The better PvE becomes, the more it can be a hybrid in any game mode that is successful or for pure PvE players. I like your example of the problem with factions basically funnelling players into one camp when at all times there should be Machiavellian tendencies amongst players! The essense of FFA PvP and price of freedom, eternal vigilance!
It may be cliche, but how many stories have the one disillusioned guy that leaves the backdoor open?
I have to say, I was thinking about the dymanic thing while out having a smoke. Dynamic environment, as you said - the effect of weather - a blizzard strikes, does one side decide to hold off their attack or attack regardless. The effect of heat on those in armor. There is so much - reality - that could be added. Also, in line with what GW2 is doing - along the lines of what AO did - imagine finding out that one of your enemies is under attack by some NPC faction - do you attack? Or perhaps it is a friendly city, do you rush to the attack - not entirely sure if it is a major offensive by those NPCs - do you leave yourself at risk?
Yes, there is so much that could be added - but in the end, it would not appeal to the casual gamer. They want simple and easy.
Still, it is fun to dream at times.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
If you are looking for a PVP sandbox game to really sink your teeth into then look no further than Eve online. It is the epitome of all sandbox games in my opinion and should be the benchmark for what all future sandbox mmos should be judged by. There is a clear seperation of safety zones from high security systems to low security systems to zero security systems to . Even though you may be in a high security system...you can still get ganked by 5-6 dedicated players before CONCORD (pretty much the guards of most games) blows those players up. This is why I feel this game is FFA in all zones...you can be attacked anywhere at anytime (but the attacker will have to face the consequences of such actions).
PVE in the game is done by a fairly large amount of people and crafting (called manufacturing in game) is an extremely large part of the economy. The economy is the main driving force in the game. Alot of the PVP is based upon claiming territories and harvesting the resources of that area. A decent number of people pvp for the sake of pvping....but the major driving force in game is really the economy and controlling territory. I find the mix of PVP / PVE / crafting to be a nice blend in an extremely brutal and true sandbox. Eve can be unforgiving at times...but it has a niche for everyone.
Yes, games that I play to pass the time should be time-consuming. That's why I play them.
(quoted from another poster I saw a few months back would credit but don't remember name)
If you took everyone that was playing UO at one time and threw them out into the open (non-guarded area) very little fighting would have transpired.
You might of had a few people here and there fighting (Vanilla UO) but it would be totally different if you took MO and DF and stuck everyone out of town together.
The MMO community now and then are totally different also. Hell when UO was released it was AWESOME just to play with hundreds of other people. Now you can do that within seconds and it's become over saturated.
That use to be my line of thinking before i came to realize that people like VirusDancer have long opened my eyes to the reality that some players just get their chets and giggles from a sword and board version of Counterstrike. But I really believe that PvP has a rightful place within the sandbox mmo style. It's just so hard trying to separate the "whites" from the "yolk" now. But I think with the trend of social gaming coming through the pipeline we may yet see a game that gets that the "sand" in sandbox ain't just for kicking around.
Lol, you're too funny. I have not said anything of the sort.
...while you have continued to cry about PvP.
"a rightful place"... yes, where you want it to be.
"social gaming"... is very PvP.
The difference is that you do not lose your farm...
Ok I'll bite.
When I say sandbox you think PvP
When I say sandbox 90% of the others in this topic think open world (including PvP)
You think of everything else included in a sandbox game as fluff for themepark wannabes and PvP as the dessert (aka best part for you), while some of us here think that the focus of PvP in sandbox mmos has distracted from the rest of the 3 course meal but we also have room for dessert.
When you say sandbox, I think of a 3D chatroom with fluff avatars. Yes, but that is only based on what you have said.
When somebody else says sandbox, I think of freedom of story away from the linear system inherent in themeparks. I think of players being able to get together to build wondrous cities. I think of people working together to complete common goals. I think of people being able to do more than what they are limited to in a themepark game. That is what I think of when somebody else says sandbox.
When you say it though... yep, I picture people that have no life outside of their computers. While I feel bad for those that suffer from various physical handicaps or the like, and I applause those developers out there that create worlds for them to be able to socialize in since they may not have much opportunity to socialize outside of them.
When others say sandbox, I have fond memories of being a child and playing in a sandbox with friends. Grand adventures.
When you say it, I picture a bunch of boys dressed in ambiguous clothing fawning and preening while sitting in the sand.
Because that is what I have gotten out of what you have said in this thread...
...you dislike PvP even though you pretend not to dislike it and that you want a 3D chatroom where you can fawn and preen.
Are you mad bro? Seriously, that was damn near line for line what I put in my first post. You truely are a dancer of sorts. You can believe what you want about my preference of gaming if you like, although I can guarentee you'd lose that bet. But seriously, that was the just of my topic here, glad to see you finally got it in 7 pages what it took others to get in 1 post. It's not about doing away with PvP, the struggle i have is about bringing in more choices to choose what to do from.
I've been around for a long time and seen a lot of things, in the military you are what we call a jody. The ones that talk as much as you do about others usually are.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
If you look at attempts in the past to create a sandbox mmo, you can always find that the key that binds them all is the mentality that sandbox mmos need to be PvP or worst yet FFA PvP. And each time they release these mmos with that key mindset of what sandbox mmos are about, they all seem to find themselves doing far less than stellar.
This is due to one over looking fact. Sandbox mmos were never meant to be created around this one parasitic feature. I say parasitic because the true lifeline to keeping sandbox mmos from obtaining a real grasp on the mmo crowd, namely social PvE gamers, are constantly driven out of these types of sandbox games and often with insults following closely behind. Take a look at it this way. Say your social gamers are your PvE crowd, not in the sense of dungeons and raids, but in a sense of player vs. environment. Someone who is looking to carve out a name for him or herself in the wild against nature itself. Maybe with a few friends to make a small village, maybe by themselves. They enjoys havesting, crafting and collecting. Gatherers if you will.
Then you have players who enjoy a more organic challenge from mmos. PvPers. Players that enjoy conflict over cultivation. Thrillseekers that feed on the need to either be the hunted or the hunter. You can call them the hunters of the hunter-gatherer analogy I'm using. But where developers have made their mistakes are in two places:
The first being that all hunters (PvPers) operate on the same wavelength. I can tell you that this is not true. Some PvPers are natural defenders, some are natural leaders and some are impeccable role-players. But developers have made the mistake of thinking they are all gladaitorial in nature. Gladiatorial in the sense that they eat, breathe and live only to find the next fight. So they cater their game world to reflect these views and they create their gameplay that is bound not by proactive choice but reactive.
The other mistake is that they often heavily favor the hunter nature of things in a sandbox mmo but the gatherer side is often shortchanged and often the players themselves feel letdown by the one-sided development of things. So they are left to either adapt a more hunter-like attitude or find something a little less frustrating. Both ways always lead to a breakdown of what the developers really invisioned when they set out to make a sandbox mmo.
What needs to happen is that developers have to put in place incentives to keep gatherers coming back for more. Housing, player economies driven by the backbone of builders, crafters and socializers. And when I say housing, I mean houses that can be seen by all, not these instance zones. And when I say player economies I mean the only items that drop off mobs are raw materials, not epics or better than crafted gear. Make raid bosses drop resources that benefit the entire village, not just the raiders.
