Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PvP has been the killer of the Sandbox subgenre of MMORPGs
MMOExposed
Member RarePosts: 7,400
PvP focus has been the main killer of the Sandbox subgenre of MMORPGs.
Iam not suggestion future developers remove all PvP, but I say endgame in Sandbox MMORPGs should be balanced between both PvP Endgame, and PvE engame. Not 75%PvP / 25%PvE like the current trend is for this subgenre.
PvE focused MMO doesnt do well.
PvP focused MMO also doesnt do well.
But a combo of both being main features, is the best design to take IMO when it comes to MMORPGs.
Many developers are putting in Harsh DP in Sandbox MMO, to give the PvP playerbase something to be amused to. But normally its the PvE players left to suffer from this, while at the same time, the PvE sucks and limited to crafting/gathering.
When will Sandbox MMO, take PvE to the next gen level? When wil lwe get large scale PvE raids? What about this new PvE Event trend that WoW,Rift, and GW2 has? When will Sandbox genre get this level of PvE?
Also back to PvP, why do developer feel the need to sub in Harsh DP in the game, over adding actual Interesting Endgame PvP elements? Right now, endgame consist of nothing but Ganking/Grieving. come on,,, We can do better design than this. How about some Objectives to PvP, other than simply gankfest?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Comments
I agree that a combo of PvE and PvP are very important.
IMO, PvE needs a lot of content- but NOT a lot of balance. PvP needs very little content, but a lot of balance. I believe this is entirely do-able, especially if PvE and PvP balance is separated (how skills affect players are different than npc's).
EQ2 - Horrible horrible PvP, unbalanced, unfair, unorganized, just god-awful. I quit because there was no PvP, despite how I absolutely LOVED this game's PvE and Crafting.
Vanguard- Non-existent PvP and performance issues, making me quit. Otherwise, I loved this game. Gorgeous game world, exploration, challenge, interesting combat, amazing classes, and good crafting and AMAZING harvesting. Perfect group-based harvesting, I loved it!
WAR- Really good PvP, but horrid PvE. I only quit because the population shrank and PvP instances didnt queue up until every 10 minutes, and PvE was soooo boring those 10 minutes were WAY too long. "Get me out of this PvE....PLEASE!!!!" Just wasn't worth it once the population died, but IMO was a great game....for only instanced PvP. Making is a "meh" snore-fest after awhile.
Darkfall- PvP was fun, combat was fun, but this game was a grind which forced you to sacrifice months of your life just to compete. No thanks! Non-existent PvE-- PvE was a joke in this game.
DAoC - Amazing PvE and amazing PvP. Perfect game IMO until dying populations destroyed it (ToA and abandoning Origin Server). The moment they added Task Dungeons, the moment they took away PvE and destroyed the game (temporarily). My best friend called this game "Dark Age of Task Dungeons" as it was mind-numbingly horrid experience which almost made us suicide IRL (Not really...but mind suicide yes!) With the introduction of RvR PvE (PvE in the Lions Den and lower level BG's lvls 1-19) the game became amazing again, because PvE became PvP. Still... I loved the dungeons in DAoC and Mithras Tomb and the Tomte Cave (Midgard) were amongst my favorite dungeons, alebit very simple ones. This game was just REALLY awesome in EVERY way before ToA and the dead population that only left elitist jerks.
UO- Amazing PvE dungeon experiences and amazing PvP. I loved all the PvP, from Guild Wars to PK Anti-PK to Stealing to Faction Wars (I really liked those actually). But this game just got old-- and changed WAY too much over time, to the point I got frustrated "This isn't even the same game. I miss the old game..."
I loved all of those games, but all the amazing PvE games were ruined because I really love PvP. Yet the PvP games are ruined because I really love PvE too.
