Well, no game "needs" anything. I just think that a game that could pull this off (never seen it done right IMO) would be the most involving, rewarding and dynamic MMO possible.
It would basically have the feel of like Game of Thrones but as an online game. Incredible. Granted, it will probably never happen. Devs always seem to fall short even when they aim for FFA PvP.
I agree with you that would be cool. But then you would need to put in permadeath as well. And well...if you thought FFA full loot PvP was unpopular. lol
Problem with PvP in that structure is that people whom don't really want to play the game can use that to their advantage. With a F2P it costs them nothing to ruin the community. And they will. Respawn after respawn. New Account created after New Account created.
Aaah, but consider this.
Perma-death could kick in only for the REAL bad apples, with jail-time and fines for lesser criminals. You commit a LOT of crime and you are sentenced to death. First, you have to be caught, alive by either players or NPCs. So those heinous criminals who manage to stay alive will be legendarily notorious. When caught, you also can't just log out to avoid execution, your character will go through it regardless of you being logged in. The executions are PUBLIC, so they become a server-wide event where people travel to see this notorious murderer put down for GOOD at a certain time! Holy crap and then you give the murderer their last words! What an amazing in-game event that would be. Screw RP weddings and such, RP executions would be a whole new level of amazing.
As for your second point there are ways around this too. For example, IP tagging could be used, but someone dedicated could proxy around that. What you are talking about is the concept of edge-casing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_case). The smallest minority will be the dedicated griefers and they will always lose no matter what. Eventually they'll get fed up and go to playgrounds like Darkfall and Mortal where their behavior is not only permitted but encouraged. A buy-to-play model is the best way of making sure this gets thwarted however.
You see, gankers, griefers and trolls are cowards. They don't want a fair or even fight. They don't want a challenge and they are the first cry buckets and "hax" when they get killed. True PKers and PvPers want challenge and consequence.
In my 14 years experience of MMO gameplay Gankers, Griefers and Trolls (as you so elegantly stated) are the norm when it comes to FFA PvP. To claim they aren't is a fallacy to be quite honest about it.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Man, Second Life, I dont think I have even thought about that game since the episode of The Office where Dwight and Jim play it. Good episode though.
Anyway, this kind of proves my point about the lack of non PvP focused sandbox MMO's.
LOL well to be fair, It took me a second to think about it. I almost said Minecraft, but that's not Massive with the need for a private server hosting thing.
Well, no game "needs" anything. I just think that a game that could pull this off (never seen it done right IMO) would be the most involving, rewarding and dynamic MMO possible.
It would basically have the feel of like Game of Thrones but as an online game. Incredible. Granted, it will probably never happen. Devs always seem to fall short even when they aim for FFA PvP.
I agree with you that would be cool. But then you would need to put in permadeath as well. And well...if you thought FFA full loot PvP was unpopular. lol
Problem with PvP in that structure is that people whom don't really want to play the game can use that to their advantage. With a F2P it costs them nothing to ruin the community. And they will. Respawn after respawn. New Account created after New Account created.
Aaah, but consider this.
Perma-death could kick in only for the REAL bad apples, with jail-time and fines for lesser criminals. You commit a LOT of crime and you are sentenced to death. First, you have to be caught, alive by either players or NPCs. So those heinous criminals who manage to stay alive will be legendarily notorious. When caught, you also can't just log out to avoid execution, your character will go through it regardless of you being logged in. The executions are PUBLIC, so they become a server-wide event where people travel to see this notorious murderer put down for GOOD at a certain time! Holy crap and then you give the murderer their last words! What an amazing in-game event that would be. Screw RP weddings and such, RP executions would be a whole new level of amazing.
As for your second point there are ways around this too. For example, IP tagging could be used, but someone dedicated could proxy around that. What you are talking about is the concept of edge-casing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_case). The smallest minority will be the dedicated griefers and they will always lose no matter what. Eventually they'll get fed up and go to playgrounds like Darkfall and Mortal where their behavior is not only permitted but encouraged. A buy-to-play model is the best way of making sure this gets thwarted however.
You see, gankers, griefers and trolls are cowards. They don't want a fair or even fight. They don't want a challenge and they are the first cry buckets and "hax" when they get killed. True PKers and PvPers want challenge and consequence.
In my 14 years experience of MMO gameplay Gankers, Griefers and Trolls (as you so elegantly stated) are the norm when it comes to FFA PvP. To claim they aren't is a fallacy to be quite honest about it.
I've been playing MMOs since Meridian 59, you ain't gotta tell me, heh.
