This thread makes me actually wonder if several people even have a real job.
I mean... what if tomorrow, your boss came in and said:
"From now on, we don't give a shit about the majority of our customer's opinions. We will make things our way. But be aware this will mean we will only please approximatively 10% of the potential customer base, and therefore your income will be reduced to 10% of your actual one".
Of course, if you are still in mom's basement paying stuff with her credit card, you don't give a shit.
But otherwise, you may understand why there is not a single successfull 100% FFA PvP sandbox MMORPG on the market, and why all those games which managed to survive had to make concessions to be attractive to more than just the PvP crowd. Notably UO, AC1, SWG and EvE since we talk about sandboxish games, but all the others too.
First of all, you're (probably deliberately) shoe-horning in the term "FFA" pvp. I don't think many people support full on, literally no restrictions pvp. You do this in every discussion it seems, and it's disingenuous if not outright dishonest. EVE is a game that basically every "pro-pvp" person would support, yet technically it doesn't fit into your strict definition of "FFA" pvp because of how security works in the game. So basically you set up a strawman that essentially nobody supports, and then argue against that. WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH?
Also, your boss analogy is ridiculous. What the fuck do you mean by "the potential customer base"? Do you think there's any company in the world that literally goes after 100% of people? Every company focuses on a certain group of people. It's funny how you condescend to people, while you clearly lack a clue about how the real world works.
I'll say it again, because you seem to have trouble understanding this very simple concept: making a smaller game is NOT any less profitable than making a larger game. That's a fact. What makes you successful is how well you make your game.
It's nice to see some people are grounded enough to directly correlate how employable someone is with how much they enjoy beating people up on a video game. I mean that's what any logical well adjusted person with a job would do, obviously.
This thread was at its core nothing more then a opinion which bashed other people's opinions. It got some responses__my own included__but at this point it is nothing but people talking past each other.
Is it wrong for developers to make a game they want to play?
Do the developers of Crowfall, Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen, Black Desert, Camelot Unchained, and all the other upcoming sandbox games not have the right to make what they want to play, and target the audience they want to target? And if you are not apart of that target audience why the ireful concern?
Because devs can't come up with a way to make PvE mobs dynamic and dangerous. That's my best guess. Probably the best open world danger PvE game is EQ. They achieved that through mobs that summon and they hit like a truck. I would love to play an open world danger PvE game sanboxy game if the devs had the guts to make one.
Or the devs are too scared to make things challenging in the open world. Either they can't or they think that money talks and people have said they want less risk vs reward PvE danger.
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.
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
The way to make a "full freedom" sandbox more like real life is to make the gear hard to acquire, be limited on upkeep/repair, and have permadeath where nothing comes with your character, except maybe a surname. Most MMOs would never to that though because in the end it's still a game. Which is good IMO.
This thread was at its core nothing more then a opinion which bashed other people's opinions. It got some responses__my own included__but at this point it is nothing but people talking past each other.
Is it wrong for developers to make a game they want to play?
Do the developers of Crowfall, Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen, Black Desert, Camelot Unchained, and all the other upcoming sandbox games not have the right to make what they want to play, and target the audience they want to target? And if you are not apart of that target audience why the ireful concern?
There is no "ireful" concern. But when those games fail because the developers had their heads stuck way too deeply into their own asses and the PvP minority ones, no one should be surprised.
Neither Elite Dangerous nor Camelot Unchained fall into that category for now anway, since neither are FFA PvP. So bad list. I'm playing Elite Dangerous right now.
Tell me how there is no 'ireful concern' yet you continue with a ad hominem attacks on the developers? Or the OP who had shown a emotional response to 'gankers.' The criminal/psychopath/asshat comments etc. The circular reasoning responses that make absolute statements akin to "Open world pvp cannot succeed in the marketplace."
Emotional ad hominem responses are a sign of what I am talking about. The anti-open world pvp crowd from my view over the years just flat out is angry and emotional about the chance they would have their own gaming experience impacted by another player when they do not choose it to happen.
Meanwhile the pvp open world crowd actually crave the chance at dying to open world pvp attacks. They relish the thought that when travel or do something in the game there is a threat.
And finally open world pvp people have a general understanding that the gameworld is not real life but instead reflects the said philosophy of the game itself. That philosophy is often brutal, it is competitive, and it is play to crush!
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
The way to make a "full freedom" sandbox more like real life is to make the gear hard to acquire, be limited on upkeep/repair, and have permadeath where nothing comes with your character, except maybe a surname. Most MMOs would never to that though because in the end it's still a game. Which is good IMO.