We need the scales to tip back to the other side a little bit to balance things out once more for gatherers in sandbox mmos. Enough of this hunter only mentality that has been bringing down the word sandbox year after year.
But I challenge you to name one other sandbox mmo (besides UO and Second Life) that neither the devs or the players brag about the key feature being PvP or FFA PvP.
Everyone is a PVPer.
PVP = MMO
You compete against other players in every aspect. If you didn't you would be playing a single player game.
By the way, the best roleplaying I have ever done in any game has been in the FFA Sandbox MMO's. You have to carve a name for yourself out within these games while sticking to your guns and staying in character. It makes for the most indepth experiance you will have ever have in any game. Names like Shadowclan and Ordo Castium Carnifex comes to mind for role playing guilds within these harsh enviroments.
You can't have a sandbox game without it being an open enviroment.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding for what makes AI fun to fight against.
Personally I feel Grouping + Threat-based AI is one of the stronger offerings the games industry has put out in terms of fun AI. It's the most game-like AI. It's a game mechanic unto itself.
The bigger failings are actually:
Difficulty options. A failure to offer each player their own personal "sweet spot of challenge" at every step of their journey is terrible. Players will mistakenly place blame on the AI system for this failure, when it's actually just a failure to offer a breadth of challenges so that every player can find that tightly-strung difficulty (if they desire.)
World gameplay. "Field of monsters" (ie very evident "bad AI") is more a trait of the difficulty of implementing compelling content in a world setting, vs. instancing. 5 years after Guild Wars gave us tons of compelling, scripted instanced content where the AI frequently acted logically (and only rarely exhibited "field of monsters" behavior) we still barely ever see that type of immersive AI used (WOW dungeons are finally barely at that level.)
Solve these two issues and the result would be a MMORPG (or at least an ORPG) where the AI wouldn't feel bad at all.
If you take the time to read up on articles by the top game AI programmers, they all agree that good AI is not about being smart AI, but having the appearance of being smart. Everyone went nuts about F.E.A.R.'s AI while I pointed out it really wasn't much different from the (years older) Half-Life 1 AI. Reading an article written by FEAR's AI Programmer confirmed that hunch. I mean it's still an AI that players feel is good -- and that's what matters, and that's why FEAR's AI Programmer deserves props -- but it's not a smart AI.
It was a trip doing a Google of "field of monsters" and finding that forum post from you back in 2005.
I think the concept of grouping and threat is a good idea, we have had the trinity since D&D started - however, I believe it is being poorly implemented. There are too many artificial tanking methods that are beyond realistic. Threat generation and mob response is off-kilter. The mobs are not reacting to their potential.
As for difficulty options, that is a tricky one. I do not think that the game should cater to the player. There should be a range of difficulties, and players should be able to tackle those when they are ready - whether through blunt force or exploiting a known weakness (actual weakness, not a mechanic exploit).
My main issue with AI is potential. A DMGM would play a NPC to their potential. In MMORPGs, we have scripted bosses - you could set their watch by what they are going to do. They do not act to their potential. You have a boss that supposedly rules over thousands of minions...and well, yeah - blecch.
I suppose some of it falls into that "field of monsters" concept you have regarding mobs waiting to be killed. It drives me crazy that I can see a mob standing still and watching as I kill one of their fellows. No call to alarm. No coming to their ally's aid.
In PnP, you had to be careful while going into a dungeon not wanting to have the whole place coming down on you. In MMORPGs, it is tank and spank - break out the big guns and make some noise.
The AI of mobs should react to threats. It does not. So as I have said, it is very smart in the way it has been programmed to die - it does that very well; but in the end, it is rather disappointing.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
If you look at attempts in the past to create a sandbox mmo, you can always find that the key that binds them all is the mentality that sandbox mmos need to be PvP or worst yet FFA PvP. And each time they release these mmos with that key mindset of what sandbox mmos are about, they all seem to find themselves doing far less than stellar.
This is due to one over looking fact. Sandbox mmos were never meant to be created around this one parasitic feature. I say parasitic because the true lifeline to keeping sandbox mmos from obtaining a real grasp on the mmo crowd, namely social PvE gamers, are constantly driven out of these types of sandbox games and often with insults following closely behind. Take a look at it this way. Say your social gamers are your PvE crowd, not in the sense of dungeons and raids, but in a sense of player vs. environment. Someone who is looking to carve out a name for him or herself in the wild against nature itself. Maybe with a few friends to make a small village, maybe by themselves. They enjoys havesting, crafting and collecting. Gatherers if you will.
Then you have players who enjoy a more organic challenge from mmos. PvPers. Players that enjoy conflict over cultivation. Thrillseekers that feed on the need to either be the hunted or the hunter. You can call them the hunters of the hunter-gatherer analogy I'm using. But where developers have made their mistakes are in two places:
The first being that all hunters (PvPers) operate on the same wavelength. I can tell you that this is not true. Some PvPers are natural defenders, some are natural leaders and some are impeccable role-players. But developers have made the mistake of thinking they are all gladaitorial in nature. Gladiatorial in the sense that they eat, breathe and live only to find the next fight. So they cater their game world to reflect these views and they create their gameplay that is bound not by proactive choice but reactive.
The other mistake is that they often heavily favor the hunter nature of things in a sandbox mmo but the gatherer side is often shortchanged and often the players themselves feel letdown by the one-sided development of things. So they are left to either adapt a more hunter-like attitude or find something a little less frustrating. Both ways always lead to a breakdown of what the developers really invisioned when they set out to make a sandbox mmo.
What needs to happen is that developers have to put in place incentives to keep gatherers coming back for more. Housing, player economies driven by the backbone of builders, crafters and socializers. And when I say housing, I mean houses that can be seen by all, not these instance zones. And when I say player economies I mean the only items that drop off mobs are raw materials, not epics or better than crafted gear. Make raid bosses drop resources that benefit the entire village, not just the raiders.
We need the scales to tip back to the other side a little bit to balance things out once more for gatherers in sandbox mmos. Enough of this hunter only mentality that has been bringing down the word sandbox year after year.
But I challenge you to name one other sandbox mmo (besides UO and Second Life) that neither the devs or the players brag about the key feature being PvP or FFA PvP.
Everyone is a PVPer.
PVP = MMO
You compete against other players in every aspect. If you didn't you would be playing a single player game.
By the way, the best roleplaying I have ever done in any game has been in the FFA Sandbox MMO's. You have to carve a name for yourself out within these games while sticking to your guns and staying in character. It makes for the most indepth experiance you will have ever have in any game. Names like Shadowclan and Ordo Castium Carnifex comes to mind for role playing guilds within these harsh enviroments.
You can't have a sandbox game without it being an open enviroment.
I see the minority is awake and in full swing now. I won't go so far as to say something so utterly low-brow. Breaking something down to such a basic element is pointless then. If that's the case even single player games are a form of PvP then, because each is linked to an achievement and we are all in a race to get the highest achievement no?
The question is not if you can have a sandbox game without it being an open environment. It's if you want your open environment to only be about FFA PvP......do you?
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Are you mad bro? Seriously, that was damn near line for line what I put in my first post. You truely are a dancer of sorts. You can believe what you want about my preference of gaming if you like, although I can guarentee you'd lose that bet. But seriously, that was the just of my topic here, glad to see you finally got it in 7 pages what it took others to get in 1 post. It's not about doing away with PvP, the struggle i have is about bringing in more choices to choose what to do from.