I think that is true but it's bred by the thing the games encourage. UO wasn't nearly as bad as, say Darkfall. Even MO has a good size community of anti-PKs that kept things in check. Darkfall, IMO had by far the worst community in all of gaming history. Worse than COD, worse than WoW, worse than LoL. The community was a product of what the game developers encouraged with their design.
Can we reverse this epidemic and have an FFA PvP game that isn't all about ganking and griefing? Honestly I don't know. Do I think that someone with resources should try? Hell yes they should. If you disallow the cowards to have the upper hand they will either go away or change their tunes. They won't have any other choices...
Someday someone will make a game that finds that balance. Will it be EQN? We can hope I guess, but I'm not one to put my eggs all in one basket. Still, they seem to be trying SOMETHING different and I hope it works out for them.
Yep, at least these guys have committed to saying what they will be doing. SoE is all smoke and mirrors at the moment. The FFA PvP mob are setting themselves for an epic let-down with EQNext.
The ONLY full FFA PVP sandbox mmo's we have had since Ultima Online have been indie mmo's that have struggled with TINY budgets that have no where near the polish or marketing, etc behind them as a AAA game.
Would it REALLY be so terrible for us sandbox FFA PVP lovers to have ONE, just ONE single AAA Budget mmo that tried it again since UO?
Meanwhile you have:
WoW
Tera
TSW
AOC
Neverwinter
DC online
Elder Scrolls online
Guild Wars 2
Final Fantasy A Realm Reborn
Wildstar
SW:TOR
Rift
etc. The list of high budget PVE focused mmo's goes on and on.
So can we please, have a single new AAA budget mmo? Pretty please? Just one, we haven't had one for over a decade.
PvP any type isnt so bad. Im not a PvPer but i dont mind to have some PvP at all. But the game full of PvP is totally not for me. This is why i really expect EQn to have PvE part like raids world event that sort of things. I dont mind being a leveling noob then get ganked by a group of ppl or even with a higher level player for once or twice but if they keep doing that to stop me from leveling is what will really piss me off. And that really the type of the game i will stay away from. Not much of news on EQn out right now... all we can do is wait and see. Ive been shopping around for a little while to look for a game that i can stick along for a few years but EQn is totally on top of my list. Hopefully i wont get disappointed.
The ONLY full FFA PVP sandbox mmo's we have had since Ultima Online have been indie mmo's that have struggled with TINY budgets that have no where near the polish or marketing, etc behind them as a AAA game.
Would it REALLY be so terrible for us sandbox FFA PVP lovers to have ONE, just ONE single AAA Budget mmo that tried it again since UO?
Meanwhile you have:
WoW
Tera
TSW
AOC
Neverwinter
DC online
Elder Scrolls online
Guild Wars 2
Final Fantasy A Realm Reborn
Wildstar
SW:TOR
Rift
etc. The list of high budget PVE focused mmo's goes on and on.
So can we please, have a single new AAA budget mmo? Pretty please? Just one, we haven't had one for over a decade.
How can I put this succinctly...what I (and I think many others who share my preference) are wanting is not a "PvE game", as you put it. Indeed you list many PvE focused games (aka Themeparks) that people may partake in. But rather what we are wanting is a challenging immersive fantasy based online world, one where we explore, and craft, and build, and resource hunt, and so many other things (aka a "sandbox"), in addition to the fighting of monsters the game provides....but without being forced to fight other players at their whim.
I want a virtual world to live and breathe in, not a "PvE game". Unforetunately, things have devolved to such a point where if you dont label yourself "PvP", you are labeled "PvE", like their is absolutely nothing in between.
The ONLY full FFA PVP sandbox mmo's we have had since Ultima Online have been indie mmo's that have struggled with TINY budgets that have no where near the polish or marketing, etc behind them as a AAA game.
Would it REALLY be so terrible for us sandbox FFA PVP lovers to have ONE, just ONE single AAA Budget mmo that tried it again since UO?
Meanwhile you have:
WoW
Tera
TSW
AOC
Neverwinter
DC online
Elder Scrolls online
Guild Wars 2
Final Fantasy A Realm Reborn
Wildstar
SW:TOR
Rift
etc. The list of high budget PVE focused mmo's goes on and on.
So can we please, have a single new AAA budget mmo? Pretty please? Just one, we haven't had one for over a decade.
All titles you present are Themeparks and everyone of them present with PvP as an option.
