Incompatible Design Goals

Wargfoot

The most notorious of incompatible design goals would probably be open world, full loot PvP when combined with the PvE/crafting crowd.  I'm not saying it cannot be done, only that I've never seen it done well - or, it doesn't seem to last, less because of bad design, but because the crowds it attracts don't have the capacity to handle the paradigm.

I suspect there is a similar problem with combining MMO with fully destructible/modified environments. 

Both are great ideas, but I think the real builders probably migrate to private servers where their creations cannot be compromised by griefers.

The proposed solution is the ability to select an area and lock it down.  It may only be edited by you and a buddy, the problems I see with this in a mmorpg are legion.  First, the areas aren't large enough to keep a serious builder engaged, and secondly, even if you do lock down an area the land right outside your front door - the view you love - is likely to be polluted with something terrible.

I once ran a Minecraft server and invited trusted friends.
My castle on the mountain top was soon overlooking an enormous cock.

When I say cock, I mean a literal chicken in the sky - as in, the barnyard fowl - it totally ruined my view, but didn't violate any rules of the server, so there I was.... even with 10 people on a server this can be a problem - but in a MMO?  Yikes.

Just another example of two concepts that may not work well together.

Tiller

 There needs to be a buffer between open world PvP and PvE, like covert and overt options and the act of flagging or temporary enemy flag gotten by an open assist on the faction you activity chose allegiance to.

  This is what was accomplished in SWG, not without some complaints though; like people TEF riding (healing an overt player of you own faction to gain a temp flag so you could help them in 1v1 pvp) Sometimes this led to all out server wide battles. Both can co-exist, and one can support the other. Lots of the best weapon and armorsmiths on my server were  Not into PvP and did nothing but craft stuff for their factions.

 You could also remain neutral from Imperial and Rebel forces, but more than likely you found yourself running afoul with some of the non-player factions as well  (like the Hutts or Valarians) which could still present a challenge if you were trying to get into a particular area. There was a time when players were asking for Non player factions to be opened up for PvP as well.

Below is part of the list of factions in SWG from the character sheet. Opposing non-player factions had an affect on each other. It got pretty complicated, but it was still pretty cool.

https://www.swgemu.com/archive/scrapbookv51/data/20070130134445/index.html

https://swglegends.com/wiki/index.php?title=Faction

Quizzical

Uncharted Waters Online mixed full loot PVP with PVE pretty well.  Well, the "full loot" didn't let them take everything. They could take your gear and cargo, but couldn't steal ships and ship parts.

The key was that if you were paying attention and didn't want to die in PVP, you could take evasive maneuvers that made it nearly impossible for pirates to catch you.  You're level 30 and see a level 60 pirate coming at you?  Log off quickly, let the pirate shoot by (acceleration is slow), and log back on a minute later.  Or pull into port, since land areas are always safe.  Or quite a few other things.  Pirates mostly targeted people who weren't paying attention, especially botters.

Incidentally, Uncharted Waters Online is a separate game from Uncharted Waters Origin, which is what I'm playing now.  The latter has peace servers where there is no open-world PVP.

Kyleran

I remember playing Xyson a million years ago, first PVP sandbox game I tried which let players mold the game world.

Besides the inevitable death pits that were placed at the respawn points the landscape was dotted penises everywhere, entire villages made up of them.

Never let players control the gaming landscape, it rarely turns out well 

Brainy

I partly agree with your premise, OP. 

The real issue is combining full-loot PvP with PvE/Crafting/Harvesting in the same zones. That’s where the conflict arises. 

The solution? Completely separate servers: one for PvP, one for PvE. Problem solved. 

Look at UO —it had full-loot PvP and PvE in distinct zones, and it worked fine. Sure, some crybaby gankers complained when they couldn’t camp PvE newbies anymore, but overall, UO thrived after it opened Trammel.