Making a game more realistic, less "on-rails", more organic does indeed make it more mature. I'm not telling anybody they're not allowed to like themepark games, but let's not kid ourselves. Themepark games are going to cater more to the casual person, and the casual person is less likely to be as engrossed or as invested in their game. It's TOTALLY FINE for people to want a more casual experience, but that's exactly what it is.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what part of my post you disagree with. I'm telling you what I want in a game and why I want it. I want more consequences to DETER bad behavior, rather than hard restrictions simply to stop that kind of behavior. Why do I want that? Because that will make the game more immersive, give players more freedom, add risk/reward to the game, etc. What part of this do you disagree with?
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
Agreed.
Fact is, it's totally IMPOSSIBLE (yeah, using caps here) to make consequences for being a criminal/psychopath/asshat in a game be similar to what they are in real life.
Nor should they be similar to the consequences that real life criminals because the crimes they're committing aren't aren't as severe as real life crimes. Yes, you don't get jailed for life in a game for murdering somebody. Why? Because the guy you killed just respawned anyway. I've said this to you specifically many times and yet you always ignore it. Why do you continue to use this asinine reasoning?
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
Agreed.
Fact is, it's totally IMPOSSIBLE (yeah, using caps here) to make consequences for being a criminal/psychopath/asshat in a game be similar to what they are in real life.
Nor should they be similar to the consequences that real life criminals because the crimes they're committing aren't aren't as severe as real life crimes. Yes, you don't get jailed for life in a game for murdering somebody. Why? Because the guy you killed just respawned anyway. I've said this to you specifically many times and yet you always ignore it. Why do you continue to use this asinine reasoning?
what crime? There is no crime in using entertainment products in certain ways ... if a dev allows it.
Just make something (like PKing) impossible in a game if that is not desired. This crime & punishment thinking is totally unnecessary in games.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
Agreed.
Fact is, it's totally IMPOSSIBLE (yeah, using caps here) to make consequences for being a criminal/psychopath/asshat in a game be similar to what they are in real life.
Nor should they be similar to the consequences that real life criminals because the crimes they're committing aren't aren't as severe as real life crimes. Yes, you don't get jailed for life in a game for murdering somebody. Why? Because the guy you killed just respawned anyway. I've said this to you specifically many times and yet you always ignore it. Why do you continue to use this asinine reasoning?
what crime? There is no crime in using entertainment products in certain ways ... if a dev allows it.
Just make something (like PKing) impossible in a game if that is not desired. This crime & punishment thinking is totally unnecessary in games.
Many people enjoy organic solutions, rather than artificial restrictions. I want a game that has consequences to actions. What do you mean that's "unnecessary"?
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
Agreed.
Fact is, it's totally IMPOSSIBLE (yeah, using caps here) to make consequences for being a criminal/psychopath/asshat in a game be similar to what they are in real life.
Nor should they be similar to the consequences that real life criminals because the crimes they're committing aren't aren't as severe as real life crimes. Yes, you don't get jailed for life in a game for murdering somebody. Why? Because the guy you killed just respawned anyway. I've said this to you specifically many times and yet you always ignore it. Why do you continue to use this asinine reasoning?
what crime? There is no crime in using entertainment products in certain ways ... if a dev allows it.
Just make something (like PKing) impossible in a game if that is not desired. This crime & punishment thinking is totally unnecessary in games.
Many people enjoy organic solutions, rather than artificial restrictions. I want a game that has consequences to actions. What do you mean that's "unnecessary"?
I agree. Killing for the sake of with no risk or reward is pretty blah to me. Age of Wushu is best at this risk reward system. There is nothing saying you can't kill that dude, but it better be for a good reason. If not that person may bounty you. Player made customs came to play. When a person broke those customs then was killed for it 9 times out of 10 no bounty was placed.
what crime? There is no crime in using entertainment products in certain ways ... if a dev allows it.
Just make something (like PKing) impossible in a game if that is not desired. This crime & punishment thinking is totally unnecessary in games.
Many people enjoy organic solutions, rather than artificial restrictions. I want a game that has consequences to actions. What do you mean that's "unnecessary"?
Yeah, he's throwing that word around quite a bit. I'm not sure if he is aware of how rudely dismissive and arrogant he is coming across.
"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
what crime? There is no crime in using entertainment products in certain ways ... if a dev allows it.
Just make something (like PKing) impossible in a game if that is not desired. This crime & punishment thinking is totally unnecessary in games.
Many people enjoy organic solutions, rather than artificial restrictions. I want a game that has consequences to actions. What do you mean that's "unnecessary"?
Not those who don't want consensual pvp .. and that seems to be a lot of those.
There is consequences to actions .. just not pvp. No one says you have to include all kind of possible actions in a single game.