Is it so hard to ask for someone, anyone, HELL even an indie studio with tiny budgets and piss poor polish to make a PvE centric "Sandbox" game seeing as there isn't one for us, where you guys have the option of several titles currently on the market and many more coming out In the near future. Like Repopulation, Star Citizen, Pathfinder, Camelot Unchained and ArcheAge. All we Sandbox PvE players have is EQNext and that's basing our hopes on the franchise selling points.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Thanks for the information, but beta doesn't even start for 2ish years, so it could be 2.5 to 3 years before this is done. I am interested in the game, but I am not interested in watching something closely that could be 3 years out.
Hopefully they have the money to finish it. Just something that is nearly 3 years out isn't going to help people in the short term though.
Thanks for the information, but beta doesn't even start for 2ish years, so it could be 2.5 to 3 years before this is done. I am interested in the game, but I am not interested in watching something closely that could be 3 years out.
Hopefully they have the money to finish it. Just something that is nearly 3 years out isn't going to help people in the short term though.
According to Mr. Reliability "Players will get their hands on an actual release version of what we’re doing late [this] year – and I don’t mean a beta,” says Smedley.
But since we just love quoting this fountain of misinformation here...there ya go
Thanks for the information, but beta doesn't even start for 2ish years, so it could be 2.5 to 3 years before this is done. I am interested in the game, but I am not interested in watching something closely that could be 3 years out.
Hopefully they have the money to finish it. Just something that is nearly 3 years out isn't going to help people in the short term though.
According to Mr. Reliability "Players will get their hands on an actual release version of what we’re doing late [this] year – and I don’t mean a beta,” says Smedley.
But since we just love quoting this fountain of misinformation here...there ya go
I think Xthos is referring to Pathfinder, not EQ Next
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
How can I put this succinctly...what I (and I think many others who share my preference) are wanting is not a "PvE game", as you put it. Indeed you list many PvE focused games (aka Themeparks) that people may partake in. But rather what we are wanting is a challenging immersive fantasy based online world, one where we explore, and craft, and build, and resource hunt, and so many other things (aka a "sandbox"), in addition to the fighting of monsters the game provides....but without being forced to fight other players at their whim.
I appreciate what you and other posters who express a desire for a PVE Sandbox want. I want many of the same things in a game, but the last part of what you say is so critical that it pretty much puts us at a complete and total impasse.
To use your phrasing, what I (and I think many others who share my preference) want - in addition to the exploration, crafting, building, resource hunting that you very reasonably want - is not a PVP gankfest but a game with meaningful PVP. In the context of those other game elements, that means PVP where players can fight each other for control of territory, for access to the resources used in crafting or building, and for the authority to make and enforce laws in the game world.
It's a vision totally incompatible with the ability to choose whether or not to participate in PVP because as soon as you allow players to toggle a flag and go harvest whatever resources they desire, to build whatever and wherever they want, then you remove the very element - access to and control over those resources, buildings, and territories - that we want to be the driving force for conflict in the game.
Making PVP optional makes the PVP about as meaningful as, say, open world PVP on WoW. If we wanted that we'd play WoW, but many PVPers avoid games like that because, as I said, we want meaningful PVP. PVP that actually impacts the game. I don't want to gank someone out in the middle of nowhere for no reason. There's games or servers I can do that on already. What I want is a game where there are reasons in the game to do so.
PFO promises to be what I describe; well, call me greedy, but I would like EQNext to be that also. I'm really excited about PFO but it's being developed on shoestring budget, so, yes, I'd like to see a big time game with similar design parameters. Ideally there would be many games to choose from with similar design parameters.
In every other post, there is a sophisticated definition of sandbox. Then we would all agree, that a sandbox should be non-linear adventure, where player characters should differ from each other to some extent. Player driven economy would add to that non-linear feeling. A meaningful open-world PVP would add to it as well. It is not structured or non-structured, I shall call it natural pvp.
There are many players that are willing to commit in PVP for the sake of killing others. You would argue that this is stupid and yes, I agree. If there is a 2-3 faction pvp, it would make more sense, if you get the lore and the feel right. Then again, coming back to ffa setting; you can stop griefing to some extent by giving player killers heavy penalties. Also, you can give bonuses to player that do not kill others.
I myself wanna be a crafter and for that, I am willing to get killed by others. For me that is the thrill. Being a newbie adventurer sounds nice too.
Not everybody have the same taste. I would like to have non consensual FFA PVP (under a certain meaningful ruleset - penalties for example, not allowing griefing or res killing), even if I were to suck at PVP.
