafters or pve players ever flag themselves for pvp? Again, flagging systems are just awful.
Open world pvp doesn't have to mean all out ganking. Look at UO, the majority of open world encounters were between blue players who didn't attack each other, and that's an old game that didn't even put much effort into crime deterrence.
So, someone offline isn't flagging themselves? That's self imposed flagging to be able to leave when things get hard.
No, somebody being offline isn't flagging themselves. You can't gain experience, gold, resources, etc while offline. If you consider the ability to not log on a flagging system, then are you saying every hardcore ffa pvp game had a flagging system?
What risk is there in attacking someone weaker in stats than you or grouping up on them. It's not like ganking is a solo sport at all times. That would be giving gankers a lot of credit to suggest that they not only choose fair fights but fights where they could lose. By your own logic, a crafter won't flag themselves when it's dangerous and the ganker won't attack when it's dangerous or can just logout and unflag themselves. Since they don't craft, only take crafting supplies from others, they only have to return when the pickin's are good again.
It's an open world, there's always risk. The risk of attacking somebody weaker than you is the fact that anybody can come along and attack you back. Playing a murderer in UO was extremely risky.
The rest of this paragraph doesn't even seem to be coherent. What is this about a crafter logging out?
That's why I mentioned a system that tried to do some policing with being able to kill people who went offline to run from trouble. Then they don't have that unflag system that you too don't like.
Are you talking about somebody logging out to avoid imminent danger? I don't think there are any pvp games that allow you to do that.
I'm talking about those dorks that logout when their team starts losing or they come up on competition. They take the easy road by unflagging and leaving the situation. Again, they want odds in their favor to stay flagged. So the pin you put on someone who is just gathering materials who asks to stop participating in PVP part-time to complete a task should be given too to the people who logout when odds aren't in their favor - I added more to the other post and categorize it under a characteristic of cowardice. I've never considered myself ganked when I fought one person face to face in the open world but when my back is turned and I've got 3 mobs on me, yeah, I consider that a gank.
I don't even understand what your point is right now. I don't think anybody is advocating for the ability to log out in the middle of danger. And yeah attacking somebody when they're fighting mobs is ganking, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's the kind of riskiness I'm talking about. When I'm out in the world harvesting or pveing, I want it to feel dangerous. I want there to be consequences to me taking on too many mobs at once, or waiting too long to bank that gold I've farmed, or not keeping my head on a swivel to make sure nobody is sneaking up on me.
If you are doing PVE, you aren't the ganker of lore.
The ganker who is the issue is the one who does it as their only game. They login, take advantage, leave when things get difficult or challenging. Or - if you like - in DF because we both played that - run to a safe zone - regroup then come back in formation of overwhelming odds.
All I'm suggesting is that logging off no longer unflags your sorry ganking butt. If I have evidence you committed a crime against my person I should be able to get revenge even when you hide or sleep. Staying in an insular setting takes away my freedom then to exact retribution. Isn't that a persistent world, it goes on whether you are logged in or not. I haven't been to Florida in awhile but I imagine the ocean is still hitting the shore without me there.
In darkfall, running to the safezone is essentially never an option. Of the thousands of fights I've been in, a small handful of them have even been close to the safezone, and if they are, then BOTH players have that option. If the higher level ganker can run to the safezone or log out, then the lower level gankee can too. Suffice it to say that logging out in the middle of danger is NOT a problem in darkfall, nor is it a problem in EVE, nor was it a problem in UO. In all of those games, it is risky to attack lower level players out in the wild. In all of those games, you never know who is going to show up and put an end to your fun. Not only that, a proper sandbox game will have mechanisms in place to deter crime. Think statloss in UO. By becoming a murderer, you're adding on that extra risk to yourself. You have more to lose because you're a red player in UO.
Originally posted by Holophonist In response to the original question: Because sandbox is about freedom and that means open world pvp is a natural fit for sandbox games. For some reason people on these boards have been futilely trying to argue the opposite.
I am all for open world PvP but only if you have to actively consent to it, i.e. flagging yourself.
There arent any games that do well that have a forced PvP map let alone the whole world.
PvP and ganking (which is what PvP turns into eventually) kills any sort of 'sandbox' feel to games. Because it is the over riding mechanic of the game. You can have all the crafting and building and exploring you want but if all that involves risking getting killed (and looted or losing items or durability or advancement) it takes away from everything the game has to offer.