The other challenge is that full-loot PvP MMOs tend to be niche games, especially in today’s market. Players like collecting cool gear and don’t want to risk losing it. In any persistent world, that’s always going to be a sticking point.

If the servers or areas reset frequently, the loss wouldn’t matter as much, and that could make full-loot PvP more appealing.

Nanfoodle

Not all FFA games are toxic. Also not all servers on FFA PvP games as well. Does it matter if death makes you drop trivial items over your hard earned gear? I get it's not for everyone. But if the game is fun, things like this are no more a nuisance then any MMO. I have yet to find a MMO I loved every aspect that could give advancement. 

For me I have always joined PvP servers that were for RP communities. RPers normally are level headed and mature in thought. That lowers the amount of greafers you see and the support you will get. Over all, be it pure PvE, pure PvP or PvX. If the game is good. I will put up with the rest. 

cheyane

In my humble opinion human beings don't change they just became more comfortable with doing bad things. In the old days when we were starting out on MMORPGs like UO and Everquest  also Asheron's Call there were limits that people didn't cross because the game population controlled the space by shunning them or making it known that their reputation is not redeemable or punishing them. People quit once they realise they cannot come back from a bad rep.

This type of safeguards do not exist any more because people can get more popular by doing shit. I mean that Somali guy look what he did although he might have to pay the piper soon. He was getting rich off doing the most unthinkable hideous things.

So the of type gameplay that can exist if players treated each other better cannot work well any more unless the game has a tiny population or very strict rules that are air tight. It just crumbles or settles into a small population or one that has a high turnover. People find their niches and stick to it.

I have a great deal of scepticism about players policing themselves because of how communities are these days. You can get away with different levels of loot rules like Albion Online because you're always giving the player the choice of how much risk they are willing to take and pay the price for. Once you make it mostly FFA it is only the choice for whether you decide to play the game after that there is no longer any choice about how much other players can wreck your game. This is something I am not comfortable with so I avoid those games but many people go in thinking they can handle it and cry foul soon after.

The developers are also tasked with managing a constant race against exploits and other methods players use to make it so that the players who stay and are willing to play even harder to enjoy the game. Unless you're doing the killing and dominating for me personally I cannot enjoy a game like that because I place a lot of stock in fairness so I will be miserable. Being miserable in a hobby is a wtf moment for me so I have to say no. 

I don't wish these games fail , no but I am always a trifle gleeful when I see examples of human ingenuity in turning the rules game developers craft with confidence and complexity getting ripped by players with ease. The only sure rule is that there isn't any rule you can make that players will not find a way to circumvent.

xanthouscrown

The solution I like for full loot PVP is to have a large, expansive zone outside of which PVP cannot take place, except for consensual duels, which don't have a penalty.

In this design, there is no flagging pvp on or off. You simply walk into the zone, and you can be attacked and attack others, and when you die, you drop your stuff. Outside the zone you cannot attack or be attacked by others.

Incentives for visiting the zone include exclusive quests (or parts of a quest that require you to go there), monsters, bosses, crafting stations, and gathering resource nodes. With updates and expansions, the zone can updated and expanded as well.

This is similar to the idea of the Wilderness in Runescape, which is the dark brown, lava-having square area in the upper right section of this map. This was Runescape's non-consensual full loot PVP zone, outside of which you couldn't attack other players.



The strategy for players who want to go there but don't want to risk losing their best  gear was to use more common or less expensive gear (or just run through naked).

Wargfoot

cheyane said:

I don't wish these games fail , no but I am always a trifle gleeful when I see examples of human ingenuity in turning the rules game developers craft with confidence and complexity getting ripped by players with ease. 

Same here.

Wargfoot

xanthouscrown said:

Incentives for visiting the zone include exclusive quests (or parts of a quest that require you to go there), monsters, bosses, crafting stations, and gathering resource nodes. With updates and expansions, the zone can updated and expanded as well.

The strategy for players who want to go there but don't want to risk losing their best  gear was to use more common or less expensive gear (or just run through naked).