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
The way to make a "full freedom" sandbox more like real life is to make the gear hard to acquire, be limited on upkeep/repair, and have permadeath where nothing comes with your character, except maybe a surname. Most MMOs would never to that though because in the end it's still a game. Which is good IMO.
Making a game more realistic, less "on-rails", more organic does indeed make it more mature. I'm not telling anybody they're not allowed to like themepark games, but let's not kid ourselves. Themepark games are going to cater more to the casual person, and the casual person is less likely to be as engrossed or as invested in their game. It's TOTALLY FINE for people to want a more casual experience, but that's exactly what it is.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what part of my post you disagree with. I'm telling you what I want in a game and why I want it. I want more consequences to DETER bad behavior, rather than hard restrictions simply to stop that kind of behavior. Why do I want that? Because that will make the game more immersive, give players more freedom, add risk/reward to the game, etc. What part of this do you disagree with?
The assertion that the kind of ruleset you want is more mature or old school and that it in any way is like real life. The only reason I would take the time to respond is because it implies that the opposite would be less mature and less real life. If people want to have a preference that's fine, I get that we all want to think we want the "right way", but in this instance they are simply two separate preferences. Allowing freedom does not guarantee the results, which is where the "maturity" would be measured.
Then again you may be applying maturity in another way. I'm talking about the players and how their overall maturity would be reflected in the community, with the tools they are given. Whether you're talking about the most casual themepark MMO or the most "hardcore" MMO you'll get all types in both. You could end up with a more mature player base but no more likely than in a casual MMO. It's understandable that people would think casual MMOs, due to their linear or easier design, would be inhabited by those less mature but I see no evidence to that other than speculation.
Edit: Personally speaking, I want an open world with as many activities as possible as long as they are chosen. I would love to have many open PvP areas in a huge, open world MMO but not everywhere. It's not the system I disagree with, but the 5% of players that give open PvP a bad name. I have yet to see any reason why there can't be areas for both, and room for both, as long as the reward systems are well done for both.
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
The way to make a "full freedom" sandbox more like real life is to make the gear hard to acquire, be limited on upkeep/repair, and have permadeath where nothing comes with your character, except maybe a surname. Most MMOs would never to that though because in the end it's still a game. Which is good IMO.
Making a game more realistic, less "on-rails", more organic does indeed make it more mature. I'm not telling anybody they're not allowed to like themepark games, but let's not kid ourselves. Themepark games are going to cater more to the casual person, and the casual person is less likely to be as engrossed or as invested in their game. It's TOTALLY FINE for people to want a more casual experience, but that's exactly what it is.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what part of my post you disagree with. I'm telling you what I want in a game and why I want it. I want more consequences to DETER bad behavior, rather than hard restrictions simply to stop that kind of behavior. Why do I want that? Because that will make the game more immersive, give players more freedom, add risk/reward to the game, etc. What part of this do you disagree with?
The assertion that the kind of ruleset you want is more mature or old school and that it in any way is like real life. The only reason I would take the time to respond is because it implies that the opposite would be less mature and less real life. If people want to have a preference that's fine, I get that we all want to think we want the "right way", but in this instance they are simply two separate preferences. Allowing freedom does not guarantee the results, which is where the "maturity" would be measured.
Then again you may be applying maturity in another way. I'm talking about the players and how their overall maturity would be reflected in the community, with the tools they are given. Whether you're talking about the most casual themepark MMO or the most "hardcore" MMO you'll get all types in both. You could end up with a more mature player base but no more likely than in a casual MMO. It's understandable that people would think casual MMOs, due to their linear or easier design, would be inhabited by those less mature but I see no evidence to that other than speculation.
Well if you're judging the maturity of the game simply by the actions of its playerbase, I don't think that's accurate. In an open world pvp game there is the possibility of griefing, whereas in a typical themepark there is not. That doesn't mean the playerbase in the themepark is more mature, it just means they're not physically capable of showing how immature they are. I don't think it's fair to say a game is more mature simply because you, for instance, put a curse word filter on the client.
The reason I say sandbox games are the more mature game type is because in general they require more thought, more patience, more creativity, etc. You have to make your own way, rather than having your hand held through a pre-determined path. This seems to me to be a no-brainer.
As for why they're more like real life... is that even a question? Whether you're talking about sandbox games or open world pvp (with consequences) they're simply more like real life. Before I go into any of the obvious details, are you actually disagreeing that sandbox games are more like real life than themeparks?
Edit: Personally speaking, I want an open world with as many activities as possible as long as they are chosen. I would love to have many open PvP areas in a huge, open world MMO but not everywhere. It's not the system I disagree with, but the 5% of players that give open PvP a bad name. I have yet to see any reason why there can't be areas for both, and room for both, as long as the reward systems are well done for both.
