you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
btw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
This kind of attitude, especially the first line, pretty much sums up why I don't like PvP nor PvPers in MMORPGs.
Out of interest, do you go to McDonalds and complain to people there how much you hate fastfood/burgers?
Tip: Stay out of McDonalds if you don't like burgers. What's so hard to understand?
Don't like PvALL (Every PvPer is PvEer too btw) then don't PLAY, stop turning every MMO into optional carebear PvE-only land, play the games they made for you.
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
Pretty much the exact fallacious attitude and arguments I talk about in the post.
The good news is...it doesn't really matter what he thinks. Devs don't make games for people who can argue the most on a forum. Games are based on what type of income they'll make. He can say whatever he wants as far as what a sandbox is. It will never change the fact that he's part of the less than %5 gamer population.
Once the game is made he can say it's not a sandbox because it doesn't have ffa pvp. It wont really change how much I enjoy it. Being part of the 95% has it's advantages.
100 % fallacy
You PvE-only lot have been catered to with hundreds of titles, your alleged 95% (fantasy number anyway) is scatterd across dozens of titles.
again, what you want is what YOU got, your dozens of theme parks are tailored to what YOU wanted, so better go play them.
Now you probably think sandboxes are the hip thing to play instead, so let's ruin the next sub genre of MMO and make it ultra carebear!
Well, No thanks.
Play WoW, Rift, Gw2 or whatever, what you are looking for is theme parks. Rift has housing btw.
THEME PARKS gave you the rules and little artificial barriers and restrictions you want and love so much.
SANDBOXES allow to do what ever you want and try to be realistic, that includes people attacking each other. Too scary? EvE too much? Well you know what type of games to play then. NOT SANDBOXES.
None of your ranting and insulting language has lent any proof to the concept that Sandbox has to be PvP orientated.The only thing you've verified is your own preferences and prejudices.I am far from being PvE only and may even agree that PvP does enhance a sandbox game but it's not necessary or integral to a game being sandbox at all.
Neither does a sandbox have to be realistic and anarchistic,all that is required to be sandbox is the "sand" and tools for people to interact with it with.Where PvP and PvE come into it is from the GAME part of sandbox game and a sandbox game can have one of either or both and can enforce rule sets on what you can do with the sandbox elements too.
It's actually pretty rare that forums demand a pvp game to be changed to something else, despite what people think. And even more rare that the devs actually cave to the forums about well anything really.
What is far more common is this.
PVP game is released, a few/lots try it, many leave because it is too pvp oriented. A few whine on forums but not enought to matter. The devs lose money, The Devs change the game to bring back those other people.
It is not the people whining about pvp that caused the game to change, it was that the devs misjudged their market, are losing money, about to lose their jobs. The devs are chasing the players, not the other way around.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
OP I agree with you 100%. PvP IMO brings out the worst in people, especially gamers and I would love to see a studio have the balls to produce a PvE sandbox.
Check my sig, its been there since day 1.
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!!!
OP I agree with you 100%. PvP IMO brings out the worst in people, especially gamers and I would love to see a studio have the balls to produce a PvE sandbox.
Check my sig, its been there since day 1.
From Chess to Football and from Football to Super Mario Cart and from SMC to Olympics,PvP brings out the worst in people?
And there is PvE sandbox called Second Life ,are you playing it ?
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
I believe the problem here is people equate PvP with FFA mayhem gankfest.
True player politics and PvP interaction is the ultimate and most easily implemented sandbox element. All you have to do is switch a button on to allow it to happen, and the never ending content of player politics and interaction is enabled. This defines sandbox more than about any element you can add.
THE PROBLEM = much like a lawless society, people group up and bully the smaller, the weaker, etc. There has still yet to be a game that properly rewards and punishes the "killing" of one another. If such a system is found, it will be the ultimate sandbox element.
I would disagree completely and say that sandboxes without PvP are shallow and extremely lacking in the ability to create your own "game".
There's not one MMO in existence that offers FFA PvP and it not devolve into this exact mindset. Some MMO's will try and place restrictions and consequences on doing so but that kind of reinforces the argument that random and indiscriminate PvP'ing is all about ganking and griefing. Name me one MMO which doesn't include some technical or developmental aspect to restrict random killing and I'll show you a niche game which barely stays afloat.
Remove nullsec from Eve, or remove the punishment/legal system in Age of Wushu and the game wil lquickly devolve to a barely playable state.
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!!!
Originally posted by Razeekster There is zero need for PvP in a sandbox if there are enough PvE sandbox features. For example in Darkages there are colleges where players actually teach classes about the history of the lore of the game. There are also churches, and players can become priests and actually do their own sermons. Things like that are the just one of the many features that a sandbox could have so PvP wasn't needed.
I'm not a "Full" PvP fan, but I do think there is a need for PvP in nearly any RPG multiplayer game, whether it's an MMORPG or not. I just think it needs to be a flagging style or there needs to be PvP zones with some sort of reason for engaging in the PvP.
The Secret World had this Facebook game where you had a map of the world, and hot spots around the world where the three factions where vying for control of the area. It might be a small country, or some section of a country. In the Facebook game, you sent in "agents" to deal with things and collected information from the game. The faction that sent the most agents or collected the most something from mini games won the areas. I could see something like that in a game, except with the option to PvP for the areas or engage in PvE missions in the areas themselves for control of the area. Something like that would allow for PvP, make the PvP meaningful, but at the same time it wouldn't be a problem for anyone who didn't want to PvP.