If the chances of me getting to the top of a mountain that may or may not have something like a cool crafting item, station, NPC, or just a nice view are low then why bother?
Sandbox just means you have options, but if all those options are marred because youre going ot get gang raped every time you leave a safe spot that means you have no options and makes the whole 'sand box' moniker a misnomer at best and basically a lie.
Flagging systems are awful. That completely misses the point of open world pvp. It's NOT just about fighting when you want to fight. It's about risk. What good is risk if it 's self imposed? And further, why would I put myself at risk when other people don't have to? Why would I put myself at that disadvantage? Also, why would harvesters or crafters or pve players ever flag themselves for pvp? Again, flagging systems are just awful.
Open world pvp doesn't have to mean all out ganking. Look at UO, the majority of open world encounters were between blue players who didn't attack each other, and that's an old game that didn't even put much effort into crime deterrence.
So, someone offline isn't flagging themselves? That's self imposed flagging to be able to leave when things get hard.
No, somebody being offline isn't flagging themselves. You can't gain experience, gold, resources, etc while offline. If you consider the ability to not log on a flagging system, then are you saying every hardcore ffa pvp game had a flagging system?
What risk is there in attacking someone weaker in stats than you or grouping up on them. It's not like ganking is a solo sport at all times. That would be giving gankers a lot of credit to suggest that they not only choose fair fights but fights where they could lose. By your own logic, a crafter won't flag themselves when it's dangerous and the ganker won't attack when it's dangerous or can just logout and unflag themselves. Since they don't craft, only take crafting supplies from others, they only have to return when the pickin's are good again.
It's an open world, there's always risk. The risk of attacking somebody weaker than you is the fact that anybody can come along and attack you back. Playing a murderer in UO was extremely risky.
The rest of this paragraph doesn't even seem to be coherent. What is this about a crafter logging out?
That's why I mentioned a system that tried to do some policing with being able to kill people who went offline to run from trouble. Then they don't have that unflag system that you too don't like.
Are you talking about somebody logging out to avoid imminent danger? I don't think there are any pvp games that allow you to do that.
I'm talking about those dorks that logout when their team starts losing or they come up on competition. They take the easy road by unflagging and leaving the situation. Again, they want odds in their favor to stay flagged. So the pin you put on someone who is just gathering materials who asks to stop participating in PVP part-time to complete a task should be given too to the people who logout when odds aren't in their favor - I added more to the other post and categorize it under a characteristic of cowardice. I've never considered myself ganked when I fought one person face to face in the open world but when my back is turned and I've got 3 mobs on me, yeah, I consider that a gank.
I don't even understand what your point is right now. I don't think anybody is advocating for the ability to log out in the middle of danger. And yeah attacking somebody when they're fighting mobs is ganking, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's the kind of riskiness I'm talking about. When I'm out in the world harvesting or pveing, I want it to feel dangerous. I want there to be consequences to me taking on too many mobs at once, or waiting too long to bank that gold I've farmed, or not keeping my head on a swivel to make sure nobody is sneaking up on me.
If you are doing PVE, you aren't the ganker of lore.
The ganker who is the issue is the one who does it as their only game. They login, take advantage, leave when things get difficult or challenging. Or - if you like - in DF because we both played that - run to a safe zone - regroup then come back in formation of overwhelming odds.
All I'm suggesting is that logging off no longer unflags your sorry ganking butt. If I have evidence you committed a crime against my person I should be able to get revenge even when you hide or sleep. Staying in an insular setting takes away my freedom then to exact retribution. Isn't that a persistent world, it goes on whether you are logged in or not. I haven't been to Florida in awhile but I imagine the ocean is still hitting the shore without me there.
Thats just like in Rust, and while I dont think its a bad idea, its NOT the same as unflagging for pvp. By unflagging, you can harvest resources that you normally would get killed for or at least have to fight for. This just destroys any sort of sandbox economy because that resource loses its value.
Also, I dont know where this misconception that pvp players ONLY gank. Thats not true, we have to grind mobs for our gear as well, might get by sometimes with looted stuff, but this is not always the case. We just dont cry if we get ganked, and probably end up calling other guildmates and having an awesome group fight.
The best MMO I have ever played was/is a sandbox that had open world PvP but it was not forced. It also had non-combat roles and they all played on the same server...one server rule set that was perfect for RP/PvP/Crafting/Buffing and PvE.