While possibly the best option, I don't like it because it ends up obligating people to participate in something they'd rather not do in order to have the best gear/resources.  I think it can be done, but it would require ways around the problem (active auction houses really help).

xanthouscrown

Wargfoot said:

xanthouscrown said:

Incentives for visiting the zone include exclusive quests (or parts of a quest that require you to go there), monsters, bosses, crafting stations, and gathering resource nodes. With updates and expansions, the zone can updated and expanded as well.

The strategy for players who want to go there but don't want to risk losing their best  gear was to use more common or less expensive gear (or just run through naked).

While possibly the best option, I don't like it because it ends up obligating people to participate in something they'd rather not do in order to have the best gear/resources.  I think it can be done, but it would require ways around the problem (active auction houses really help).

It doesn’t necessarily have to have the best resources/items. Just various things about it that might compel someone to go there. For example, there can be a monster drops a specific weapon that is useful for some builds or unique in some way. Someone who wants the weapon but doesn’t want to go there can buy that item from another player. And it should have various types of content for all level ranges, which is how it was in Runescape.

But that can cause another issue, which is high level players instantly killing low level players. In Runescape, they added something called the Wilderness level, which indicated how deep you are in the wilderness. If you’ve only just step foot into the wilderness, you are at wilderness level 1. If you’ve gone pretty deep, you might be at wilderness level 30. The wilderness level determined the level range of players you could fight. At level 1 you can only fight players 1 level above or below your level and so on. Higher end, higher level content was deeper in the wilderness. This reduced some of the risk for players visiting the beginning parts of the wilderness. But as you went deeper, the risk of fighting a higher level player than you increased.

Scot

There is no better solution than Realm Versus Realm akin to DAOC, with a core of non-PvP zones for each realm and adjoining PvP zones between the realms. After that the best tagging system I have seen was in Asheron's Call. If you did get killed you had these "diamonds" (whatever they were called) that you bought so your top two expensive items were not kit. They could loot the diamonds but that's all.

I have to say the fact that these are really old MMORPG's and we are talking about this issue today because modern MMOs have sub standard systems is astonishing. 

Wargfoot

xanthouscrown said:

Wargfoot said:

xanthouscrown said:

Incentives for visiting the zone include exclusive quests (or parts of a quest that require you to go there), monsters, bosses, crafting stations, and gathering resource nodes. With updates and expansions, the zone can updated and expanded as well.

The strategy for players who want to go there but don't want to risk losing their best  gear was to use more common or less expensive gear (or just run through naked).

While possibly the best option, I don't like it because it ends up obligating people to participate in something they'd rather not do in order to have the best gear/resources.  I think it can be done, but it would require ways around the problem (active auction houses really help).

It doesn’t necessarily have to have the best resources/items. Just various things about it that might compel someone to go there. For example, there can be a monster drops a specific weapon that is useful for some builds or unique in some way. Someone who wants the weapon but doesn’t want to go there can buy that item from another player. And it should have various types of content for all level ranges, which is how it was in Runescape.

But that can cause another issue, which is high level players instantly killing low level players. In Runescape, they added something called the Wilderness level, which indicated how deep you are in the wilderness. If you’ve only just step foot into the wilderness, you are at wilderness level 1. If you’ve gone pretty deep, you might be at wilderness level 30. The wilderness level determined the level range of players you could fight. At level 1 you can only fight players 1 level above or below your level and so on. Higher end, higher level content was deeper in the wilderness. This reduced some of the risk for players visiting the beginning parts of the wilderness. But as you went deeper, the risk of fighting a higher level player than you increased.

I liked LOTRO where you earned PvP related buffs/gear/etc in the PvP zone, but these items were worthless in the PvE zones.   Because of this, PvE types didn't need to go to the PvP zone - while giving the PvP crowd something to work for.

olepi

Kyleran said:

I remember playing Xyson a million years ago, first PVP sandbox game I tried which let players mold the game world.