Well you'd have to be more specific if you want me to give you an actual answer. In general, the reason is the pvp areas will be less populated if given a choice between harvesting/pveing in peace or doing so in the risky pvp area. If you make it so the non-pvp areas are somehow less profitable, then that's theoretically fine and that setup exists in most sandbox games.
what crime? There is no crime in using entertainment products in certain ways ... if a dev allows it.
Just make something (like PKing) impossible in a game if that is not desired. This crime & punishment thinking is totally unnecessary in games.
Many people enjoy organic solutions, rather than artificial restrictions. I want a game that has consequences to actions. What do you mean that's "unnecessary"?
Not those who don't want consensual pvp .. and that seems to be a lot of those.
There is consequences to actions .. just not pvp. No one says you have to include all kind of possible actions in a single game.
You're changing the subject. Why would you say something is "unnecesarry" when there are people who want those things?
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
The way to make a "full freedom" sandbox more like real life is to make the gear hard to acquire, be limited on upkeep/repair, and have permadeath where nothing comes with your character, except maybe a surname. Most MMOs would never to that though because in the end it's still a game. Which is good IMO.
Making a game more realistic, less "on-rails", more organic does indeed make it more mature. I'm not telling anybody they're not allowed to like themepark games, but let's not kid ourselves. Themepark games are going to cater more to the casual person, and the casual person is less likely to be as engrossed or as invested in their game. It's TOTALLY FINE for people to want a more casual experience, but that's exactly what it is.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what part of my post you disagree with. I'm telling you what I want in a game and why I want it. I want more consequences to DETER bad behavior, rather than hard restrictions simply to stop that kind of behavior. Why do I want that? Because that will make the game more immersive, give players more freedom, add risk/reward to the game, etc. What part of this do you disagree with?
The assertion that the kind of ruleset you want is more mature or old school and that it in any way is like real life. The only reason I would take the time to respond is because it implies that the opposite would be less mature and less real life. If people want to have a preference that's fine, I get that we all want to think we want the "right way", but in this instance they are simply two separate preferences. Allowing freedom does not guarantee the results, which is where the "maturity" would be measured.
Then again you may be applying maturity in another way. I'm talking about the players and how their overall maturity would be reflected in the community, with the tools they are given. Whether you're talking about the most casual themepark MMO or the most "hardcore" MMO you'll get all types in both. You could end up with a more mature player base but no more likely than in a casual MMO. It's understandable that people would think casual MMOs, due to their linear or easier design, would be inhabited by those less mature but I see no evidence to that other than speculation.
Well if you're judging the maturity of the game simply by the actions of its playerbase, I don't think that's accurate. In an open world pvp game there is the possibility of griefing, whereas in a typical themepark there is not. That doesn't mean the playerbase in the themepark is more mature, it just means they're not physically capable of showing how immature they are. I don't think it's fair to say a game is more mature simply because you, for instance, put a curse word filter on the client.
The reason I say sandbox games are the more mature game type is because in general they require more thought, more patience, more creativity, etc. You have to make your own way, rather than having your hand held through a pre-determined path. This seems to me to be a no-brainer.
As for why they're more like real life... is that even a question? Whether you're talking about sandbox games or open world pvp (with consequences) they're simply more like real life. Before I go into any of the obvious details, are you actually disagreeing that sandbox games are more like real life than themeparks?
Edit: Personally speaking, I want an open world with as many activities as possible as long as they are chosen. I would love to have many open PvP areas in a huge, open world MMO but not everywhere. It's not the system I disagree with, but the 5% of players that give open PvP a bad name. I have yet to see any reason why there can't be areas for both, and room for both, as long as the reward systems are well done for both.
Well you'd have to be more specific if you want me to give you an actual answer. In general, the reason is the pvp areas will be less populated if given a choice between harvesting/pveing in peace or doing so in the risky pvp area. If you make it so the non-pvp areas are somehow less profitable, then that's theoretically fine and that setup exists in most sandbox games.
More mature game type I would agree with and for the reasons you stated. Depending on the degree of freedom however the more mature features are, the greater chance there is for an immature setting. That's why I would opt not for a sandbox FFA PvP setting, especially with full loot. Not because that ruleset is inherently immature, but the doors are open to that kind of behavior. I was correct in my thought that we were looking from two different perspectives.
I agree that in an open world where OWPvP and restricted PvP shared they same overall space some concessions would be made. Resource difference? Maybe a slight one but if the itemization relies heavily on crafting using those resources the power would shift heavily towards those who PvP should people who usually don't enter. What should that gap be? This question would be dependent on what kind of "power" is gleaned from items and to what extent. It would take a whole other thread to flesh this out as you can see.