Star Wars Galaxies.
I lived for PvP in that game, and it could take place anywhere, any city, no safe zones. BUT.... It used a volunteer faction flagging system. it gave the players full control and all players interacted, PvP and PvE focused players...it was the best sandbox I have ever played.
The best MMO I have ever played was/is a sandbox that had open world PvP but it was not forced. It also had non-combat roles and they all played on the same server...one server rule set that was perfect for RP/PvP/Crafting/Buffing and PvE.
Star Wars Galaxies.
I lived for PvP in that game, and it could take place anywhere, any city, no safe zones. BUT.... It used a volunteer faction flagging system. it gave the players full control and all players interacted, PvP and PvE focused players...it was the best sandbox I have ever played.
I loved SWG..
but there were people flagging into PvP when the situation was beneficial which is quite cowardly if you aske me.
The best MMO I have ever played was/is a sandbox that had open world PvP but it was not forced. It also had non-combat roles and they all played on the same server...one server rule set that was perfect for RP/PvP/Crafting/Buffing and PvE.
Star Wars Galaxies.
I lived for PvP in that game, and it could take place anywhere, any city, no safe zones. BUT.... It used a volunteer faction flagging system. it gave the players full control and all players interacted, PvP and PvE focused players...it was the best sandbox I have ever played.
I loved SWG..
but had people flagging into PvP when the situation was beneficial which is quite cowardly if you asked me.
But it also had the tef system so you could get flagged for PVP for attacking faction NPC's or trading/healing with someone who had a tef or was overt for PVP. If you wanted to get someone they had to do some of that stuff eventually just through normal gameplay. I became of note for my patience if I had a grudge against someone, I could wait a very long time until they became attackable if they refused to fight me.
Then there was group tef which was exploited to high heaven by people who would group covert with one over player and they could attack anyone who attacked their group mate, with them being able to do nothing about until they were attacked first. That one was the real pain in the ass and the only thing they should've changed. Of course it all was eventually changed, about a half dozen times.
But it was a great system I thought. I'd give anything for that kind of PVP again.
The best MMO I have ever played was/is a sandbox that had open world PvP but it was not forced. It also had non-combat roles and they all played on the same server...one server rule set that was perfect for RP/PvP/Crafting/Buffing and PvE.
Star Wars Galaxies.
I lived for PvP in that game, and it could take place anywhere, any city, no safe zones. BUT.... It used a volunteer faction flagging system. it gave the players full control and all players interacted, PvP and PvE focused players...it was the best sandbox I have ever played.
I loved SWG..
but there were people flagging into PvP when the situation was beneficial which is quite cowardly if you aske me.
Main reason why flagging isn't the best system.
The key is how easy it is to disable the flag. It might be beneficial at first glance to turn it on, but if that means you will walk around with it turned on for the coming time (because from immersion pov that would make sense), the benefit would disappear fast.
It also depends on the game's design ofc. In SWG's example, it would make sense that if you turn on PVP flag in a city under empire control, you would enter the most wanted list for a while for that cities stormtroopers. Turning them aggresive towards you for the time being, untill that time expires or you get killed.
I prefer this a lot more then forced pvp zones (or complete game). With forced pvp, players always go for short cuts. Griefers will go for easy marks and nothing lasting will be build (if cities/houses can be destroyed). Just look at Minecraft for this. Find an server with anarchy ruleset and try to find impressive buildings. You will mainly encounter brats that want to stomp on sandcastles there. In the case of MMO's with forced pvp, for every courageous gimped (chose tradeskills instead of combat skills) harvester that dares to venture into the forced pvp zone , you will have 10 other players ready to pounce on that easy mark.
I am fine with full loot and other harsh concequences for pvp, but only if you let the player chose to turn pvp on or not. There are always players who want to pvp, and even more so if its not forced 24/7. Forced pvp zones are not needed for this.
PvP in mmo's is pointless altogether anyway. The only instances in which mmo PvP is fun/fair/competitive in structured mini-games that are isolated from the game world.
Why even bother with a sandbox? Because it sounds much cooler than it can realistically ever be, and in our minds we want to expect the best possible scenario without taking into account the dozens of drawbacks. When the next hyped up sandbox is released, reality critically hits, time and time again, and we're back hoping for the next, perfect sandbox that will never exist.