I've been around for a long time and seen a lot of things, in the military you are what we call a jody. The ones that talk as much as you do about others usually are.
Mad? Annoyed perhaps. I do not like ignorance. Your pathetic attempts to state that I had said something was annoying. It was not even a case of trying to misconstrue what I said. You were simply making it up as you went along to suit the fantasy world you live in. As I said earlier, your post was an obvious troll post. So yes, annoyed with myself for being baited into any form of discussion with you.
Still, there has been intelligent discussion in the thread despite you.
It is a curious thing, Jodies and cadences. Another curious thing would be... well... how much "the ones that talk as much as you do about others usually are" applies far more to you than it does to myself.
You have pushed garbage stereotypes like a used car salesman at the end of the month, while I have only pointed out your dislike of PvP with consequences and a desire to play Barbie with new online friends also interested in playing Barbie.
What I stated, was not a part of your original post nor the title of this thread. Now, your original post and the title come off like the typical Benny Boy crying about how somebody collecting dirt in their teeth made E-5 before them...even though they push pencil with the best of them.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
To VirusDancer. I really don't think you're getting the point of a sandbox here...
You stated previously that to you, UO was basically a game with little else to do worthwhile except for PvP (and I mean player combat, no word twisting). You also posted several tirades exclaiming how the OP must be a cry baby because he does not agree with your view.
See...now this is where you miss the point. A sandbox game should be MANY different things to MANY different people. To you, UO was a PvP game. To me, it was more about exploration, and I don't mean just walking around, I mean always finding new interesting stuff everytime I come back to play. Crazy things happened in UO...people would have weddings, players would create towns etc. etc. All of this diversity made me feel that UO was truly a dynamic world. I felt that this had value, but clearly you, do not.
But that's the point! Two people can play UO and enjoy it for completely different reasons. The only rule is that you should NOT try to tell one player that he's wrong because he didn't see the game the way you did. And that is exactly what you have been doing throughout this whole post.
I see the minority is awake and in full swing now. I won't go so far as to say something so utterly low-brow. Breaking something down to such a basic element is pointless then. If that's the case even single player games are a form of PvP then, because each is linked to an achievement and we are all in a race to get the highest achievement no?
The question is not if you can have a sandbox game without it being an open environment. It's if you want your open environment to only be about FFA PvP......do you?
Lol, mad bro?
Single player games where you check accomplishments online, could be considered PvP. If you are just playing to have fun and do not care, then it would not be PvP - would it?
However, in a MMO... almost everything is PvP.
Still, one could go with the basic idea of it just being about combat. In this case one should, since you are just going with it in the most basic form.
However, strictly speaking - in a MMO almost everything is PvP.
That is a loaded question you have at the end as well. Do not think anybody is talking about the open environment being only about FFA PvP...
...most people have talked about the social aspects of FFA PvP.
Of course, one of the mechanics missing from PvE is from the lack of Friendly Fire... but hey, this thread is supposed to be about what is wrong with FFA PvP and not what is wrong with PvE because of a lack of FFA PvP.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Are you mad bro? Seriously, that was damn near line for line what I put in my first post. You truely are a dancer of sorts. You can believe what you want about my preference of gaming if you like, although I can guarentee you'd lose that bet. But seriously, that was the just of my topic here, glad to see you finally got it in 7 pages what it took others to get in 1 post. It's not about doing away with PvP, the struggle i have is about bringing in more choices to choose what to do from.
I've been around for a long time and seen a lot of things, in the military you are what we call a jody. The ones that talk as much as you do about others usually are.
Mad? Annoyed perhaps. I do not like ignorance. Your pathetic attempts to state that I had said something was annoying. It was not even a case of trying to misconstrue what I said. You were simply making it up as you went along to suit the fantasy world you live in. As I said earlier, your post was an obvious troll post. So yes, annoyed with myself for being baited into any form of discussion with you.
Still, there has been intelligent discussion in the thread despite you.
It is a curious thing, Jodies and cadences. Another curious thing would be... well... how much "the ones that talk as much as you do about others usually are" applies far more to you than it does to myself.
You have pushed garbage stereotypes like a used car salesman at the end of the month, while I have only pointed out your dislike of PvP with consequences and a desire to play Barbie with new online friends also interested in playing Barbie.
What I stated, was not a part of your original post nor the title of this thread. Now, your original post and the title come off like the typical Benny Boy crying about how somebody collecting dirt in their teeth made E-5 before them...even though they push pencil with the best of them.
LOL where did I say I dislike PvP with consequences? Or that my only desire was playing digital dress-up? I'm sorry but in the military we learned to work together as well as how to fight. The working together part is not always linked to fighting. But as of late that seems to be the main driving force with sandbox games. What kind of PvP does it have? What can I take over? Yada yada yada. But please. Point out where I pushed any type of sterotype other than PvPers being hunter types and PvEers being gatherer type.
Both of which I even stated reside in myself and my playing style. Trust me I'm trying to be open minded here. Truely I'm a nice guy. But if you're gonna get in a fizzy because I called you a civillian, then this convo can serve no purpose to mend the vexing you think I caused. Honestly. You even said the best time and only challenge that UO gave you was FFA PvP and that all you like to do is PvP, but when I say it you get offended. But you can call me out as a lair and say I don't like PvP..... And calling me a troll. Please...why on earth would I troll something and under the same breath just to it's defense? Anyway, I offer my sincere apology if you think I've wronged you, but I still have to say there is more to sandbox mmos than PvP.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
If you are looking for a PVP sandbox game to really sink your teeth into then look no further than Eve online. It is the epitome of all sandbox games in my opinion and should be the benchmark for what all future sandbox mmos should be judged by. There is a clear seperation of safety zones from high security systems to low security systems to zero security systems to . Even though you may be in a high security system...you can still get ganked by 5-6 dedicated players before CONCORD (pretty much the guards of most games) blows those players up. This is why I feel this game is FFA in all zones...you can be attacked anywhere at anytime (but the attacker will have to face the consequences of such actions).
PVE in the game is done by a fairly large amount of people and crafting (called manufacturing in game) is an extremely large part of the economy. The economy is the main driving force in the game. Alot of the PVP is based upon claiming territories and harvesting the resources of that area. A decent number of people pvp for the sake of pvping....but the major driving force in game is really the economy and controlling territory. I find the mix of PVP / PVE / crafting to be a nice blend in an extremely brutal and true sandbox. Eve can be unforgiving at times...but it has a niche for everyone.
Have you ever done the "If CCP had done (game) instead..." with some of the games out there?
My favorite game for this is WoW. If CCP had done WoW instead of Blizzard...
Imagine a much larger world map. The races as factions. Zones becoming more dangerous as you moved away from the main cities. Player cities. Etc, etc, etc.
EVE is too foreign to many players though. They just do not want an internet spaceships game. Incarna is not going to change that.
It will be interesting to see what CCP does with WoD.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
To VirusDancer. I really don't think you're getting the point of a sandbox here...
You stated previously that to you, UO was basically a game with little else to do worthwhile except for PvP (and I mean player combat, no word twisting). You also posted several tirades exclaiming how the OP must be a cry baby because he does not agree with your view.