My point is that I would like to see a real fusion of the two styles because I think it would benefit both. Open PvP is really exciting and engaging in an open world but not all the time. PvE is the same way, good in bursts but sometimes you want to mix it up. If both could be housed in the same overall environment I think the cross-play would be pretty big, to the benefit of all.
As someone mentioned, Landmark, if they release open PvP islands, would be a title like that once the dungeoneering tools are in and they give more variety to the world PvE layout. You can already set up PvP on plots but that is more like a MOBA ruleset.
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
The way to make a "full freedom" sandbox more like real life is to make the gear hard to acquire, be limited on upkeep/repair, and have permadeath where nothing comes with your character, except maybe a surname. Most MMOs would never to that though because in the end it's still a game. Which is good IMO.
Making a game more realistic, less "on-rails", more organic does indeed make it more mature. I'm not telling anybody they're not allowed to like themepark games, but let's not kid ourselves. Themepark games are going to cater more to the casual person, and the casual person is less likely to be as engrossed or as invested in their game. It's TOTALLY FINE for people to want a more casual experience, but that's exactly what it is.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what part of my post you disagree with. I'm telling you what I want in a game and why I want it. I want more consequences to DETER bad behavior, rather than hard restrictions simply to stop that kind of behavior. Why do I want that? Because that will make the game more immersive, give players more freedom, add risk/reward to the game, etc. What part of this do you disagree with?
The assertion that the kind of ruleset you want is more mature or old school and that it in any way is like real life. The only reason I would take the time to respond is because it implies that the opposite would be less mature and less real life. If people want to have a preference that's fine, I get that we all want to think we want the "right way", but in this instance they are simply two separate preferences. Allowing freedom does not guarantee the results, which is where the "maturity" would be measured.
Then again you may be applying maturity in another way. I'm talking about the players and how their overall maturity would be reflected in the community, with the tools they are given. Whether you're talking about the most casual themepark MMO or the most "hardcore" MMO you'll get all types in both. You could end up with a more mature player base but no more likely than in a casual MMO. It's understandable that people would think casual MMOs, due to their linear or easier design, would be inhabited by those less mature but I see no evidence to that other than speculation.
Well if you're judging the maturity of the game simply by the actions of its playerbase, I don't think that's accurate. In an open world pvp game there is the possibility of griefing, whereas in a typical themepark there is not. That doesn't mean the playerbase in the themepark is more mature, it just means they're not physically capable of showing how immature they are. I don't think it's fair to say a game is more mature simply because you, for instance, put a curse word filter on the client.
The reason I say sandbox games are the more mature game type is because in general they require more thought, more patience, more creativity, etc. You have to make your own way, rather than having your hand held through a pre-determined path. This seems to me to be a no-brainer.
As for why they're more like real life... is that even a question? Whether you're talking about sandbox games or open world pvp (with consequences) they're simply more like real life. Before I go into any of the obvious details, are you actually disagreeing that sandbox games are more like real life than themeparks?
Edit: Personally speaking, I want an open world with as many activities as possible as long as they are chosen. I would love to have many open PvP areas in a huge, open world MMO but not everywhere. It's not the system I disagree with, but the 5% of players that give open PvP a bad name. I have yet to see any reason why there can't be areas for both, and room for both, as long as the reward systems are well done for both.
Well you'd have to be more specific if you want me to give you an actual answer. In general, the reason is the pvp areas will be less populated if given a choice between harvesting/pveing in peace or doing so in the risky pvp area. If you make it so the non-pvp areas are somehow less profitable, then that's theoretically fine and that setup exists in most sandbox games.
More mature game type I would agree with and for the reasons you stated. Depending on the degree of freedom however the more mature features are, the greater chance there is for an immature setting. That's why I would opt not for a sandbox FFA PvP setting, especially with full loot. Not because that ruleset is inherently immature, but the doors are open to that kind of behavior. I was correct in my thought that we were looking from two different perspectives.
I agree that in an open world where OWPvP and restricted PvP shared they same overall space some concessions would be made. Resource difference? Maybe a slight one but if the itemization relies heavily on crafting using those resources the power would shift heavily towards those who PvP should people who usually don't enter. What should that gap be? This question would be dependent on what kind of "power" is gleaned from items and to what extent. It would take a whole other thread to flesh this out as you can see.
My point is that I would like to see a real fusion of the two styles because I think it would benefit both. Open PvP is really exciting and engaging in an open world but not all the time. PvE is the same way, good in bursts but sometimes you want to mix it up. If both could be housed in the same overall environment I think the cross-play would be pretty big, to the benefit of all.