Some people prefer to remember that DAOC was awesome. But then refuse to see that actually DAOC was a decent game of which we selectively pick the few occasions in which we had a great time ignoring the thousand upon thousands of frustrations and dull hours thrown down the drain. It's a psychological effect called rosy retrospection, you can google it. The PvP sandbox people want doesn't exist, will never exist, and has never existed.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
Didn't read the whole thread, but the answer to the title is obvious.
Because the indie developers making those games are arrogant idiots.
You'll have to wait for a sandbox game made by a big company (maybe upcoming EQNext) for a sandbox MMORPG to offer the same choice UO or SWG offered over a deceny ago.
Why? Because big companies can be arrogant idiots too, but they also think "profit" when investing millions into a game. And profit doesn't come from the FFA PvP minority, but from the vast casual PVE player majority.
Actually small companies can be profitable. Not every restaurant has to be (nor is trying to be) McDonald's. So just because the pve crowd is a bigger market, that doesn't mean that's where the profits are.
The best MMO I have ever played was/is a sandbox that had open world PvP but it was not forced. It also had non-combat roles and they all played on the same server...one server rule set that was perfect for RP/PvP/Crafting/Buffing and PvE.
Star Wars Galaxies.
I lived for PvP in that game, and it could take place anywhere, any city, no safe zones. BUT.... It used a volunteer faction flagging system. it gave the players full control and all players interacted, PvP and PvE focused players...it was the best sandbox I have ever played.
I loved SWG..
but there were people flagging into PvP when the situation was beneficial which is quite cowardly if you aske me.
Main reason why flagging isn't the best system.
The key is how easy it is to disable the flag. It might be beneficial at first glance to turn it on, but if that means you will walk around with it turned on for the coming time (because from immersion pov that would make sense), the benefit would disappear fast.
It also depends on the game's design ofc. In SWG's example, it would make sense that if you turn on PVP flag in a city under empire control, you would enter the most wanted list for a while for that cities stormtroopers. Turning them aggresive towards you for the time being, untill that time expires or you get killed.
I prefer this a lot more then forced pvp zones (or complete game). With forced pvp, players always go for short cuts. Griefers will go for easy marks and nothing lasting will be build (if cities/houses can be destroyed). Just look at Minecraft for this. Find an server with anarchy ruleset and try to find impressive buildings. You will mainly encounter brats that want to stomp on sandcastles there. In the case of MMO's with forced pvp, for every courageous gimped (chose tradeskills instead of combat skills) harvester that dares to venture into the forced pvp zone , you will have 10 other players ready to pounce on that easy mark.
I am fine with full loot and other harsh concequences for pvp, but only if you let the player chose to turn pvp on or not. There are always players who want to pvp, and even more so if its not forced 24/7. Forced pvp zones are not needed for this.
I suppose better design could remedy that problem.
From my perspective there is no such thing as a "forced pvp zone", if there is a zone with owpvp full loot and you enter it, then you just consented to owpvp full loot. However, since we are the subject of better design why not come up with better consequences for owpvp games? I'm sure if we design a better punishment system for senseless killing and destruction we would see alot less of what happened in your Minecraft example.
Oh yeah... do minimal profit that barely allows the game to survive, instead of making a game where both PvPers and PvEers would be happy and get maximum profit.
So intelligent indeed.
As I said, most indie developers are arrogant idiots. And they don't even learn from the past, like e.g. why UO had to patch in Trammel to survive.
It's SO easy to add a PvE server with optional PvP. Asheron's Call did it so much better than everyone else, and that was over 15 years ago.
As usual from you just piles of drivel with no insight whatsoever. First of all, profit margin isn't the same thing as profits. You can run a smaller game that is profitable. LARGE games can fail just as easily as small games. It is totally nonsensical to say somebody looking for profits will make a larger game. There is nothing inherently less profitable about serving a smaller demographic.
Also, it is patently false and supremely simplistic to say "UO had to patch in Trammel to survive." There were any number of possible SANDBOX solutions to any potential ganking problem in UO. The fact that you continuously try to act like Trammel was good for UO or necessary for UO is just... baffling. Even the developers of the game look back on it and say they would do things differently. But you, in a pathetic attempt to win an internet argument, will defend it tooth and nail. Ok guy.
Segmenting open pvp and flagging pvp or non-pvp servers is NOT a solution. The game is either designed to have pvp, otherwise it's tacked on.