Besides the inevitable death pits that were placed at the respawn points the landscape was dotted penises everywhere, entire villages made up of them.

Never let players control the gaming landscape, it rarely turns out well 

I played Xyson too, turned me off of open world PvP.

xanthouscrown

Wargfoot said:

xanthouscrown said:

Wargfoot said:

xanthouscrown said:

Incentives for visiting the zone include exclusive quests (or parts of a quest that require you to go there), monsters, bosses, crafting stations, and gathering resource nodes. With updates and expansions, the zone can updated and expanded as well.

The strategy for players who want to go there but don't want to risk losing their best  gear was to use more common or less expensive gear (or just run through naked).

While possibly the best option, I don't like it because it ends up obligating people to participate in something they'd rather not do in order to have the best gear/resources.  I think it can be done, but it would require ways around the problem (active auction houses really help).

It doesn’t necessarily have to have the best resources/items. Just various things about it that might compel someone to go there. For example, there can be a monster drops a specific weapon that is useful for some builds or unique in some way. Someone who wants the weapon but doesn’t want to go there can buy that item from another player. And it should have various types of content for all level ranges, which is how it was in Runescape.

But that can cause another issue, which is high level players instantly killing low level players. In Runescape, they added something called the Wilderness level, which indicated how deep you are in the wilderness. If you’ve only just step foot into the wilderness, you are at wilderness level 1. If you’ve gone pretty deep, you might be at wilderness level 30. The wilderness level determined the level range of players you could fight. At level 1 you can only fight players 1 level above or below your level and so on. Higher end, higher level content was deeper in the wilderness. This reduced some of the risk for players visiting the beginning parts of the wilderness. But as you went deeper, the risk of fighting a higher level player than you increased.

I liked LOTRO where you earned PvP related buffs/gear/etc in the PvP zone, but these items were worthless in the PvE zones.   Because of this, PvE types didn't need to go to the PvP zone - while giving the PvP crowd something to work for.

Probably easier to balance pvp like that too. But I think for someone like me who is mainly a pve'er, I probably wouldn't go there because there's not much reason to, other than just to see what it's like. Tbh I didn't go to the Wilderness much either, unless there was something I needed. But I still liked the idea of it being there. I think I prefer the Wilderness idea because it ties in with the overall game world. If I go there, any exp I gain, any materials or loot I get, all comes back with me, and it wouldn't feel like it's a separate game mode; it's just another part of the world to do stuff in, except with an added risk (and it can be fun to try to escape from other players).

Wargfoot

xanthouscrown said:

Wargfoot said:

xanthouscrown said:

Wargfoot said:

xanthouscrown said:

Incentives for visiting the zone include exclusive quests (or parts of a quest that require you to go there), monsters, bosses, crafting stations, and gathering resource nodes. With updates and expansions, the zone can updated and expanded as well.

The strategy for players who want to go there but don't want to risk losing their best  gear was to use more common or less expensive gear (or just run through naked).

While possibly the best option, I don't like it because it ends up obligating people to participate in something they'd rather not do in order to have the best gear/resources.  I think it can be done, but it would require ways around the problem (active auction houses really help).

It doesn’t necessarily have to have the best resources/items. Just various things about it that might compel someone to go there. For example, there can be a monster drops a specific weapon that is useful for some builds or unique in some way. Someone who wants the weapon but doesn’t want to go there can buy that item from another player. And it should have various types of content for all level ranges, which is how it was in Runescape.

But that can cause another issue, which is high level players instantly killing low level players. In Runescape, they added something called the Wilderness level, which indicated how deep you are in the wilderness. If you’ve only just step foot into the wilderness, you are at wilderness level 1. If you’ve gone pretty deep, you might be at wilderness level 30. The wilderness level determined the level range of players you could fight. At level 1 you can only fight players 1 level above or below your level and so on. Higher end, higher level content was deeper in the wilderness. This reduced some of the risk for players visiting the beginning parts of the wilderness. But as you went deeper, the risk of fighting a higher level player than you increased.