As someone mentioned, Landmark, if they release open PvP islands, would be a title like that once the dungeoneering tools are in and they give more variety to the world PvE layout. You can already set up PvP on plots but that is more like a MOBA ruleset.
The thing is, the fusion between pve and pvp you're talking about IS a sandbox game with ow pvp. It's not like sandbox games are "pvp" and themepark games are "pve." But if you're going to have varying levels of safety (safe zones or the like) then you have to make the unsafe zones more profitable, otherwise there will be no point to use them. An ow pvp sandbox game with a player run economy just wouldn't work if people can harvest and craft and farm mobs in peace.
It's not about the pvp players in the pvp zone and the harvesters and crafters in the non-pvp zone. Gankers and sheep alike would be in the pvp zone because that's where the good resources would be.
Originally posted by Sojhin In reply to..."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?"I am only arguing that the only reason we have any laws to speak of is that at some point people consented to such laws. The whole John Locke etc consent. Laws can lessen crime only to the extent that people consent to them. In that vein I apply labor to another person's work and it has value.
In America, laws are passed by representatives that we elect. We really do not have any "individual say" in the passing of laws. We may have local "Propositions" that we often vote on, but nationally, no. Well, we can choose to move to another area or country with laws we agree with (consent) more
Bringing this back to gaming, by joining an MMO, you give consent to their "laws", or rules. Otherwise, do not play. This goes for everyone, such as PvE players "consenting" to whatever PvP rules any single MMO incorporates, or single player experience game seekers signing up for an MMO
- 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 MisterZebub Yes it is. Your problem is you just want sanitized PVP were you don't actually risk anything. Not all MMO players find that game play exciting. These new games are all coming from smaller independent companies, headed by veterans of the MMO genre who want to make a return to the types of games they started with. They are aiming their games at a target audience that doesn't include you. If that baffles or disturbs you this is your own tough luck as there is no shortage of sanitized, hand holding, zero risk vs reward games out there for you to play. However you can count the high risk PVP type games on the fingers of one hand. So don't like this style of game? Fair enough, go play one of the tons of boring Wow copy cats out there and have a good time. Me? I'll happily play one of these new games where it will actually feel like a challenge rather than just one never ending pat on the back.
Want to talk about risk in PvE? EQ, way back when had risk. I had a human ranger character that fell down the "tree trap" in Blackburrow. I died. I lost that character and the magical helm someone nice had given him because I could not retrieve my dead body and loot. Not one punch/swing/spell thrown between players and I lost my character. PvP is NOT needed for "risk."
- 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 borghive49 I never understood why people are so opposed to having PVP in an MMO. Why play an MMO at all if your main goal is to play it like a single player rpg? Most mmos have terrible lore and the story is usually poorly conveyed through out the game. There are so many amazing offline or co-op rpgs out there that are totally better at story telling than even the best MMOs. So really if your main style of game play is a more PVE type player you have much better options out there than playing a PVP focused MMO, or you could always go play WoW which is pretty much like a single player rpg. Stop complaining about the new games that are being designed to try to break away from all these terribly boring WoW clones that have invaded the MMO gaming scene.
I enjoy playing with other players, not against them. Why is that so hard to understand?
I find it hard to understand why so many players see "multiplayer" (massively or any other kind) and think fighting each other is the ONLY activity. That is just not how I am geared.
- 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 Myria Originally posted by DocBrodywhy, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
- 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
Comments
First of all, you're (probably deliberately) shoe-horning in the term "FFA" pvp. I don't think many people support full on, literally no restrictions pvp. You do this in every discussion it seems, and it's disingenuous if not outright dishonest. EVE is a game that basically every "pro-pvp" person would support, yet technically it doesn't fit into your strict definition of "FFA" pvp because of how security works in the game. So basically you set up a strawman that essentially nobody supports, and then argue against that. WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH?
Also, your boss analogy is ridiculous. What the fuck do you mean by "the potential customer base"? Do you think there's any company in the world that literally goes after 100% of people? Every company focuses on a certain group of people. It's funny how you condescend to people, while you clearly lack a clue about how the real world works.
I'll say it again, because you seem to have trouble understanding this very simple concept: making a smaller game is NOT any less profitable than making a larger game. That's a fact. What makes you successful is how well you make your game.
It's nice to see some people are grounded enough to directly correlate how employable someone is with how much they enjoy beating people up on a video game. I mean that's what any logical well adjusted person with a job would do, obviously.
This thread was at its core nothing more then a opinion which bashed other people's opinions. It got some responses__my own included__but at this point it is nothing but people talking past each other.
Is it wrong for developers to make a game they want to play?