Didn't read the whole thread, but the answer to the title is obvious.
Because the indie developers making those games are arrogant idiots.
You'll have to wait for a sandbox game made by a big company (maybe upcoming EQNext) for a sandbox MMORPG to offer the same choice UO or SWG offered over a deceny ago.
Why? Because big companies can be arrogant idiots too, but they also think "profit" when investing millions into a game. And profit doesn't come from the FFA PvP minority, but from the vast casual PVE player majority.
Actually small companies can be profitable. Not every restaurant has to be (nor is trying to be) McDonald's. So just because the pve crowd is a bigger market, that doesn't mean that's where the profits are.
Didn't read the whole thread, but the answer to the title is obvious.
Because the indie developers making those games are arrogant idiots.
You'll have to wait for a sandbox game made by a big company (maybe upcoming EQNext) for a sandbox MMORPG to offer the same choice UO or SWG offered over a deceny ago.
Why? Because big companies can be arrogant idiots too, but they also think "profit" when investing millions into a game. And profit doesn't come from the FFA PvP minority, but from the vast casual PVE player majority.
Actually small companies can be profitable. Not every restaurant has to be (nor is trying to be) McDonald's. So just because the pve crowd is a bigger market, that doesn't mean that's where the profits are.
Exactly.
People have a hard time understanding this...
what are you talking about? Pvp makes huge profits .. just look at LoL.
Didn't read the whole thread, but the answer to the title is obvious.
Because the indie developers making those games are arrogant idiots.
You'll have to wait for a sandbox game made by a big company (maybe upcoming EQNext) for a sandbox MMORPG to offer the same choice UO or SWG offered over a deceny ago.
Why? Because big companies can be arrogant idiots too, but they also think "profit" when investing millions into a game. And profit doesn't come from the FFA PvP minority, but from the vast casual PVE player majority.
Actually small companies can be profitable. Not every restaurant has to be (nor is trying to be) McDonald's. So just because the pve crowd is a bigger market, that doesn't mean that's where the profits are.
Exactly.
People have a hard time understanding this...
what are you talking about? Pvp makes huge profits .. just look at LoL.
Could you try to not poison every one of these threads with talk like this? For millionth time: Arena games are NOT mmorpgs. The fact that they're on this site does not make them mmorpgs. It makes them arena games that are featured on an mmorpg website. That's all. They are not MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER. They are just multiplayer. Stop stop stop stop stop stop stopstop stop stpostpo stpostposprtospotpsotpsotspo.
Actually small companies can be profitable. Not every restaurant has to be (nor is trying to be) McDonald's. So just because the pve crowd is a bigger market, that doesn't mean that's where the profits are.
Exactly.
People have a hard time understanding this...
what are you talking about? Pvp makes huge profits .. just look at LoL.
NVM.
What Holophonist said.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Oh yeah... do minimal profit that barely allows the game to survive, instead of making a game where both PvPers and PvEers would be happy and get maximum profit.
So intelligent indeed.
As I said, most indie developers are arrogant idiots. And they don't even learn from the past, like e.g. why UO had to patch in Trammel to survive.
It's SO easy to add a PvE server with optional PvP, and it never stopped the ability to ALSO have a FFA PvP server. Asheron's Call did it so much better than everyone else, and that was over 15 years ago. And guess what... Darktide, the FFA PvP server, once peaked at 8% of the total AC1 population... and never went higher.
By choosing FFA PvP "only", the indie company decides to ignore 90% of the market. When it would be so easy to satisfy them too in most of those indie "sandbox" MMOs. Yes, those doing that, businesswise, are idiots.
PS: some bigger companies can be full idiots too. See Archeage.
PS2: nothing like these threads to remind me why I've blocked some people and why I shouldn't click the "show post" link for them.
I prefer call it troll PK instead of FFA PvP.
I hate troll PK , those guy is hard to kill like a troll . Some case of troll PK need whole server to destroy them
And i agree with you that many idiot developers don't learn anything from the past .
Most FFA PvP MMORPG turn out having crappy PVP system that ruin other part of game instead of make the game more interest .
Comments
Well you have to consider the entities conducting the PvP and rules that apply to them. ALso the nature of the PvP competition.
There are different aspects to guild competition, there are different aspects to player competition ... you get the point. ALso you cannot replace different entities in the same PvP rule set as it won't make sense (players in context of guild PvP as an example. death of a guild is different than death of a player ...).