To satisfy me, a game needs both. Champions Online Beta had both-- and I loved it. Unfortunately, they changed PvP drastically from the Beta (where it was VERY hard to kill someone and took 10 minutes just to score a single kill, with the entire team beating that person) but it was VERY fun that way. Horrid imbalance though and they just continued to break it. Sadly, the PvE in CO wasn't as good as the PvE in CoH and I played mostly to level up (PvE was fun enough...better than most games, and still fun) and primarily PvP-- which was a BLAST up until the point they ruined the game and I just "Enough is enough. Fix it or I leave." and they ignored the problem. (Swallow Tail Cut was OP and they never nerfed it)
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
A few parts EVE, a few parts Shadowbane, a few parts WoW, a few parts Anarchy Online, a few parts City of Heroes, etc...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
IMO, the perfect game is...
DAoC PvP (RvR, DAoC, possibly even WAR, WoW)
UO Sandbox (Sandbox Dungeons, Sandbox World, No Floating !!!!! Quests)
Everquest PvE & Crafting (EQ, EQ2, Vanguard)
In other words...
DAoC Original Pre-ToA + Better Crafting.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Have you heard of this game? http://www.xsyon.com/features
Problem is most Sandboxes are from Indie Companies and i dont think they have the money to afford that type of development, big companies just release games that look graficly better then WoW but with less content therefor are utter crap.
I honestly think PvE players cry too much, " lets all blame PvPers" is getting abit old.
I never had any desire to play DAoC. At the time I was into UO, AC, and AO. I tried EQ a few times, but I always returned to UO, AC, and AO. EQ was just not fun for me for some reason I cannot remember now.
I stopped playing UO just before Blackthorn's or perhaps shortly after that. Hrmm, yeah, would have been not long after that particular expansion came out.
Was back and forth between AC and AO (mainly AO), until Earth & Beyond came out. Then it was back and forth between E&B and AO until Shadowbane came out.
At which point it was AO and SB until CoH came out. CoH lost me early on with the introduction of /boombox not long after release (though I would return to the game once I found out that people were playing again instead of just dancing).
There was a stint of time spent in SWG back and forth during part of '04 and '05. However, for most of '04 I found myself playing SB until the Throne of Oblivion beta drove me to the WoW beta. ToO was just that bad - I mean, it was just that bad.
It was kind of back and forth with WoW at the start (much like up until the recent forget it decision made with Cata). Went back and forth between WoW, SWG, and even started playing EVE.
Since late '05/'06, the rotation of games has basically been WoW, EVE, and CoH. There have been a smattering of betas, trials, and doomed games that have come and gone outside of those listed (I wish Auto Assault had been given a chance). I really have to think about it, break out a notepad, etc - to try to list the various games that I have played over the years (RF Online, DDO, LotRO, WAR, FWO, Entropia Universe when it was Project Entropia, and the list goes on for a bit - but it is 2AM in the morning and it is not really relavent to my post here).
The gist is along the lines that your perfect game would include DAoC and EQ - while mine, would not touch them.
My simplest thing goes along the lines of the "What if?!?" with WoW.
Take Azeroth. Scale it so it is larger. I want the areas to feel vast. Most of the "PvE" content would be removed. It would no longer be about the various overall storylines that have been introduced from the original game through the expansions. In a similar fashion to the security levels EVE has, the farther away from a major city you got - the lower the sec level would be. You would reach the equivalent of low sec and nullsec.
The "high" sec areas would provide the majority of the PvE content players would see, though some would go into the "low" sec areas. "Low" sec would mainly involve factional warfare between certain NPC factions. "Null" sec would allow for players to build their own empires, etc. There would be battles over control of land and resources. This would be akin to both EVE and Shadowbane. Taking from Shadowbane, players would be able to build actual cities (that could be lost). These would be smaller than the main NPC cities (which would be larger and more akin to a mixture of the cities from AO and CoH).
There would be FFA PvP - with obvious loss of standing/faction within the high/low sec areas - if you kill people of a certain faction, it only makes sense that you would not be welcome there. It would have a mixture of a class/skill system. There would be customization of not only the character, but the character's abilities (however, it would need to make sense unlike some of the nonsense in CoH).