See...now this is where you miss the point. A sandbox game should be MANY different things to MANY different people. To you, UO was a PvP game. To me, it was more about exploration, and I don't mean just walking around, I mean always finding new interesting stuff everytime I come back to play. Crazy things happened in UO...people would have weddings, players would create towns etc. etc. All of this diversity made me feel that UO was truly a dynamic world. I felt that this had value, but clearly you, do not.
But that's the point! Two people can play UO and enjoy it for completely different reasons. The only rule is that you should NOT try to tell one player that he's wrong because he didn't see the game the way you did. And that is exactly what you have been doing throughout this whole post.
I want it all. I want the ffa full loot pvp, I want to build cities, and run a farm, or maybe start up a factory. I want to go to weddings (I'll even make the bridesmaids' dresses, which is a whole different form of pvp). I want to build a reputation, wealth, and power purely as a crafter of obscure decorative objects if that's what I feel like doing. I want AI that's smarter than I am, at least before I've had my morning coffee (damn those Darkfall goblins in the morning!).
Eh, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. And sadly, it keeps coming back to what I want not seeming to be what most people want. The games that come closest aren't the games with the most subscribers. All you gamers out there need to fall in line with what I want in an MMO, starting tomorrow.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
To VirusDancer. I really don't think you're getting the point of a sandbox here...
You stated previously that to you, UO was basically a game with little else to do worthwhile except for PvP (and I mean player combat, no word twisting). You also posted several tirades exclaiming how the OP must be a cry baby because he does not agree with your view.
See...now this is where you miss the point. A sandbox game should be MANY different things to MANY different people. To you, UO was a PvP game. To me, it was more about exploration, and I don't mean just walking around, I mean always finding new interesting stuff everytime I come back to play. Crazy things happened in UO...people would have weddings, players would create towns etc. etc. All of this diversity made me feel that UO was truly a dynamic world. I felt that this had value, but clearly you, do not.
But that's the point! Two people can play UO and enjoy it for completely different reasons. The only rule is that you should NOT try to tell one player that he's wrong because he didn't see the game the way you did. And that is exactly what you have been doing throughout this whole post.
Creslin, um no. I have been saying that. The OP has been crying about FFA PvP. There has been an actual intelligent discussion taking place within this thread on what players want, offering it to them, issues with sandboxes and themeparks, mob AI, the social aspects of sandboxes, etc, etc.
I have insinuated that the OP is a crybaby because of the crying done in the original post and the topic of the thread. What he has gone on to say has only supported that.
There is a good thread hiding within this thread, and it is not really hiding that much. It is right there.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
(quoted from another poster I saw a few months back would credit but don't remember name)
If you took everyone that was playing UO at one time and threw them out into the open (non-guarded area) very little fighting would have transpired.
You might of had a few people here and there fighting (Vanilla UO) but it would be totally different if you took MO and DF and stuck everyone out of town together.
The MMO community now and then are totally different also. Hell when UO was released it was AWESOME just to play with hundreds of other people. Now you can do that within seconds and it's become over saturated.
This is more about the change in community though, than about FFA PvP and options.
Like you said, back then - there was a new factor - but that quickly disappeared and thus we had other games crop up pretty quickly. Those games offered much of what UO offered and much more.
Still, the slaughter before the shard would go down because it would not save - so many people showed up for that.
It really did not take that long to explore most of the world in UO. It was cool to see how people had decorated their houses, how friends had set their homes up as little towns as you said. Still, there was always the risk that somebody was in the house waiting to kill you. As people were hawking their goods by the bank, there was always somebody waiting there to steal them.
The majority of people that I knew in the game I knew from the old Prodigy.com Vampire Pub and Peaceful Warrior Inn RP rooms. The original rooms - not the Pseudo Chat garbage. Some that I played HLDM with. There were people from all over - and - there were more than had been in those chatrooms. It was somewhat nifty.
Yet at the end of the day, it was about PvP. Crafting was for PvP. Farming mobs was for PvP. Homes were decorated with the spoils of PvP. Guilds fought guilds. PKKs hunted PKs.
It was not until other games came along, that PvE actually took on the meaning it has now.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding for what makes AI fun to fight against.
Personally I feel Grouping + Threat-based AI is one of the stronger offerings the games industry has put out in terms of fun AI. It's the most game-like AI. It's a game mechanic unto itself.
The bigger failings are actually:
Difficulty options. A failure to offer each player their own personal "sweet spot of challenge" at every step of their journey is terrible. Players will mistakenly place blame on the AI system for this failure, when it's actually just a failure to offer a breadth of challenges so that every player can find that tightly-strung difficulty (if they desire.)
World gameplay. "Field of monsters" (ie very evident "bad AI") is more a trait of the difficulty of implementing compelling content in a world setting, vs. instancing. 5 years after Guild Wars gave us tons of compelling, scripted instanced content where the AI frequently acted logically (and only rarely exhibited "field of monsters" behavior) we still barely ever see that type of immersive AI used (WOW dungeons are finally barely at that level.)
Solve these two issues and the result would be a MMORPG (or at least an ORPG) where the AI wouldn't feel bad at all.
If you take the time to read up on articles by the top game AI programmers, they all agree that good AI is not about being smart AI, but having the appearance of being smart. Everyone went nuts about F.E.A.R.'s AI while I pointed out it really wasn't much different from the (years older) Half-Life 1 AI. Reading an article written by FEAR's AI Programmer confirmed that hunch. I mean it's still an AI that players feel is good -- and that's what matters, and that's why FEAR's AI Programmer deserves props -- but it's not a smart AI.
This is why imo PvP is more fun than PvE: PvE the ability to change the E is limited to crafting (few good examples) or economy (auction) and the mobs are limited to some form of AI.
(1) I wonder if you could call SMART AI, a bunch of mobs controlled by commands by another player, smart?! It would certainly annex the problem of mobs being picked off 1-by-1, they might develop strategy and react smart!
(2) The other idea posted about High-Sec, Null-Sec Zones for FFA PvP from EVE Online is another good implementation idea.
but I still have to say there is more to sandbox mmos than PvP.
I do not disagree with that. Nothing I have said in this thread disagrees with that.
However, I do not believe that is what you have been saying throughout this thread.
The thread title is laying blame on FFA PvP for the issue in sandboxes. Yet as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the majority of people have a problem with sandboxes long before you get to the PvP.
I came at the thread along the lines of your offering a persuasive argument. However, you focused entirely too much on the issue of griefers - games that are the equivalent of a MMOFPS - and wanting to seek balance by swinging the pendulum more to the gatherer side. Do I get caught up on words and absolutes at times? Yes, I do. Quite a bit, to be honest.
You split the groups up into hunters vs. gatherers. You favor the gatherer group. You dislike the hunter group. That comes across throughout the thread.
You want sandbox games to be more social. FFA PvP forces one to be more social. You cannot survive on your own. Yet, you dismiss this. FFA PvP games are some of the most social games. They are generally despised by the solo player. I mentioned that several pages back.
You rail against FFA PvP and what it has done to sandbox games, ignoring what other issues they have. Frankly, there has been more discussion in this thread on how to improve the PvE aspects of sandboxes when you were not involved. Just more comments against PvP, those that enjoy PvP, and the like...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I want it all. I want the ffa full loot pvp, I want to build cities, and run a farm, or maybe start up a factory. I want to go to weddings (I'll even make the bridesmaids' dresses, which is a whole different form of pvp). I want to build a reputation, wealth, and power purely as a crafter of obscure decorative objects if that's what I feel like doing. I want AI that's smarter than I am, at least before I've had my morning coffee (damn those Darkfall goblins in the morning!).