The problem with most people on this forum (you seem to be an exception :-)) is that they do not consider the ruleset in relation to the entity. That's a capital mistake. For them PvP is only player competition in a fight to the death. There are different forms and rulesets of PvP even within the same game.
Flagging systems are awful. That completely misses the point of open world pvp. It's NOT just about fighting when you want to fight. It's about risk. What good is risk if it 's self imposed? And further, why would I put myself at risk when other people don't have to? Why would I put myself at that disadvantage? Also, why would harvesters or crafters or pve players ever flag themselves for pvp? Again, flagging systems are just awful.
Open world pvp doesn't have to mean all out ganking. Look at UO, the majority of open world encounters were between blue players who didn't attack each other, and that's an old game that didn't even put much effort into crime deterrence.
I'm not sure what you mean by "real freedom" but games like UO, EVE, even Darkfall, offer much more freedom than your typical themepark.
It has nothing to do with consent.
The system does not become tyrannical because you disagree with rules. That is what makes one an anarchist, concepts you seem to be mistaking here.
No, somebody being offline isn't flagging themselves. You can't gain experience, gold, resources, etc while offline. If you consider the ability to not log on a flagging system, then are you saying every hardcore ffa pvp game had a flagging system?
It's an open world, there's always risk. The risk of attacking somebody weaker than you is the fact that anybody can come along and attack you back. Playing a murderer in UO was extremely risky.
The rest of this paragraph doesn't even seem to be coherent. What is this about a crafter logging out?
Are you talking about somebody logging out to avoid imminent danger? I don't think there are any pvp games that allow you to do that.
I don't even understand what your point is right now. I don't think anybody is advocating for the ability to log out in the middle of danger. And yeah attacking somebody when they're fighting mobs is ganking, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's the kind of riskiness I'm talking about. When I'm out in the world harvesting or pveing, I want it to feel dangerous. I want there to be consequences to me taking on too many mobs at once, or waiting too long to bank that gold I've farmed, or not keeping my head on a swivel to make sure nobody is sneaking up on me.
This. Where is my +Like button.
In darkfall, running to the safezone is essentially never an option. Of the thousands of fights I've been in, a small handful of them have even been close to the safezone, and if they are, then BOTH players have that option. If the higher level ganker can run to the safezone or log out, then the lower level gankee can too. Suffice it to say that logging out in the middle of danger is NOT a problem in darkfall, nor is it a problem in EVE, nor was it a problem in UO. In all of those games, it is risky to attack lower level players out in the wild. In all of those games, you never know who is going to show up and put an end to your fun. Not only that, a proper sandbox game will have mechanisms in place to deter crime. Think statloss in UO. By becoming a murderer, you're adding on that extra risk to yourself. You have more to lose because you're a red player in UO.
Thats just like in Rust, and while I dont think its a bad idea, its NOT the same as unflagging for pvp. By unflagging, you can harvest resources that you normally would get killed for or at least have to fight for. This just destroys any sort of sandbox economy because that resource loses its value.
Also, I dont know where this misconception that pvp players ONLY gank. Thats not true, we have to grind mobs for our gear as well, might get by sometimes with looted stuff, but this is not always the case. We just dont cry if we get ganked, and probably end up calling other guildmates and having an awesome group fight.
The best MMO I have ever played was/is a sandbox that had open world PvP but it was not forced. It also had non-combat roles and they all played on the same server...one server rule set that was perfect for RP/PvP/Crafting/Buffing and PvE.
Star Wars Galaxies.
I lived for PvP in that game, and it could take place anywhere, any city, no safe zones. BUT.... It used a volunteer faction flagging system. it gave the players full control and all players interacted, PvP and PvE focused players...it was the best sandbox I have ever played.
I loved SWG..
but there were people flagging into PvP when the situation was beneficial which is quite cowardly if you aske me.
Main reason why flagging isn't the best system.
But it also had the tef system so you could get flagged for PVP for attacking faction NPC's or trading/healing with someone who had a tef or was overt for PVP. If you wanted to get someone they had to do some of that stuff eventually just through normal gameplay. I became of note for my patience if I had a grudge against someone, I could wait a very long time until they became attackable if they refused to fight me.
Then there was group tef which was exploited to high heaven by people who would group covert with one over player and they could attack anyone who attacked their group mate, with them being able to do nothing about until they were attacked first. That one was the real pain in the ass and the only thing they should've changed. Of course it all was eventually changed, about a half dozen times.