It goes on and on, taking parts here and there from the various games that I have played over the years. Years spent thinking if only Game A had part of what Game B and Game C did, etc, etc, etc.
It is kind of funny, as I sit here on the verge of playing RIFT - knowing full well that it falls short of my perfect game - but realizing that to an extent it is an evolutionary game (much in the way WoW was evolutionary rather than revolutionary), taking parts of Game B, Game C, etc to make RIFT.
I know that my perfect game will never be made, so it becomes a case of settling for games that appear to come close - bouncing around between different subs for games as the different aspects of gaming become temporarily more important before bouncing to the next.
There are a lot of discussions on themepark vs. sandbox, when generally speaking it seems many people are not satisfied with either - they want a hybrid. On that basis, I sometimes wonder how well a "sword & sorcery" version of EVE might do... too many people feeling the disconnect with being in a spaceship and space in general.
Oh well...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
To an extent, you cannot really blame the PvE folks. With all the gankers and griefers wishing to be called PvPers, that is what the PvE folks end up crying about. The actual PvP folks end up mixed in with that crowd and suffer for it. If the PvE and PvP folks could work together against these nuisances, there would be much more happiness to be found in MMORPG community...perhaps, just my humble opinion.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
PVE-focused sandboxes have been the only ones I've found much enjoyment in.
PVP sandbox is pure zerg-and-grind (and often very little actual PVP.) It's just not fun. I could almost see a pure-PVP sandbox working (since you'd at least avoid the need for any grind) but at that point (a) it wouldn't be an MMORPG and (b) it still would be inferior to any true PVP game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Agreed.
Problem is that lately , term hardcore PVP and Sandbox became fused together as concept.
Which is insane.
I often muse about EVE and what can it be.
Why Is EVE a game - in its core - about ruthless war ?
When even ELITE , the game it was based upon was a game about trading , exploring and only one third about killing.
I am not saying to remove PVP and danger from sandbox. Keep it
BUT DONT MAKE IT SOLE FOCUS !
I think Xyon, and EVE Incarna - are on the way to fix this ...
There has to be a good blend of both PvP and PvE for any game to be truly successful, imo. Sandbox games just seem to want to cater to the FFA Full Loot PvP crowd, at least most recently. The problem with make games ffa full loot pvp is that they instantly cut the majority of the potential playerbase out entirely. So these games are basically cannibalizing one another from a smallish pool of players who enjoy that style of gameplay.
Turbine did PvP the right way imo in Asheron's Call. You had Darktide, which was ffa full loot pvp, an entire server devoted to that style of gameplay. You could also go red on pve servers, making yourself attackable to other pvpers, but you always had the option of switching back when you just wanted to game in peace. Going pink was added after I left, but I believe it was toggled on and off, made you attackable to other pink players and there was no looting.
DAoC is also another good example of how to make PvP meaningful in a mmo. DAoC was revolutionary for the time, because it showed that there was a market for pvp, and that market was much larger than the fabled "10%" statistic that many folks used to toss around on forums back in the day. All PvP in DAoC had a purpose, whether you were farming rank, fighting for control of keeps or mile gates, or for control of Darkness Falls. Too bad ToA screwed the pooch, Mythic should have never abandoned the Origin Server idea. DAoC showed the genre that consensual pvp was wanted.
What makes me sick is that there are so many interesting ideas in sandbox games, but so many of those features are lost to the majority of the playerbase because of how pvp is handled in many of these games. FFA PvP also brings out the worst in some people, and unfortunately, those people will be some of the ones you'll first experience in a sandbox game.
Limited resources = conflict. It is that simple. If there is a piece of land that is better than another, then people are going to want it. They will take it by force if they are able to do so.