I’ve heard readers express concerns over “non-consensual PvP.” How will you account for these players?
Conflict is the beating heart of Pathfinder Online. Conflict is what drives the meaningful human interaction that we seek to create. Player vs. Player conflict is a core facet of that conflict. The players of most MMOs see PvP as a binary choice; either they are subjected to continuous unwanted hassle from players seeking to harass them, or they are protected from all PvP except in designated areas and at designated times. Many players have had really bad experiences with opponents who seek to inflict “grief” on their victims – attempting to ruin the game experience of others simply for their own amusement.
The widespread trend in MMOs is to gate all PvP content to shield the vast majority of the players from ever having to engage in it. We think this is unfortunate, and that PvP has a place in Pathfinder Online.
We think this is one of the places where we can truly innovate. We are working on offering a third choice – one that preserves the intense engagement and immersion that widespread PvP creates, while minimizing the effects of players who seek to inflict “grief” on others.
We have studied a lot of MMOs that offer PvP going all the way back to Ultima Online. Our conclusion is that there is no magic bullet which delivers a robust PvP experience while insuring against “griefers”. Our approach therefore is to use many different tactics working together in a “layered defense” against misbehavior. That approach includes things like making the consequences for attacking other characters quite steep, having a swift policy of intervening in the game when griefing is reported to our game moderators, and engaging with the community to avoid allowing the toxic bullying behavior that we see in many other games take root in Pathfinder Online.
We know a lot of players are skeptical of our ability to balance the competing agendas that PvP enables but I am confident that if those players give us a chance, we can change their minds.
its not that hard. Make a good criminal system. Make sure there is tons of PVE content so that the only thing to do isn't kill others. Give rewards for criminals who kill people who are better than them progression and gear wise.
You want to make it so a majority of the playerbase can engage in pvp if they want but not so much that its the only thing to do, and make pvp be a choice with consequences. Not in a way that deters pvp but one that puts you in a group of people who are known to kill without reason.
I don't ever want to be in a situation where I want to kill some guy at a mob spawn for poor spawn manners but don't want to be red for a week because of it.
There needs to be a way to blend safe zones with open pvp areas, mixed with criminal and law factions...but allow for minimal pvp against people who deserve it without forcing you to go lawless or whatever.
In the real world the Psychopaths kill others just because they can or just because they want to. People that only kill for a reason such as to protect the country from invasion or law enforcement protecting their community are respected.
But if you create a virtual online world with PvP.....
It is considered normal to kill others in PvP just because you can or because you want to and people that only want to PvP for a reason, such as good RP or defend their land are considered the crazy ones.
Ironic huh?
At some point perhaps a virtual world will refelct the real world but until the Pscho switch is removed from the PvP'ers in an MMO all you will get is mindless PvP.
In every other post, there is a sophisticated definition of sandbox. Then we would all agree...
???
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
What is amazing is that D&D was never EVER about pvp. Out of the hundreds of sessions I've played and the thousands of posts on D&D and D&D related fan sites I have read, pvp only occured in most peoples games likely less than 1% of the time.
I myself had a very few situations where character conflict created a fight and a very few arena style encounters or mind control stuff, etc. D&D is about role play. I am not talking about the crap 4e which is why Pathfinder became popular to begin with as old school D&D players hated it so much they jumped ship making WotC lose nearly all of their RP based fans.
So it amazes me greatly to hear Pathfinder being an open pvp system. I'm not saying it won't work but it is very interesting. I imagine they figure players will essentially be the DMs but sadly this is because in mmos the developers time and time again prove they are absolutely inept at being the DM. The ultimate D&D game should essentially be the ultimate pve game ... yet developers suck at making pve so much that they are now abandoning the concept and putting systems into the hands of the players. This is great when making a true sandbox game but not promising for pve virtual worlds when they aren't willing to actually improve systems like AI which has essentially stayed the same since the dawn of computer games.
As for pvp games being build from the ground up I would say CU is far more dedicated to it than this game will be.
What is amazing is that D&D was never EVER about pvp. Out of the hundreds of sessions I've played and the thousands of posts on D&D and D&D related fan sites I have read, pvp only occured in most peoples games likely less than 1% of the time.
I myself had a very few situations where character conflict created a fight and a very few arena style encounters or mind control stuff, etc. D&D is about role play. I am not talking about the crap 4e which is why Pathfinder became popular to begin with as old school D&D players hated it so much they jumped ship making WotC lose nearly all of their RP based fans.