Eh, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. And sadly, it keeps coming back to what I want not seeming to be what most people want. The games that come closest aren't the games with the most subscribers. All you gamers out there need to fall in line with what I want in an MMO, starting tomorrow.
Sadly, this is true. Most players want no PvP, no death penalty. Yes, they want player housing and player cities. They want awesome crafting. They do not want smart AIs though.
WoW comes the closest to what they want. Add in player housing and cities, reduce the death penalty, improve the crafting...
...and it is enough to make a grown man cry.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
I mentioned earlier that my dream game would be a combination of Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and EVE Online.
Some of the elements of those games already overlap, and that is probably why those are among the games I have the fondest memories. It would take me hours upon hours to document all the tidbits I would combine from those games for my dream game...
...but it would not matter.
It is what I want. It is not what millions of people who would pay a monthly sub would want.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
eve online has such good pvp and pve synergy that without both of them eve just wouldnt exist.
hopefully CCPs new mmo will be just as hardcore.
It will be interesting to see what they do with WoD. Some of the arguments over them going with Masquerade instead of Requiem have been a trip. The storyteller system based a great deal on personal story. Why mattered a great deal instead of just what.
It is difficult to picture it being much of a PvP game at all. That is not a bad thing though, as long as there are actually things to do and it is not just a 3D chatroom for gothies...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
but I still have to say there is more to sandbox mmos than PvP.
I do not disagree with that. Nothing I have said in this thread disagrees with that.
However, I do not believe that is what you have been saying throughout this thread.
The thread title is laying blame on FFA PvP for the issue in sandboxes. Yet as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the majority of people have a problem with sandboxes long before you get to the PvP.
I came at the thread along the lines of your offering a persuasive argument. However, you focused entirely too much on the issue of griefers - games that are the equivalent of a MMOFPS - and wanting to seek balance by swinging the pendulum more to the gatherer side. Do I get caught up on words and absolutes at times? Yes, I do. Quite a bit, to be honest.
You split the groups up into hunters vs. gatherers. You favor the gatherer group (Did not say that). You dislike the hunter group (Never once did I say this). That comes across throughout the thread (How did everyone but you get the message that I was stating: Devs have to stop trying to balance/build games around PvP and start building them around just living).
You want sandbox games to be more social (don't forget crafter and builder friendly as well). FFA PvP forces one to be more social (Forced socializing is not good socializing). You cannot survive on your own. Yet, you dismiss this (UO was one of the most solo friendly mmos out there). FFA PvP games are some of the most social games (No, social games are some of the most social games out there). They are generally despised by the solo player (Actually most older solo players could care less if a game has FFA PvP or not). I mentioned that several pages back.
You rail against FFA PvP and what it has done to sandbox games, ignoring what other issues they have (The "other" issues is the just of my arguement because of the focus on balancing a game around FFA PvP, devs generally spend less time trying to improve weaker parts of these mmos). Frankly, there has been more discussion in this thread on how to improve the PvE aspects of sandboxes when you were not involved. Just more comments against PvP, those that enjoy PvP, and the like... (Do you mean before or after i took the time to try to explain to you that I'm not attacking PvPers, but discussing how I think the focus on building sandbox mmos centered on PvP need to shift to more social aspects?)
Ok look. Take either of the 3 sandbox mmos out there right now DF, MO and EvE and ask yourself this. Is the game built around FFA PvP or is FFA PvP an option in the game? Because all I here from all there games is the lack of more players to make the worlds seem livelier. Well that's becasue the main focus is on balancing things around PvP and not around anything else from the Bartle's view.
One of my all time joys in UO was finding treasure maps and sailing out to locate them and saving enough gold to afford a stone keep. I decorated my home with crafted items and veteran items. Yes I PvPed with 2 of my buddies, but it was only because we role played ninjas (black clothes and all). That type of freedom to get lost in the world cannot be found in today's assortment of mmos. Becasue it's all about some type of forced something. Force grouping, forced to watch your back or forced to fight or be farmed.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
but I still have to say there is more to sandbox mmos than PvP.
I do not disagree with that. Nothing I have said in this thread disagrees with that.
However, I do not believe that is what you have been saying throughout this thread.
The thread title is laying blame on FFA PvP for the issue in sandboxes. Yet as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the majority of people have a problem with sandboxes long before you get to the PvP.
I came at the thread along the lines of your offering a persuasive argument. However, you focused entirely too much on the issue of griefers - games that are the equivalent of a MMOFPS - and wanting to seek balance by swinging the pendulum more to the gatherer side. Do I get caught up on words and absolutes at times? Yes, I do. Quite a bit, to be honest.
You split the groups up into hunters vs. gatherers. You favor the gatherer group (Did not say that). You dislike the hunter group (Never once did I say this). That comes across throughout the thread (How did everyone but you get the message that I was stating: Devs have to stop trying to balance/build games around PvP and start building them around just living).
You want sandbox games to be more social (don't forget crafter and builder friendly as well). FFA PvP forces one to be more social (Forced socializing is not good socializing). You cannot survive on your own. Yet, you dismiss this (UO was one of the most solo friendly mmos out there). FFA PvP games are some of the most social games (No, social games are some of the most social games out there). They are generally despised by the solo player (Actually most older solo players could care less if a game has FFA PvP or not). I mentioned that several pages back.
You rail against FFA PvP and what it has done to sandbox games, ignoring what other issues they have (The "other" issues is the just of my arguement because of the focus on balancing a game around FFA PvP, devs generally spend less time trying to improve weaker parts of these mmos). Frankly, there has been more discussion in this thread on how to improve the PvE aspects of sandboxes when you were not involved. Just more comments against PvP, those that enjoy PvP, and the like... (Do you mean before or after i took the time to try to explain to you that I'm not attacking PvPers, but discussing how I think the focus on building sandbox mmos centered on PvP need to shift to more social aspects?)
Ok look. Take either of the 3 sandbox mmos out there right now DF, MO and EvE and ask yourself this. Is the game built around FFA PvP or is FFA PvP an option in the game? Because all I here from all there games is the lack of more players to make the worlds seem livelier. Well that's becasue the main focus is on balancing things around PvP and not around anything else from the Bartle's view.
One of my all time joys in UO was finding treasure maps and sailing out to locate them and saving enough gold to afford a stone keep. I decorated my home with crafted items and veteran items. Yes I PvPed with 2 of my buddies, but it was only because we role played ninjas (black clothes and all). That type of freedom to get lost in the world cannot be found in today's assortment of mmos. Becasue it's all about some type of forced something. Force grouping, forced to watch your back or forced to fight or be farmed.
I hope you're not trying to argue that EVE is lacking in player-base? Which other game pretty much always has over 20,000 concurrent users, and can often push the 30 to 40,000 player mark?
Building your game "around" PvP is exactly how a sandbox game should work. However in saying that I'm not saying that you should force everyone to participate, or make it the only viable option or pursuit in the game, instead the developers need to consider PvP as an important and central aspect of the game, rather than 'tacking it on" later as an afterthought.
I hope you're not trying to argue that EVE is lacking in player-base? Which other game pretty much always has over 20,000 concurrent users, and can often push the 30 to 40,000 player mark?