I find it odd that it was mentioned that trading was not fighting. Much of the PvP in EVE takes place in the Market... it is ruthless and cutthroat.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
In regard to FFA PvP, the lack of it in many games has made PVE folks lazy - they can just tank and AoE spank encounters without worrying about damaging their own group. They do not have to worry about missing and hitting one of their guys, etc, etc, etc.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
All in all, the premise and theory of the thread is incorrect. EVE (pseudo sandbox) has continued to grow in numbers year in and year out. Many attempts at "sandbox" games come from underbudgeted no-name developers that simply do not have the funds to create a game that would attract the playerbase needed to sustain the game. This continued chain of failure has made it difficult for anybody interested in making a decent game be able to find the funding necessary to do so.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Mostly, I agree, to be precise: FFA PvP has been the main killer of the sandbox genre.
I define sandbox as open world with non-linear gameplay. I don't really understand why the developers of these games always try the same FFA PvP formula (Darkfall, Mortal Online, Earthrise, Xsyon, etc.).
Out of the top of my head, there hasn't been a single non-FFA PvP sandbox made in the post-WoW era. I would really like to see a sandbox with DAoC combat and RvR.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
I feel this thread goes back to Darkfall, currently the most PvP focused Sandbox out. At the release of darkfall it was painfully obvious PvE was abused to hell in that game and the game suffered as many PvE lovers left the game in the thousands eaither due to game bugs or the non existant PvE.
You are absolutely right a good sandbox needs a PvP - PvE balance, Eve has seen this and are working on it, Xyson is the complete opposite and needs more PvP, MO just needs a working game and Darkfall has been working on PvE for over a year now and are about to make another breakthrough in it's PvE and Fluff side to the game.
Darkfall have currently developed a very superior mob AI, redoing mobs and their special abilities, over 30 dungeons where only a select handful could be called 'epic', epic mob encounters around the world, the first steps to roaming/dynamic mobs. GM controlled PvE events have been happening for a while.
http://www.darkfallonline.com/blog/ragaizan-the-jungle-lord/
However credit isn't given where due because PvE'rs are instantly ganked on sight due to a broken alignment system which is also getting a huge revamp asap. Darkfall - Toughest PvE mobs to fight but most PvE players simply don't like the risk involved or the fact they have to aim.
PVP hasn't kiiled sandbox gameplay. If it seems that way, it's only because most of the developers that are trying to create a sandbox focused game seem to just put in the PVP and forget all the rest that goes with it. Most of them are not making sandbox games rather taking FPS gameplay, changing the view and adding levelling. THAT is what's killing the subgenre.
That being said, I think there's a massive demand for a PvE sandbox. A sandbox is little more than a set of toys and tools, and most good toys/tools don't require you to murder other people to enjoy using them.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Have to agree on this one. I love the idea of PvP, but I want it to be something distanced. Not around me everywere I go, or atleast not a 2 min run to the nearest newbie area for ganking. The worlds of todays MMO are to small to make this work as it should.
______________________________
The Sceptics, yes they're special but we've need them to.. I guess.
And if they're put more effort MMORPG.com can create a 'Team Sceptic'
and send them to the Special Olympus.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
PvP isn't the problem. FFA PVP with no consequences and no point is the problem.
I agree with that sentiment.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
In Elite, supply and demand is artificial. In EVE, it is real. You're saying EVE would be more fun if the market prices were arbitrary numbers and the goods you were selling were only of value to NPCs? Would you rather a game like EVE but where there was no PVP and ships just decayed rapidly or simply an insanely hard PvE game where you get blown up a lot?
That aside, Elite is a trading game and space combat sim - had the latter not been a major focus, they wouldn't have named the game after the highest combat rank you can get.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I think the OP really hits the nail in the head with this, I think a sandbox MMO needs to have both PVE and PVP but it needs rules wrapped around them that keep them enjoyable on their own and that is where some MMORPG's do fail to be sandbox. When a person can just rampage accross a region and kill and pillage everyone there is no reason for a player to roam around there.