So it amazes me greatly to hear Pathfinder being an open pvp system. I'm not saying it won't work but it is very interesting. I imagine they figure players will essentially be the DMs but sadly this is because in mmos the developers time and time again prove they are absolutely inept at being the DM. The ultimate D&D game should essentially be the ultimate pve game ... yet developers suck at making pve so much that they are now abandoning the concept and putting systems into the hands of the players. This is great when making a true sandbox game but not promising for pve virtual worlds when they aren't willing to actually improve systems like AI which has essentially stayed the same since the dawn of computer games.
As for pvp games being build from the ground up I would say CU is far more dedicated to it than this game will be.
Well... technically in D&D sessions you are PvPing... against the DM. Problem is that with PvE games everything is scripted and so predictable one can do it with their eyes closed. PvP does offer that every changing behavior that DMs can exercise to make things challenging and fun. Which is something that you can't do with a scripted AI behavior.
I'm not a PvPer but I know the real content will be in the form of PvP but PvP usually is infested in psychopathic griefers and what keeps me from PvP. If there was a system that offered a way for meaningul consequences on people who grief or simpely PvP to get their rocks off on "pawning that newb" then I would be all over it.
I wish PO all the best, but every time I've seen a game with open PVP try to introduce "meaningful penalties", it ends in disaster. There's endless crying on the forums about the game "punishing PVP'ers in a PVP game" and all sorts of other hyperbole.
There is little point in developing sophisticated rule sets to "force" people not to spend every logged-in minute trying to kill other players. Because if it succeeds, it means that all the effort of developing the systems, rules and animations behind the "outlaw" lifestyle will only ever be used by a tiny minority of players.
That's assuming it's even possible to design a system that can't be exploited or circumvented in some way. Remember, there will always be a handful of players that will make it their life's work to "get around the rules" and cause any and all kinds of possible grief. That's just human nature, which is greatly amplified and multiplied by internet anonimity.
I certainly will be giving this a try when it comes out. I wish the devs all the best.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
There needs to be a way to blend safe zones with open pvp areas, mixed with criminal and law factions...but allow for minimal pvp against people who deserve it without forcing you to go lawless or whatever.
I think the Hex system with different settlement LAWS will help here and Alignments so the map is a patchwork of variable PvP danger. Looking at the map it could work out that the West is more Lawful and the woods is more Wild and Chaotic in the West. Remains to be seen.
Originally posted by Tamanous
So it amazes me greatly to hear Pathfinder being an open pvp system. I'm not saying it won't work but it is very interesting. I imagine they figure players will essentially be the DMs but sadly this is because in mmos the developers time and time again prove they are absolutely inept at being the DM. The ultimate D&D game should essentially be the ultimate pve game ... yet developers suck at making pve so much that they are now abandoning the concept and putting systems into the hands of the players. This is great when making a true sandbox game but not promising for pve virtual worlds when they aren't willing to actually improve systems like AI which has essentially stayed the same since the dawn of computer games.
As for pvp games being build from the ground up I would say CU is far more dedicated to it than this game will be.
The difference according Ryan Dancey between a sandbox and themepark is that themepark you interact with the computer more and a sandbox you interact with players more - in so many words quote-unquote and a slight snipping of what was actually said. So Meaningful Human Interaction which includes PvP or P+P > PvE. Each player has a huge human brain behind their computer that AI can't even compare to. Secondly players like interacting with player in mmorpgs. I think Basically looking at the player types: Explorer, Socializer, Achiever and Killer, it's ideal if all these find somewhere to co-habit but with more of their own kind hence the Player factions and consequences for types of pvp that basically do not make economic sense. IE players get to create their own social communitities with the killers to simplify living out in the sticks as outlaws in their pig-stye settlements, socializers living in lawful good communities etc. The thing is to let the players create the player-infrastructure of the game itself that then takes care of what sort of thing types of players like best. Obviously GW will have to come up with strong ways to regulate exploiters eg gold-farmers, griefers, botters, hackers and all the other stuff mmorpgs have to deal with.
I think PFO looks a bit like Game Of Thrones, with the Dungeoneering of D&D parties and eg Elder Scrolls game world of eg cities that provide content for players to form in-game identities Merchant, Guard etc.
Originally posted by GrumpyHobbit In the real world the Psychopaths kill others just because they can or just because they want to. People that only kill for a reason such as to protect the country from invasion or law enforcement protecting their community are respected.But if you create a virtual online world with PvP.....It is considered normal to kill others in PvP just because you can or because you want to and people that only want to PvP for a reason, such as good RP or defend their land are considered the crazy ones.Ironic huh?At some point perhaps a virtual world will refelct the real world but until the Pscho switch is removed from the PvP'ers in an MMO all you will get is mindless PvP.