Building your game "around" PvP is exactly how a sandbox game should work. However in saying that I'm not saying that you should force everyone to participate, or make it the only viable option or pursuit in the game, instead the developers need to consider PvP as an important and central aspect of the game, rather than 'tacking it on" later as an afterthought.
I was not going to reply further in the thread, but yeah - the inclusion of EVE with DF and MO threw me on a few points.
DF is not a sandbox. It is an Action MMO - designed from the start to be a PvP game. It was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
Likewise, MO is not a sandbox. It is a MMOFPS - once again designed from the start to be a PvP game. It too was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
They are both PvP games. They do not belong in sandbox discussions.
EVE Online on the other hand is a sandbox. The PvP in EVE is more complex - it is not simply about combat, territory control, or the like. It is not an Action MMO. It is not a MMOFPS. Many people call it a game of internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS. As already noted in this thread and in various other threads, the most cutthroat PvP in EVE generally takes place on the Market.
Trading. Mining. R&D. Industry. Courier. Missions. Sovereignty. Null Sec. Pirating. Factional Warfare. Player-Owned Stations. Planetary Interaction. Politics. So many paths...acknowledging the PvP nature of the universe.
The general goal of most players is power in some form.
Yet you have people that have never been to Null Sec. You have people that have never been to Low Sec. You have people that have never even targeted another player. But yes, you have people at the opposite end of the spectrum.
It is a sandbox.
If the OP is basing the title of the thread on games such as DF and MO, then the OP's part in this thread has been meaningless. Neither game is a sandbox. They are two examples of PvP games.
As to whether PvP needs to be a design focus (not the solitary focus, but a definite focus) of a sandbox, there can be no arguing that. Will there be more? One need only look at a game such as EVE to see that to be the case.
Hrmm, I'm being too positive about EVE here...lol. Oh yeah, Incarna is useless fluff that will lead to people being disappointed, will not change the underlying fact that EVE is internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS, and the developer time could have been better spent working on EVE itself instead of what is obviously a thinly veiled attempt to beta the avatar system for World of Darkness...
...lol, there - better. Still, EVE is one of the best games if not the best game on the market.
edit: I should offer the disclaimer that I am not currently subscribed to EVE (waiting for Incarna to be finished so they can return to working on EVE) and am currently only subscribed to City of Heroes. Sometimes you just need to make a skimpy dressed female toon that punches things and knocks them across the room...lol. WHAM! POW!
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Originally posted by Ramonski7 Ok look. Take either of the 3 sandbox mmos out there right now DF, MO and EvE and ask yourself this. Is the game built around FFA PvP or is FFA PvP an option in the game? Because all I here from all there games is the lack of more players to make the worlds seem livelier. Well that's becasue the main focus is on balancing things around PvP and not around anything else from the Bartle's view. One of my all time joys in UO was finding treasure maps and sailing out to locate them and saving enough gold to afford a stone keep. I decorated my home with crafted items and veteran items. Yes I PvPed with 2 of my buddies, but it was only because we role played ninjas (black clothes and all). That type of freedom to get lost in the world cannot be found in today's assortment of mmos. Becasue it's all about some type of forced something. Force grouping, forced to watch your back or forced to fight or be farmed.
EvE is not built around FFA PvP, it only allows for FFA PvP... but I guess that's very hard to understand for people who never played it.
In EvE Online 80% of the gameplay is all about PvE... gathering ressources, crafting items, exploration and shooting NPCs.
In EvE Online 50% of the players never leave high-sec-space, but only run missions in total safety, doing industry-tasks (crafting, selling, transporting). Another 25% of players do nothing else then PvE-stuff in wormholes, low- ornull-sec.
You really need to understand, that EvE is not all about PvP, it let's players choose to play the game 100% as a PvE-game without ever facing PvP, if they don't want to.
And that's exactly what a sandbox is all about tbh. A sandbox let's the players decide what to do, and this includes FFA PvP and doesn't rule it out.
Comments
It may be cliche, but how many stories have the one disillusioned guy that leaves the backdoor open?
I have to say, I was thinking about the dymanic thing while out having a smoke. Dynamic environment, as you said - the effect of weather - a blizzard strikes, does one side decide to hold off their attack or attack regardless. The effect of heat on those in armor. There is so much - reality - that could be added. Also, in line with what GW2 is doing - along the lines of what AO did - imagine finding out that one of your enemies is under attack by some NPC faction - do you attack? Or perhaps it is a friendly city, do you rush to the attack - not entirely sure if it is a major offensive by those NPCs - do you leave yourself at risk?
Yes, there is so much that could be added - but in the end, it would not appeal to the casual gamer. They want simple and easy.
Still, it is fun to dream at times.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
If you are looking for a PVP sandbox game to really sink your teeth into then look no further than Eve online. It is the epitome of all sandbox games in my opinion and should be the benchmark for what all future sandbox mmos should be judged by. There is a clear seperation of safety zones from high security systems to low security systems to zero security systems to . Even though you may be in a high security system...you can still get ganked by 5-6 dedicated players before CONCORD (pretty much the guards of most games) blows those players up. This is why I feel this game is FFA in all zones...you can be attacked anywhere at anytime (but the attacker will have to face the consequences of such actions).
PVE in the game is done by a fairly large amount of people and crafting (called manufacturing in game) is an extremely large part of the economy. The economy is the main driving force in the game. Alot of the PVP is based upon claiming territories and harvesting the resources of that area. A decent number of people pvp for the sake of pvping....but the major driving force in game is really the economy and controlling territory. I find the mix of PVP / PVE / crafting to be a nice blend in an extremely brutal and true sandbox. Eve can be unforgiving at times...but it has a niche for everyone.
Yes, games that I play to pass the time should be time-consuming. That's why I play them.
I think what the OP is trying to say is.........
(quoted from another poster I saw a few months back would credit but don't remember name)
If you took everyone that was playing UO at one time and threw them out into the open (non-guarded area) very little fighting would have transpired.
You might of had a few people here and there fighting (Vanilla UO) but it would be totally different if you took MO and DF and stuck everyone out of town together.
The MMO community now and then are totally different also. Hell when UO was released it was AWESOME just to play with hundreds of other people. Now you can do that within seconds and it's become over saturated.
Are you mad bro? Seriously, that was damn near line for line what I put in my first post. You truely are a dancer of sorts. You can believe what you want about my preference of gaming if you like, although I can guarentee you'd lose that bet. But seriously, that was the just of my topic here, glad to see you finally got it in 7 pages what it took others to get in 1 post. It's not about doing away with PvP, the struggle i have is about bringing in more choices to choose what to do from.
I've been around for a long time and seen a lot of things, in the military you are what we call a jody. The ones that talk as much as you do about others usually are.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Everyone is a PVPer.
PVP = MMO
You compete against other players in every aspect. If you didn't you would be playing a single player game.
By the way, the best roleplaying I have ever done in any game has been in the FFA Sandbox MMO's. You have to carve a name for yourself out within these games while sticking to your guns and staying in character. It makes for the most indepth experiance you will have ever have in any game. Names like Shadowclan and Ordo Castium Carnifex comes to mind for role playing guilds within these harsh enviroments.
You can't have a sandbox game without it being an open enviroment.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
It was a trip doing a Google of "field of monsters" and finding that forum post from you back in 2005.