On the other hand if there is nothing to pillage what is the point of PVP and conquering, so a fine balance and a micro managed pvp and pve system is the key, it seems that all PVP mmo's fail to implement the micro management part and instead implement FFA in the hopes that "the players will find the balance", which never happens.
RvR is the way to go. I agree with others that DAoC got PvP right, and an RvR sandbox would be great.
IMO, PvP goes like this:
1. No consequences. Then you get constant griefing and ganking.
2. Consequences. What's the point of PvP, if the game is built to discourage it? I could kill you, but then I will be punished and have to grind for 3 months to recover from the "consequences". No thanks. Might as well say it's not PvP.
Or, I can kill you, and the consequence is to grind for an hour. Ok, who cares, I was gonna do that anyway, I'll gank you.
RvR means I can pursue questing, mob grinding, or crafting, without being griefed or ganked. AND I can engage in PvP when I choose to.
If you add goals, then there there is a reason to do it. Like take over keeps, get access to a cool dungeon like Darkness Falls in DAoC. Even MORE goals and changes to the game world would be great .
So, there are "consequences" in DAoC, but they are only positive.
If you are successful, you achieve an objective. So that's an INCENTIVE to PvP, rather than negative consequences, which are to DISCOURAGE PvP. If you're going to discourage PvP, then why even add it as a feature?
And "consequences" in a game can never be like the real world consequences.
The real world doesn't have an "unsubscribe" button, or allow me to log off and come back when you're not on, or to change servers, or to buy ISK or Gold with rl currency I didn't earn in the game, etc., etc.
I agree completely here...
Imo the problem sandbox devs have is the lack of appreciation of the fact that even in a sandbox game the players should have some kind of a clear selection of long-term goals to choose from.
Themeparks don't have this problem - in those games the goal(s) is usually quite clear - level to the max, kill whatever can be killed and get the best gear (or simply follow the storyline to the end).
If you make a game that is completely goal-less and yet you enable PvP (and ffa one at that!) then it is quite obvious that the majority of players will instinctively see PvP as the goal - crush other players in other words.. which is obviously destructive to the community and thus longevity of the game.
Imo the solution to this PvP vs PvE problem in sandboxes is to offer a range of clear PvE and crafting goals both to players and guilds. A great example of this in a single-player sandbox game would be Civilization's system where you have numerous goals offered to you - conquering the world militarily, building the happiest or most scientific civilization, completing a huge spaceship requiring massive amount of resources... and all of those are equally valid winning goals. Even if you choose a completely peaceful goal like building a spaceship you'll still have plenty of warfare on your hands from other players trying to subvert you.
A FFA PvP sandbox game such as Xsyon doesn't have to have PvP as its ultimate goal. You could have tribes competing in crafting unique structures, like those Civ world wonders for example. With this you'd have PvP become a service of PvE/crafting with mighty interesting warfare over resources and sabotaging other tribes efforts without ever having to go into outright sieging (always a huge problem to implement - the timing problems, the zerginess, the dreadful finality of it..) in order to make PvP meaningful.
The problem is your examples, which are fun game objectives, are designed for a game that ends.
When you complete those objectives in Civilization, the game is over. You win! and you can play again from the start.
MMORPG's don't usually restart.
you grind so much for your objectives, and your character, that most players dont' want to "win" or "lose" and restart the game.
So how do you design a game where you don't restart, but you build the big spaceship and win?
Now what?
I think MMORPG design works best when it's cyclical. Yes, the cycle CAN get repetitive, but no game is meant to be played forever. This way the PLAYER decides when the game is over, not the objective of the game.
For example, in DAoC you can take over keeps. If you control 5 keeps, you get access to Darkness Falls, a cool dungeon with good xp and loot.
But you haven't "won". The other Realms can take your keeps, and get Darnkess Falls back.
I like the idea of building "wonders", but I think the other side should be able to counter your wonder, so that it becomes useless, and then crumbles into decay.