Look at EvE Online. Allmost all PvP happens for a reason there. Territorial, economical or personal.
If the game is built around PvP from the ground up and has a system in place to punish those, who kill for the wrong reason, then it does work like a charm.
1. killing players of the other faction(s) is allways legitimate and not punishable. 2. killing players you're at war with is legitimate and not punishable after officially declaring war against a guild/faction. 3. killing players, if they enter your territory is allways legitimate and not punishable (NBSI-policy / self-defence). 4. killing players outside civilization is allways legitimate and not punishable (Darwinism / survival of the fittest). 5. killing players, because of other reasons (economical, racist, religious, etc...) is allways legitimate, but in that case you should face punishment for your actions.
These 5 points are the core PvP-mechanics to make a FFA PvP game work.
The punishment can come in various forms, like being instantly killed by godlike NPC-guards (CONCORD in EvE), getting your status lowered to exclude you from civilization, getting put into jail, making you pay reimbursement, whatever.
Comments
In my 14 years experience of MMO gameplay Gankers, Griefers and Trolls (as you so elegantly stated) are the norm when it comes to FFA PvP. To claim they aren't is a fallacy to be quite honest about it.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
LOL well to be fair, It took me a second to think about it. I almost said Minecraft, but that's not Massive with the need for a private server hosting thing.
I've been playing MMOs since Meridian 59, you ain't gotta tell me, heh.
I think that is true but it's bred by the thing the games encourage. UO wasn't nearly as bad as, say Darkfall. Even MO has a good size community of anti-PKs that kept things in check. Darkfall, IMO had by far the worst community in all of gaming history. Worse than COD, worse than WoW, worse than LoL. The community was a product of what the game developers encouraged with their design.
Can we reverse this epidemic and have an FFA PvP game that isn't all about ganking and griefing? Honestly I don't know. Do I think that someone with resources should try? Hell yes they should. If you disallow the cowards to have the upper hand they will either go away or change their tunes. They won't have any other choices...
Someday someone will make a game that finds that balance. Will it be EQN? We can hope I guess, but I'm not one to put my eggs all in one basket. Still, they seem to be trying SOMETHING different and I hope it works out for them.
http://thewordiz.wordpress.com/
The ONLY full FFA PVP sandbox mmo's we have had since Ultima Online have been indie mmo's that have struggled with TINY budgets that have no where near the polish or marketing, etc behind them as a AAA game.
Would it REALLY be so terrible for us sandbox FFA PVP lovers to have ONE, just ONE single AAA Budget mmo that tried it again since UO?
Meanwhile you have:
WoW
Tera
TSW
AOC
Neverwinter
DC online
Elder Scrolls online
Guild Wars 2
Final Fantasy A Realm Reborn
Wildstar
SW:TOR
Rift
etc. The list of high budget PVE focused mmo's goes on and on.
So can we please, have a single new AAA budget mmo? Pretty please? Just one, we haven't had one for over a decade.
How can I put this succinctly...what I (and I think many others who share my preference) are wanting is not a "PvE game", as you put it. Indeed you list many PvE focused games (aka Themeparks) that people may partake in. But rather what we are wanting is a challenging immersive fantasy based online world, one where we explore, and craft, and build, and resource hunt, and so many other things (aka a "sandbox"), in addition to the fighting of monsters the game provides....but without being forced to fight other players at their whim.
I want a virtual world to live and breathe in, not a "PvE game". Unforetunately, things have devolved to such a point where if you dont label yourself "PvP", you are labeled "PvE", like their is absolutely nothing in between.
All titles you present are Themeparks and everyone of them present with PvP as an option.
Is it so hard to ask for someone, anyone, HELL even an indie studio with tiny budgets and piss poor polish to make a PvE centric "Sandbox" game seeing as there isn't one for us, where you guys have the option of several titles currently on the market and many more coming out In the near future. Like Repopulation, Star Citizen, Pathfinder, Camelot Unchained and ArcheAge. All we Sandbox PvE players have is EQNext and that's basing our hopes on the franchise selling points.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Thanks for the information, but beta doesn't even start for 2ish years, so it could be 2.5 to 3 years before this is done. I am interested in the game, but I am not interested in watching something closely that could be 3 years out.
Hopefully they have the money to finish it. Just something that is nearly 3 years out isn't going to help people in the short term though.