I think the concept of grouping and threat is a good idea, we have had the trinity since D&D started - however, I believe it is being poorly implemented. There are too many artificial tanking methods that are beyond realistic. Threat generation and mob response is off-kilter. The mobs are not reacting to their potential.
As for difficulty options, that is a tricky one. I do not think that the game should cater to the player. There should be a range of difficulties, and players should be able to tackle those when they are ready - whether through blunt force or exploiting a known weakness (actual weakness, not a mechanic exploit).
My main issue with AI is potential. A DMGM would play a NPC to their potential. In MMORPGs, we have scripted bosses - you could set their watch by what they are going to do. They do not act to their potential. You have a boss that supposedly rules over thousands of minions...and well, yeah - blecch.
I suppose some of it falls into that "field of monsters" concept you have regarding mobs waiting to be killed. It drives me crazy that I can see a mob standing still and watching as I kill one of their fellows. No call to alarm. No coming to their ally's aid.
In PnP, you had to be careful while going into a dungeon not wanting to have the whole place coming down on you. In MMORPGs, it is tank and spank - break out the big guns and make some noise.
The AI of mobs should react to threats. It does not. So as I have said, it is very smart in the way it has been programmed to die - it does that very well; but in the end, it is rather disappointing.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I see the minority is awake and in full swing now. I won't go so far as to say something so utterly low-brow. Breaking something down to such a basic element is pointless then. If that's the case even single player games are a form of PvP then, because each is linked to an achievement and we are all in a race to get the highest achievement no?
The question is not if you can have a sandbox game without it being an open environment. It's if you want your open environment to only be about FFA PvP......do you?
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Mad? Annoyed perhaps. I do not like ignorance. Your pathetic attempts to state that I had said something was annoying. It was not even a case of trying to misconstrue what I said. You were simply making it up as you went along to suit the fantasy world you live in. As I said earlier, your post was an obvious troll post. So yes, annoyed with myself for being baited into any form of discussion with you.
Still, there has been intelligent discussion in the thread despite you.
It is a curious thing, Jodies and cadences. Another curious thing would be... well... how much "the ones that talk as much as you do about others usually are" applies far more to you than it does to myself.
You have pushed garbage stereotypes like a used car salesman at the end of the month, while I have only pointed out your dislike of PvP with consequences and a desire to play Barbie with new online friends also interested in playing Barbie.
What I stated, was not a part of your original post nor the title of this thread. Now, your original post and the title come off like the typical Benny Boy crying about how somebody collecting dirt in their teeth made E-5 before them...even though they push pencil with the best of them.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
To VirusDancer. I really don't think you're getting the point of a sandbox here...
You stated previously that to you, UO was basically a game with little else to do worthwhile except for PvP (and I mean player combat, no word twisting). You also posted several tirades exclaiming how the OP must be a cry baby because he does not agree with your view.
See...now this is where you miss the point. A sandbox game should be MANY different things to MANY different people. To you, UO was a PvP game. To me, it was more about exploration, and I don't mean just walking around, I mean always finding new interesting stuff everytime I come back to play. Crazy things happened in UO...people would have weddings, players would create towns etc. etc. All of this diversity made me feel that UO was truly a dynamic world. I felt that this had value, but clearly you, do not.
But that's the point! Two people can play UO and enjoy it for completely different reasons. The only rule is that you should NOT try to tell one player that he's wrong because he didn't see the game the way you did. And that is exactly what you have been doing throughout this whole post.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Lol, mad bro?
Single player games where you check accomplishments online, could be considered PvP. If you are just playing to have fun and do not care, then it would not be PvP - would it?
However, in a MMO... almost everything is PvP.
Still, one could go with the basic idea of it just being about combat. In this case one should, since you are just going with it in the most basic form.
However, strictly speaking - in a MMO almost everything is PvP.
That is a loaded question you have at the end as well. Do not think anybody is talking about the open environment being only about FFA PvP...
...most people have talked about the social aspects of FFA PvP.
Of course, one of the mechanics missing from PvE is from the lack of Friendly Fire... but hey, this thread is supposed to be about what is wrong with FFA PvP and not what is wrong with PvE because of a lack of FFA PvP.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
LOL where did I say I dislike PvP with consequences? Or that my only desire was playing digital dress-up? I'm sorry but in the military we learned to work together as well as how to fight. The working together part is not always linked to fighting. But as of late that seems to be the main driving force with sandbox games. What kind of PvP does it have? What can I take over? Yada yada yada. But please. Point out where I pushed any type of sterotype other than PvPers being hunter types and PvEers being gatherer type.
Both of which I even stated reside in myself and my playing style. Trust me I'm trying to be open minded here. Truely I'm a nice guy. But if you're gonna get in a fizzy because I called you a civillian, then this convo can serve no purpose to mend the vexing you think I caused. Honestly. You even said the best time and only challenge that UO gave you was FFA PvP and that all you like to do is PvP, but when I say it you get offended. But you can call me out as a lair and say I don't like PvP.....
And calling me a troll. Please...why on earth would I troll something and under the same breath just to it's defense? Anyway, I offer my sincere apology if you think I've wronged you, but I still have to say there is more to sandbox mmos than PvP.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Have you ever done the "If CCP had done (game) instead..." with some of the games out there?
My favorite game for this is WoW. If CCP had done WoW instead of Blizzard...
Imagine a much larger world map. The races as factions. Zones becoming more dangerous as you moved away from the main cities. Player cities. Etc, etc, etc.
EVE is too foreign to many players though. They just do not want an internet spaceships game. Incarna is not going to change that.
It will be interesting to see what CCP does with WoD.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I want it all. I want the ffa full loot pvp, I want to build cities, and run a farm, or maybe start up a factory. I want to go to weddings (I'll even make the bridesmaids' dresses, which is a whole different form of pvp). I want to build a reputation, wealth, and power purely as a crafter of obscure decorative objects if that's what I feel like doing. I want AI that's smarter than I am, at least before I've had my morning coffee (damn those Darkfall goblins in the morning!).
Eh, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. And sadly, it keeps coming back to what I want not seeming to be what most people want. The games that come closest aren't the games with the most subscribers. All you gamers out there need to fall in line with what I want in an MMO, starting tomorrow.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Creslin, um no. I have been saying that. The OP has been crying about FFA PvP. There has been an actual intelligent discussion taking place within this thread on what players want, offering it to them, issues with sandboxes and themeparks, mob AI, the social aspects of sandboxes, etc, etc.
I have insinuated that the OP is a crybaby because of the crying done in the original post and the topic of the thread. What he has gone on to say has only supported that.
There is a good thread hiding within this thread, and it is not really hiding that much. It is right there.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
This is more about the change in community though, than about FFA PvP and options.
Like you said, back then - there was a new factor - but that quickly disappeared and thus we had other games crop up pretty quickly. Those games offered much of what UO offered and much more.
Still, the slaughter before the shard would go down because it would not save - so many people showed up for that.
It really did not take that long to explore most of the world in UO. It was cool to see how people had decorated their houses, how friends had set their homes up as little towns as you said. Still, there was always the risk that somebody was in the house waiting to kill you. As people were hawking their goods by the bank, there was always somebody waiting there to steal them.