Do the developers of Crowfall, Elite Dangerous, Star Citizen, Black Desert, Camelot Unchained, and all the other upcoming sandbox games not have the right to make what they want to play, and target the audience they want to target? And if you are not apart of that target audience why the ireful concern?
Because devs can't come up with a way to make PvE mobs dynamic and dangerous. That's my best guess. Probably the best open world danger PvE game is EQ. They achieved that through mobs that summon and they hit like a truck. I would love to play an open world danger PvE game sanboxy game if the devs had the guts to make one.
Or the devs are too scared to make things challenging in the open world. Either they can't or they think that money talks and people have said they want less risk vs reward PvE danger.
Speaking for myself (a huge sandbox, ow pvp proponent) I can tell you that what I would like to see are more consequences, and fewer restrictions. Most of us pro-oldschool crowd are totally down for things like penalties to criminals, bounty systems, etc. Those are consequences and add to the excitement of the game. What I don't want are artificial restrictions, ie "you physically can't attack t his person" or "yeah you just killed that harvester, but you can't take his resources." I want total freedom, with interesting organic consequences. You know... like real life.
But games aren't real life, so people don't act or behave the same. I respect that you like what you like, and fully advocate that MMOs be made to cover all interests, but I think the OW PvP FFA sandboxes are simply another ruleset. They aren't more "oldschool" or mature they just cover interests for another subset of players. You can make pure PvE MMOs with the same amount of challenge and consequences.
The way to make a "full freedom" sandbox more like real life is to make the gear hard to acquire, be limited on upkeep/repair, and have permadeath where nothing comes with your character, except maybe a surname. Most MMOs would never to that though because in the end it's still a game. Which is good IMO.
Tell me how there is no 'ireful concern' yet you continue with a ad hominem attacks on the developers? Or the OP who had shown a emotional response to 'gankers.' The criminal/psychopath/asshat comments etc. The circular reasoning responses that make absolute statements akin to "Open world pvp cannot succeed in the marketplace."
Emotional ad hominem responses are a sign of what I am talking about. The anti-open world pvp crowd from my view over the years just flat out is angry and emotional about the chance they would have their own gaming experience impacted by another player when they do not choose it to happen.
Meanwhile the pvp open world crowd actually crave the chance at dying to open world pvp attacks. They relish the thought that when travel or do something in the game there is a threat.
And finally open world pvp people have a general understanding that the gameworld is not real life but instead reflects the said philosophy of the game itself. That philosophy is often brutal, it is competitive, and it is play to crush!
I said above people are talking past each other. Here is a example of that.
Is criminal/psychopath/asshat descriptions of open world pvp ad hominem?
Is making absolute statements 'open world pvp cannot succeed' rational?
Rational conversation tends to not support ad hominem or circular reasoning.
As to why past open world pvp games failed alot of the time it was because of bugs, exploits, and not having a design for inflation in items or gold.
Making a game more realistic, less "on-rails", more organic does indeed make it more mature. I'm not telling anybody they're not allowed to like themepark games, but let's not kid ourselves. Themepark games are going to cater more to the casual person, and the casual person is less likely to be as engrossed or as invested in their game. It's TOTALLY FINE for people to want a more casual experience, but that's exactly what it is.
To be honest, I'm not even sure what part of my post you disagree with. I'm telling you what I want in a game and why I want it. I want more consequences to DETER bad behavior, rather than hard restrictions simply to stop that kind of behavior. Why do I want that? Because that will make the game more immersive, give players more freedom, add risk/reward to the game, etc. What part of this do you disagree with?
Nor should they be similar to the consequences that real life criminals because the crimes they're committing aren't aren't as severe as real life crimes. Yes, you don't get jailed for life in a game for murdering somebody. Why? Because the guy you killed just respawned anyway. I've said this to you specifically many times and yet you always ignore it. Why do you continue to use this asinine reasoning?
what crime? There is no crime in using entertainment products in certain ways ... if a dev allows it.
Just make something (like PKing) impossible in a game if that is not desired. This crime & punishment thinking is totally unnecessary in games.
Many people enjoy organic solutions, rather than artificial restrictions. I want a game that has consequences to actions. What do you mean that's "unnecessary"?
Landmark is a pve sandbox with 100% consensual pvp.
How come you guys aren't playing that? How come no one is...
I agree. Killing for the sake of with no risk or reward is pretty blah to me. Age of Wushu is best at this risk reward system. There is nothing saying you can't kill that dude, but it better be for a good reason. If not that person may bounty you. Player made customs came to play. When a person broke those customs then was killed for it 9 times out of 10 no bounty was placed.
Yeah, he's throwing that word around quite a bit. I'm not sure if he is aware of how rudely dismissive and arrogant he is coming across.