According to Mr. Reliability "Players will get their hands on an actual release version of what we’re doing late [this] year – and I don’t mean a beta,” says Smedley.
But since we just love quoting this fountain of misinformation here...there ya go
I think Xthos is referring to Pathfinder, not EQ Next
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I appreciate what you and other posters who express a desire for a PVE Sandbox want. I want many of the same things in a game, but the last part of what you say is so critical that it pretty much puts us at a complete and total impasse.
To use your phrasing, what I (and I think many others who share my preference) want - in addition to the exploration, crafting, building, resource hunting that you very reasonably want - is not a PVP gankfest but a game with meaningful PVP. In the context of those other game elements, that means PVP where players can fight each other for control of territory, for access to the resources used in crafting or building, and for the authority to make and enforce laws in the game world.
It's a vision totally incompatible with the ability to choose whether or not to participate in PVP because as soon as you allow players to toggle a flag and go harvest whatever resources they desire, to build whatever and wherever they want, then you remove the very element - access to and control over those resources, buildings, and territories - that we want to be the driving force for conflict in the game.
Making PVP optional makes the PVP about as meaningful as, say, open world PVP on WoW. If we wanted that we'd play WoW, but many PVPers avoid games like that because, as I said, we want meaningful PVP. PVP that actually impacts the game. I don't want to gank someone out in the middle of nowhere for no reason. There's games or servers I can do that on already. What I want is a game where there are reasons in the game to do so.
PFO promises to be what I describe; well, call me greedy, but I would like EQNext to be that also. I'm really excited about PFO but it's being developed on shoestring budget, so, yes, I'd like to see a big time game with similar design parameters. Ideally there would be many games to choose from with similar design parameters.
In every other post, there is a sophisticated definition of sandbox. Then we would all agree, that a sandbox should be non-linear adventure, where player characters should differ from each other to some extent. Player driven economy would add to that non-linear feeling. A meaningful open-world PVP would add to it as well. It is not structured or non-structured, I shall call it natural pvp.
There are many players that are willing to commit in PVP for the sake of killing others. You would argue that this is stupid and yes, I agree. If there is a 2-3 faction pvp, it would make more sense, if you get the lore and the feel right. Then again, coming back to ffa setting; you can stop griefing to some extent by giving player killers heavy penalties. Also, you can give bonuses to player that do not kill others.
I myself wanna be a crafter and for that, I am willing to get killed by others. For me that is the thrill. Being a newbie adventurer sounds nice too.
Not everybody have the same taste. I would like to have non consensual FFA PVP (under a certain meaningful ruleset - penalties for example, not allowing griefing or res killing), even if I were to suck at PVP.
An Interview With 'Pathfinder Online' Developer Ryan Dancey
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
its not that hard. Make a good criminal system. Make sure there is tons of PVE content so that the only thing to do isn't kill others. Give rewards for criminals who kill people who are better than them progression and gear wise.
You want to make it so a majority of the playerbase can engage in pvp if they want but not so much that its the only thing to do, and make pvp be a choice with consequences. Not in a way that deters pvp but one that puts you in a group of people who are known to kill without reason.
I don't ever want to be in a situation where I want to kill some guy at a mob spawn for poor spawn manners but don't want to be red for a week because of it.
There needs to be a way to blend safe zones with open pvp areas, mixed with criminal and law factions...but allow for minimal pvp against people who deserve it without forcing you to go lawless or whatever.
hope that makes sense
In the real world the Psychopaths kill others just because they can or just because they want to. People that only kill for a reason such as to protect the country from invasion or law enforcement protecting their community are respected.
But if you create a virtual online world with PvP.....
It is considered normal to kill others in PvP just because you can or because you want to and people that only want to PvP for a reason, such as good RP or defend their land are considered the crazy ones.
Ironic huh?
At some point perhaps a virtual world will refelct the real world but until the Pscho switch is removed from the PvP'ers in an MMO all you will get is mindless PvP.
???
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
What is amazing is that D&D was never EVER about pvp. Out of the hundreds of sessions I've played and the thousands of posts on D&D and D&D related fan sites I have read, pvp only occured in most peoples games likely less than 1% of the time.
I myself had a very few situations where character conflict created a fight and a very few arena style encounters or mind control stuff, etc. D&D is about role play. I am not talking about the crap 4e which is why Pathfinder became popular to begin with as old school D&D players hated it so much they jumped ship making WotC lose nearly all of their RP based fans.