But it was a great system I thought. I'd give anything for that kind of PVP again.
The key is how easy it is to disable the flag. It might be beneficial at first glance to turn it on, but if that means you will walk around with it turned on for the coming time (because from immersion pov that would make sense), the benefit would disappear fast.
It also depends on the game's design ofc. In SWG's example, it would make sense that if you turn on PVP flag in a city under empire control, you would enter the most wanted list for a while for that cities stormtroopers. Turning them aggresive towards you for the time being, untill that time expires or you get killed.
I prefer this a lot more then forced pvp zones (or complete game). With forced pvp, players always go for short cuts. Griefers will go for easy marks and nothing lasting will be build (if cities/houses can be destroyed). Just look at Minecraft for this. Find an server with anarchy ruleset and try to find impressive buildings. You will mainly encounter brats that want to stomp on sandcastles there. In the case of MMO's with forced pvp, for every courageous gimped (chose tradeskills instead of combat skills) harvester that dares to venture into the forced pvp zone , you will have 10 other players ready to pounce on that easy mark.
I am fine with full loot and other harsh concequences for pvp, but only if you let the player chose to turn pvp on or not. There are always players who want to pvp, and even more so if its not forced 24/7. Forced pvp zones are not needed for this.
PvP in mmo's is pointless altogether anyway. The only instances in which mmo PvP is fun/fair/competitive in structured mini-games that are isolated from the game world.
Why even bother with a sandbox? Because it sounds much cooler than it can realistically ever be, and in our minds we want to expect the best possible scenario without taking into account the dozens of drawbacks. When the next hyped up sandbox is released, reality critically hits, time and time again, and we're back hoping for the next, perfect sandbox that will never exist.
Some people prefer to remember that DAOC was awesome. But then refuse to see that actually DAOC was a decent game of which we selectively pick the few occasions in which we had a great time ignoring the thousand upon thousands of frustrations and dull hours thrown down the drain. It's a psychological effect called rosy retrospection, you can google it. The PvP sandbox people want doesn't exist, will never exist, and has never existed.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
Actually small companies can be profitable. Not every restaurant has to be (nor is trying to be) McDonald's. So just because the pve crowd is a bigger market, that doesn't mean that's where the profits are.
I suppose better design could remedy that problem.
From my perspective there is no such thing as a "forced pvp zone", if there is a zone with owpvp full loot and you enter it, then you just consented to owpvp full loot. However, since we are the subject of better design why not come up with better consequences for owpvp games? I'm sure if we design a better punishment system for senseless killing and destruction we would see alot less of what happened in your Minecraft example.
As usual from you just piles of drivel with no insight whatsoever. First of all, profit margin isn't the same thing as profits. You can run a smaller game that is profitable. LARGE games can fail just as easily as small games. It is totally nonsensical to say somebody looking for profits will make a larger game. There is nothing inherently less profitable about serving a smaller demographic.
Also, it is patently false and supremely simplistic to say "UO had to patch in Trammel to survive." There were any number of possible SANDBOX solutions to any potential ganking problem in UO. The fact that you continuously try to act like Trammel was good for UO or necessary for UO is just... baffling. Even the developers of the game look back on it and say they would do things differently. But you, in a pathetic attempt to win an internet argument, will defend it tooth and nail. Ok guy.
Segmenting open pvp and flagging pvp or non-pvp servers is NOT a solution. The game is either designed to have pvp, otherwise it's tacked on.
Exactly.
People have a hard time understanding this...
what are you talking about? Pvp makes huge profits .. just look at LoL.
Could you try to not poison every one of these threads with talk like this? For millionth time: Arena games are NOT mmorpgs. The fact that they're on this site does not make them mmorpgs. It makes them arena games that are featured on an mmorpg website. That's all. They are not MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER. They are just multiplayer. Stop stop stop stop stop stop stopstop stop stpostpo stpostposprtospotpsotpsotspo.
NVM.
What Holophonist said.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I prefer call it troll PK instead of FFA PvP.
I hate troll PK , those guy is hard to kill like a troll . Some case of troll PK need whole server to destroy them
And i agree with you that many idiot developers don't learn anything from the past .
Most FFA PvP MMORPG turn out having crappy PVP system that ruin other part of game instead of make the game more interest .