I liked LOTRO where you earned PvP related buffs/gear/etc in the PvP zone, but these items were worthless in the PvE zones.   Because of this, PvE types didn't need to go to the PvP zone - while giving the PvP crowd something to work for.

Probably easier to balance pvp like that too. But I think for someone like me who is mainly a pve'er, I probably wouldn't go there because there's not much reason to, other than just to see what it's like. Tbh I didn't go to the Wilderness much either, unless there was something I needed. But I still liked the idea of it being there. I think I prefer the Wilderness idea because it ties in with the overall game world. If I go there, any exp I gain, any materials or loot I get, all comes back with me, and it wouldn't feel like it's a separate game mode; it's just another part of the world to do stuff in, except with an added risk (and it can be fun to try to escape from other players).

This.

In fact, I've often thought when you enter the PvP zone it should park your PvE character and the PvP character, while retaining the same name and appearance, is actually a separate character.

What I mean is something like the "Fireball" spell is entirely separate in PvE and PvP.  They look the same on the hotbar, but they're entirely different behind the scenes such that one can be tweaked while not touching the other version.  This would make it easy to balance PvP without gimping the balance you've got in PvE land.

NamesNoneOfYourBiz

The possibly only way any Sandbox MMO possibly work, IMO, would be if it's TTRPG style, and even then either only by Text with supervision and imagination, or so simple in design that it could be changed/corrected at a moment's notice, with extremely strict rules and restrictions. And possibly instanced. And even then it wouldn't be infallible.
The only way to make content is to actually go off the established path and do your own thing entirely, seperate from anyone who wishes to not participate.
No more excuses to harass other players.
Or let sandboxes die entirely along with MMOs, because clearly people seem to associate "Sandbox" with "getting away with being and asshat".

You make a quest NPC, place it somewhere where it's allowed, set an objective (or several), add a reward, maybe an alternatiove dialogue option, if you have the required item, and then when you accept the quest you will be transported to a player made instance. Also you cannot publish youtr quest if the objective is impossible to be fulfilled.
Also you need to determine the type of quest and it will show you. So if it includes PvP or freeform, it will be tagged as such.

Sovrath

cheyane said:

In the old days when we were starting out on MMORPGs like UO and Everquest  also Asheron's Call there were limits that people didn't cross because the game population controlled the space by shunning them or making it known that their reputation is not redeemable or punishing them. People quit once they realise they cannot come back from a bad rep.

This type of safeguards do not exist any more because people can get more popular by doing shit. I mean that Somali guy look what he did although he might have to pay the piper soon. He was getting rich off doing the most unthinkable hideous things.

I think it's just a different crowd. Before the players were real "geeks" and really wanted to play with others. As these games became more popular they attracted a different crowd to add to the mix. Not a great crowd either.

What Somali guy and what did he do?

cheyane

He's not Somali he uses the name Johnny Somali and he really did some bad stuff for clicks. He has some Somalian parentage.



You get an idea of why what he did in these countries is horrible. 

Scot

cheyane said:

He's not Somali he uses the name Johnny Somali and he really did some bad stuff for clicks. He has some Somalian parentage.

You get an idea of why what he did in these countries is horrible. 

I wonder why these "pranksters" don't get charged, at least fined for their activities, they make people think those from outside their country are to be avoided.

Wargfoot

Scot said:

cheyane said:

He's not Somali he uses the name Johnny Somali and he really did some bad stuff for clicks. He has some Somalian parentage.

You get an idea of why what he did in these countries is horrible. 

I wonder why these "pranksters" don't get charged, at least fined for their activities, they make people think those from outside their country are to be avoided.

I've found in life that we cannot be responsible for other people's actions, but we can take control of our own actions, and in this case, our responsible step (IMHO) is to not watch his stuff.