"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
Not those who don't want consensual pvp .. and that seems to be a lot of those.
There is consequences to actions .. just not pvp. No one says you have to include all kind of possible actions in a single game.
The assertion that the kind of ruleset you want is more mature or old school and that it in any way is like real life. The only reason I would take the time to respond is because it implies that the opposite would be less mature and less real life. If people want to have a preference that's fine, I get that we all want to think we want the "right way", but in this instance they are simply two separate preferences. Allowing freedom does not guarantee the results, which is where the "maturity" would be measured.
Then again you may be applying maturity in another way. I'm talking about the players and how their overall maturity would be reflected in the community, with the tools they are given. Whether you're talking about the most casual themepark MMO or the most "hardcore" MMO you'll get all types in both. You could end up with a more mature player base but no more likely than in a casual MMO. It's understandable that people would think casual MMOs, due to their linear or easier design, would be inhabited by those less mature but I see no evidence to that other than speculation.
Edit: Personally speaking, I want an open world with as many activities as possible as long as they are chosen. I would love to have many open PvP areas in a huge, open world MMO but not everywhere. It's not the system I disagree with, but the 5% of players that give open PvP a bad name. I have yet to see any reason why there can't be areas for both, and room for both, as long as the reward systems are well done for both.
Well if you're judging the maturity of the game simply by the actions of its playerbase, I don't think that's accurate. In an open world pvp game there is the possibility of griefing, whereas in a typical themepark there is not. That doesn't mean the playerbase in the themepark is more mature, it just means they're not physically capable of showing how immature they are. I don't think it's fair to say a game is more mature simply because you, for instance, put a curse word filter on the client.
The reason I say sandbox games are the more mature game type is because in general they require more thought, more patience, more creativity, etc. You have to make your own way, rather than having your hand held through a pre-determined path. This seems to me to be a no-brainer.
As for why they're more like real life... is that even a question? Whether you're talking about sandbox games or open world pvp (with consequences) they're simply more like real life. Before I go into any of the obvious details, are you actually disagreeing that sandbox games are more like real life than themeparks?
Well you'd have to be more specific if you want me to give you an actual answer. In general, the reason is the pvp areas will be less populated if given a choice between harvesting/pveing in peace or doing so in the risky pvp area. If you make it so the non-pvp areas are somehow less profitable, then that's theoretically fine and that setup exists in most sandbox games.
You're changing the subject. Why would you say something is "unnecesarry" when there are people who want those things?
More mature game type I would agree with and for the reasons you stated. Depending on the degree of freedom however the more mature features are, the greater chance there is for an immature setting. That's why I would opt not for a sandbox FFA PvP setting, especially with full loot. Not because that ruleset is inherently immature, but the doors are open to that kind of behavior. I was correct in my thought that we were looking from two different perspectives.
I agree that in an open world where OWPvP and restricted PvP shared they same overall space some concessions would be made. Resource difference? Maybe a slight one but if the itemization relies heavily on crafting using those resources the power would shift heavily towards those who PvP should people who usually don't enter. What should that gap be? This question would be dependent on what kind of "power" is gleaned from items and to what extent. It would take a whole other thread to flesh this out as you can see.
My point is that I would like to see a real fusion of the two styles because I think it would benefit both. Open PvP is really exciting and engaging in an open world but not all the time. PvE is the same way, good in bursts but sometimes you want to mix it up. If both could be housed in the same overall environment I think the cross-play would be pretty big, to the benefit of all.
As someone mentioned, Landmark, if they release open PvP islands, would be a title like that once the dungeoneering tools are in and they give more variety to the world PvE layout. You can already set up PvP on plots but that is more like a MOBA ruleset.
The thing is, the fusion between pve and pvp you're talking about IS a sandbox game with ow pvp. It's not like sandbox games are "pvp" and themepark games are "pve." But if you're going to have varying levels of safety (safe zones or the like) then you have to make the unsafe zones more profitable, otherwise there will be no point to use them. An ow pvp sandbox game with a player run economy just wouldn't work if people can harvest and craft and farm mobs in peace.
It's not about the pvp players in the pvp zone and the harvesters and crafters in the non-pvp zone. Gankers and sheep alike would be in the pvp zone because that's where the good resources would be.
Bringing this back to gaming, by joining an MMO, you give consent to their "laws", or rules. Otherwise, do not play. This goes for everyone, such as PvE players "consenting" to whatever PvP rules any single MMO incorporates, or single player experience game seekers signing up for an MMO
- 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
I find it hard to understand why so many players see "multiplayer" (massively or any other kind) and think fighting each other is the ONLY activity. That is just not how I am geared.
- 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
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
- 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