So it amazes me greatly to hear Pathfinder being an open pvp system. I'm not saying it won't work but it is very interesting. I imagine they figure players will essentially be the DMs but sadly this is because in mmos the developers time and time again prove they are absolutely inept at being the DM. The ultimate D&D game should essentially be the ultimate pve game ... yet developers suck at making pve so much that they are now abandoning the concept and putting systems into the hands of the players. This is great when making a true sandbox game but not promising for pve virtual worlds when they aren't willing to actually improve systems like AI which has essentially stayed the same since the dawn of computer games.
As for pvp games being build from the ground up I would say CU is far more dedicated to it than this game will be.
You stay sassy!
Well... technically in D&D sessions you are PvPing... against the DM. Problem is that with PvE games everything is scripted and so predictable one can do it with their eyes closed. PvP does offer that every changing behavior that DMs can exercise to make things challenging and fun. Which is something that you can't do with a scripted AI behavior.
I'm not a PvPer but I know the real content will be in the form of PvP but PvP usually is infested in psychopathic griefers and what keeps me from PvP. If there was a system that offered a way for meaningul consequences on people who grief or simpely PvP to get their rocks off on "pawning that newb" then I would be all over it.
I wish PO all the best, but every time I've seen a game with open PVP try to introduce "meaningful penalties", it ends in disaster. There's endless crying on the forums about the game "punishing PVP'ers in a PVP game" and all sorts of other hyperbole.
There is little point in developing sophisticated rule sets to "force" people not to spend every logged-in minute trying to kill other players. Because if it succeeds, it means that all the effort of developing the systems, rules and animations behind the "outlaw" lifestyle will only ever be used by a tiny minority of players.
That's assuming it's even possible to design a system that can't be exploited or circumvented in some way. Remember, there will always be a handful of players that will make it their life's work to "get around the rules" and cause any and all kinds of possible grief. That's just human nature, which is greatly amplified and multiplied by internet anonimity.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I think the Hex system with different settlement LAWS will help here and Alignments so the map is a patchwork of variable PvP danger. Looking at the map it could work out that the West is more Lawful and the woods is more Wild and Chaotic in the West. Remains to be seen.
The difference according Ryan Dancey between a sandbox and themepark is that themepark you interact with the computer more and a sandbox you interact with players more - in so many words quote-unquote and a slight snipping of what was actually said. So Meaningful Human Interaction which includes PvP or P+P > PvE. Each player has a huge human brain behind their computer that AI can't even compare to. Secondly players like interacting with player in mmorpgs. I think Basically looking at the player types: Explorer, Socializer, Achiever and Killer, it's ideal if all these find somewhere to co-habit but with more of their own kind hence the Player factions and consequences for types of pvp that basically do not make economic sense. IE players get to create their own social communitities with the killers to simplify living out in the sticks as outlaws in their pig-stye settlements, socializers living in lawful good communities etc. The thing is to let the players create the player-infrastructure of the game itself that then takes care of what sort of thing types of players like best. Obviously GW will have to come up with strong ways to regulate exploiters eg gold-farmers, griefers, botters, hackers and all the other stuff mmorpgs have to deal with.
I think PFO looks a bit like Game Of Thrones, with the Dungeoneering of D&D parties and eg Elder Scrolls game world of eg cities that provide content for players to form in-game identities Merchant, Guard etc.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Take EvE Online and turn it into a fantasy-styled MMO with characters instead of spaceships. Waiting for such a game since 2005.
It can be done, but a developer needs balls and great vision to do that, just like CCP some 10-12 years back in time.
Look at EvE Online. Allmost all PvP happens for a reason there. Territorial, economical or personal.
If the game is built around PvP from the ground up and has a system in place to punish those, who kill for the wrong reason, then it does work like a charm.
1. killing players of the other faction(s) is allways legitimate and not punishable.
2. killing players you're at war with is legitimate and not punishable after officially declaring war against a guild/faction.
3. killing players, if they enter your territory is allways legitimate and not punishable (NBSI-policy / self-defence).
4. killing players outside civilization is allways legitimate and not punishable (Darwinism / survival of the fittest).
5. killing players, because of other reasons (economical, racist, religious, etc...) is allways legitimate, but in that case you should face punishment for your actions.
These 5 points are the core PvP-mechanics to make a FFA PvP game work.
The punishment can come in various forms, like being instantly killed by godlike NPC-guards (CONCORD in EvE), getting your status lowered to exclude you from civilization, getting put into jail, making you pay reimbursement, whatever.