I'm old and crusty and tired of people being dumbasses on the internet for "clicks".

Slapshot1188

Permadeath.

The reason you have such a prevalence of random ganking in most open world games is because there is little penalty.  The attacker always has the advantage as they pick the time, place and target.   

How about, if you instigate an attack and a player is killed, you have a Permadeath flag attached to your character for 15 minutes played time in game? You can tune this so it doesn't include waring guilds or something. But if you randomly gank a gatherer, you better run for your life for the next 15 (30?) minutes, and no logging off does not change the timer.  As a matter of fact if you logoff with this "buff" your character stays in game until it wears off.

Wargfoot

Slapshot1188 said:

Permadeath.

The reason you have such a prevalence of random ganking in most open world games is because there is little penalty.  The attacker always has the advantage as they pick the time, place and target.   

How about, if you instigate an attack and a player is killed, you have a Permadeath flag attached to your character for 15 minutes played time in game? You can tune this so it doesn't include waring guilds or something. But if you randomly gank a gatherer, you better run for your life for the next 15 (30?) minutes, and no logging off does not change the timer.  As a matter of fact if you logoff with this "buff" your character stays in game until it wears off.

I liked the sheriff system in FO such that the good guys were heavily motivated to hunt the bad guys.  A few tweaks to that system would go a long way.

Another thing I'd like to see is "Hell", which is a multi-level dungeon (think 50 levels of procedurally generated grief) that a murdered red goes to upon death.  He has to escape hell to return to the land of the living, which means finding the way out - but if he dies in hell, he gets knocked down a level.

Good players can enter hell and hunt murderers, knocking them down levels if they desire.  Murderers are "spirits" in hell and can only wear crappy "hell bound" armor and weapons they find in the abode of the damned.

The more murders you do, the further down in hell you spawn - so a simple revenge killing and you may end up near the exit; however, if you've been killing noobs 24/7 it could take weeks to get out of hell.

Hell is re-generated each night so it cannot be mapped.

Angrakhan

I like the procedurally generated hell concept!  That would be pretty cool (well or hot, actually). 

The problem with any sort of bounty hunter/sheriff system is that it doesn't stop a ganker from having a friend or just multiboxing a good guy and bad guy account.  The bad guy goes and ganks, then the good guy kills the ganker getting the rewards and gear.  Good guy trades said gear back to the ganker, rinse and repeat.

Wargfoot

Angrakhan said:

I like the procedurally generated hell concept!  That would be pretty cool (well or hot, actually). 

The problem with any sort of bounty hunter/sheriff system is that it doesn't stop a ganker from having a friend or just multiboxing a good guy and bad guy account.  The bad guy goes and ganks, then the good guy kills the ganker getting the rewards and gear.  Good guy trades said gear back to the ganker, rinse and repeat.

I think if someone is willing to multibox there is very little that can be done.

I'm not saying give up, but in my opinion, your concerns approach crossing a line that isn't really the player's concern.  The goal of "under no circumstances can ill gotten gain benefit a lawful character" is impossible to obtain.

You use the example of multi-boxing, but this could be achieved by placing stuff in an auction house for 1gp and immediately having a friend buy it with his account, thereby "cleansing" the item.  It could then be relisted for full profit.

That sort of thing could be detected, but sooner or later more resources would go into detecting an exploit than playing the damn game.  Best to make the rules as fair as possible, and very clear and not worry about how each person got their loot.

Sovrath

Angrakhan said:

I like the procedurally generated hell concept!  That would be pretty cool (well or hot, actually). 

The problem with any sort of bounty hunter/sheriff system is that it doesn't stop a ganker from having a friend or just multiboxing a good guy and bad guy account.  The bad guy goes and ganks, then the good guy kills the ganker getting the rewards and gear.  Good guy trades said gear back to the ganker, rinse and repeat.

I think bounty hunters should be npc’s.