The majority of people that I knew in the game I knew from the old Prodigy.com Vampire Pub and Peaceful Warrior Inn RP rooms. The original rooms - not the Pseudo Chat garbage. Some that I played HLDM with. There were people from all over - and - there were more than had been in those chatrooms. It was somewhat nifty.
Yet at the end of the day, it was about PvP. Crafting was for PvP. Farming mobs was for PvP. Homes were decorated with the spoils of PvP. Guilds fought guilds. PKKs hunted PKs.
It was not until other games came along, that PvE actually took on the meaning it has now.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
This is why imo PvP is more fun than PvE: PvE the ability to change the E is limited to crafting (few good examples) or economy (auction) and the mobs are limited to some form of AI.
(1) I wonder if you could call SMART AI, a bunch of mobs controlled by commands by another player, smart?! It would certainly annex the problem of mobs being picked off 1-by-1, they might develop strategy and react smart!
(2) The other idea posted about High-Sec, Null-Sec Zones for FFA PvP from EVE Online is another good implementation idea.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I do not disagree with that. Nothing I have said in this thread disagrees with that.
However, I do not believe that is what you have been saying throughout this thread.
The thread title is laying blame on FFA PvP for the issue in sandboxes. Yet as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the majority of people have a problem with sandboxes long before you get to the PvP.
I came at the thread along the lines of your offering a persuasive argument. However, you focused entirely too much on the issue of griefers - games that are the equivalent of a MMOFPS - and wanting to seek balance by swinging the pendulum more to the gatherer side. Do I get caught up on words and absolutes at times? Yes, I do. Quite a bit, to be honest.
You split the groups up into hunters vs. gatherers. You favor the gatherer group. You dislike the hunter group. That comes across throughout the thread.
You want sandbox games to be more social. FFA PvP forces one to be more social. You cannot survive on your own. Yet, you dismiss this. FFA PvP games are some of the most social games. They are generally despised by the solo player. I mentioned that several pages back.
You rail against FFA PvP and what it has done to sandbox games, ignoring what other issues they have. Frankly, there has been more discussion in this thread on how to improve the PvE aspects of sandboxes when you were not involved. Just more comments against PvP, those that enjoy PvP, and the like...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Sadly, this is true. Most players want no PvP, no death penalty. Yes, they want player housing and player cities. They want awesome crafting. They do not want smart AIs though.
WoW comes the closest to what they want. Add in player housing and cities, reduce the death penalty, improve the crafting...
...and it is enough to make a grown man cry.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I mentioned earlier that my dream game would be a combination of Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and EVE Online.
Some of the elements of those games already overlap, and that is probably why those are among the games I have the fondest memories. It would take me hours upon hours to document all the tidbits I would combine from those games for my dream game...
...but it would not matter.
It is what I want. It is not what millions of people who would pay a monthly sub would want.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
eve online has such good pvp and pve synergy that without both of them eve just wouldnt exist.
hopefully CCPs new mmo will be just as hardcore.
It will be interesting to see what they do with WoD. Some of the arguments over them going with Masquerade instead of Requiem have been a trip. The storyteller system based a great deal on personal story. Why mattered a great deal instead of just what.
It is difficult to picture it being much of a PvP game at all. That is not a bad thing though, as long as there are actually things to do and it is not just a 3D chatroom for gothies...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Ok look. Take either of the 3 sandbox mmos out there right now DF, MO and EvE and ask yourself this. Is the game built around FFA PvP or is FFA PvP an option in the game? Because all I here from all there games is the lack of more players to make the worlds seem livelier. Well that's becasue the main focus is on balancing things around PvP and not around anything else from the Bartle's view.
One of my all time joys in UO was finding treasure maps and sailing out to locate them and saving enough gold to afford a stone keep. I decorated my home with crafted items and veteran items. Yes I PvPed with 2 of my buddies, but it was only because we role played ninjas (black clothes and all). That type of freedom to get lost in the world cannot be found in today's assortment of mmos. Becasue it's all about some type of forced something. Force grouping, forced to watch your back or forced to fight or be farmed.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I hope you're not trying to argue that EVE is lacking in player-base? Which other game pretty much always has over 20,000 concurrent users, and can often push the 30 to 40,000 player mark?
Building your game "around" PvP is exactly how a sandbox game should work. However in saying that I'm not saying that you should force everyone to participate, or make it the only viable option or pursuit in the game, instead the developers need to consider PvP as an important and central aspect of the game, rather than 'tacking it on" later as an afterthought.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
I was not going to reply further in the thread, but yeah - the inclusion of EVE with DF and MO threw me on a few points.
DF is not a sandbox. It is an Action MMO - designed from the start to be a PvP game. It was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
Likewise, MO is not a sandbox. It is a MMOFPS - once again designed from the start to be a PvP game. It too was not designed as a sandbox with PvP at the core.
They are both PvP games. They do not belong in sandbox discussions.
EVE Online on the other hand is a sandbox. The PvP in EVE is more complex - it is not simply about combat, territory control, or the like. It is not an Action MMO. It is not a MMOFPS. Many people call it a game of internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS. As already noted in this thread and in various other threads, the most cutthroat PvP in EVE generally takes place on the Market.
Trading. Mining. R&D. Industry. Courier. Missions. Sovereignty. Null Sec. Pirating. Factional Warfare. Player-Owned Stations. Planetary Interaction. Politics. So many paths...acknowledging the PvP nature of the universe.
The general goal of most players is power in some form.
Yet you have people that have never been to Null Sec. You have people that have never been to Low Sec. You have people that have never even targeted another player. But yes, you have people at the opposite end of the spectrum.
It is a sandbox.
If the OP is basing the title of the thread on games such as DF and MO, then the OP's part in this thread has been meaningless. Neither game is a sandbox. They are two examples of PvP games.
As to whether PvP needs to be a design focus (not the solitary focus, but a definite focus) of a sandbox, there can be no arguing that. Will there be more? One need only look at a game such as EVE to see that to be the case.
Hrmm, I'm being too positive about EVE here...lol. Oh yeah, Incarna is useless fluff that will lead to people being disappointed, will not change the underlying fact that EVE is internet spaceships and SPREADSHEETS, and the developer time could have been better spent working on EVE itself instead of what is obviously a thinly veiled attempt to beta the avatar system for World of Darkness...
...lol, there - better. Still, EVE is one of the best games if not the best game on the market.
edit: I should offer the disclaimer that I am not currently subscribed to EVE (waiting for Incarna to be finished so they can return to working on EVE) and am currently only subscribed to City of Heroes. Sometimes you just need to make a skimpy dressed female toon that punches things and knocks them across the room...lol. WHAM! POW!
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
EvE is not built around FFA PvP, it only allows for FFA PvP... but I guess that's very hard to understand for people who never played it.
In EvE Online 80% of the gameplay is all about PvE... gathering ressources, crafting items, exploration and shooting NPCs.
In EvE Online 50% of the players never leave high-sec-space, but only run missions in total safety, doing industry-tasks (crafting, selling, transporting). Another 25% of players do nothing else then PvE-stuff in wormholes, low- ornull-sec.
You really need to understand, that EvE is not all about PvP, it let's players choose to play the game 100% as a PvE-game without ever facing PvP, if they don't want to.
And that's exactly what a sandbox is all about tbh. A sandbox let's the players decide what to do, and this includes FFA PvP and doesn't rule it out.