Of course, for it to be some sort of sandbox, players would have to be able to move into the area and setup shop, and risk losing it to something, but I think the general idea is a good one. I really wish TSW had gone more in the direction of the their Facebook game for their PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Of course it's a fallacy, all you need for a sanbox game is non linear gameplay that lets the player shape the world in some fashion. PVP can make it more interesting, but most players when they think of PVP think of getting ganked by 3 or 4 players then teabagged before getting some abuse in chat. In short, PVE players see PVP as a form of harassment. Unfortunetly PVP has an image problem and one thats probably deserved.
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
btw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
Amen, brother. Sandbox is nobody telling you "you can't go there" or "you can't do that". You may regret taking an action, but there isn't an invisible wall stopping you from doing it.
So sad to see masses try to take over a term like that. I hope devs don't cave.
article 29 - The universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
That article 29 paragraph 2 is something many people who think "freedom = anarchy" should read and understand.
+1. A Picard-worthy line indeed.
You guys misunderstand. Sandbox means freedom from restrictions that are built into the game. Not freedom from other players. Players are content in sandboxes.
So sad to see masses try to take over a term like that. I hope devs don't cave.
Hard to take something over that never had a real definition to begin with but keep up the valiant effort. Circular logic and strawman fallacies are never tiresome to read.
Originally posted by Bidwood Originally posted by DocBrodyyou want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.Eat something different then if you don't want meatbtw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
Amen, brother. Sandbox is nobody telling you "you can't go there" or "you can't do that". You may regret taking an action, but there isn't an invisible wall stopping you from doing it.
So sad to see masses try to take over a term like that. I hope devs don't cave.
For something that's supposed to be about freedom, there certainly are a lot of rules involved in any game that has successful "Full" PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree with the OP. Sandboxes can be so much more. The better option at the current state of MMO's for FFA PVP is in uncontested areas, battlegrounds, openly serving in a faction, conflict, spying, stealing, or a war. The open PVP idea is theoretically nice, unfortunately, it's often poorly implemented to the point it's abused or just incomplete without enough gain/loss involved.
Without complex systems to allow it to work and keep it in check, I mostly pass on it until there's nothing more to do in the gaming world. PVP should be a possible consequence of player choices, not the goal, and definitely not the priority.
and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
Lets wait Archeage and Black Desert to see if ffa pvp and AAA mmorpgs really dont mix.
And if ArcheAge and Black Desert turn out to be just another bait and switch FFA, forced PvP farm job, they will die in a fire like every other FFA, forced PvP farm job has.
In before the but brigade drags EVE Online in to the mud. It doesn't work with terrain based games and EVE was from a different time. It won't be duplicated.
and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
Lets wait Archeage and Black Desert to see if ffa pvp and AAA mmorpgs really dont mix.
And if ArcheAge and Black Desert turn out to be just another bait and switch FFA, forced PvP farm job, they will die in a fire like every other FFA, forced PvP farm job has.
In before the but brigade drags EVE Online in to the mud. It doesn't work with terrain based games and EVE was from a different time. It won't be duplicated.
The themeparks tend to be dying in fires as well these days.
and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
Lets wait Archeage and Black Desert to see if ffa pvp and AAA mmorpgs really dont mix.
And if ArcheAge and Black Desert turn out to be just another bait and switch FFA, forced PvP farm job, they will die in a fire like every other FFA, forced PvP farm job has.
In before the but brigade drags EVE Online in to the mud. It doesn't work with terrain based games and EVE was from a different time. It won't be duplicated.
The themeparks tend to be dying in fires as well these days.
Seem to be the story of the whole games industry. In fact the only ones that seem to be doing well are indy developers. Outside eve, the only "big name" MMO that does the sandbox thing is Darkfall. I wouldn't call AA and Black Desert sandbox games either.
and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
Lets wait Archeage and Black Desert to see if ffa pvp and AAA mmorpgs really dont mix.
And if ArcheAge and Black Desert turn out to be just another bait and switch FFA, forced PvP farm job, they will die in a fire like every other FFA, forced PvP farm job has.
In before the but brigade drags EVE Online in to the mud. It doesn't work with terrain based games and EVE was from a different time. It won't be duplicated.
The themeparks tend to be dying in fires as well these days.
Some do and they should. When a themepark MMO is built and sold on a gimmick it gets the treatment it deserves.
I'm not a Themepark advocate. I hate cookie cutter MMO's and I hate forced questing as much as I hate forced PvP. Many MMO models both Theme and sandbox are making the single fatal mistake. They are using trending media to determine their design. Trends are short lived and you can't develop around them. Either of them.
Originally posted by Arakazi
Seem to be the story of the whole games industry. In fact the only ones that seem to be doing well are indy developers. Outside eve, the only "big name" MMO that does the sandbox thing is Darkfall. I wouldn't call AA and Black Desert sandbox games either.
AA and Black Desert are at this point an iteration of browser based nation builders that started with Evony. If they follow it to the letter they will fail. Evony was a server hop game of elimination. That won't work in persistent MMO worlds. I'm seriously hoping Developers aren't that short sighted as to not see that but maybe they are and they will get failed games as a result.
I can't comment on EQN because I haven't even looked at it. SWG PreCU is proof Sony if nobody else can make a sandbox that doesn't revolve around forced PvP but SWG NGE is the pinnacle of bait and switch and Development betrayal as well.
and the fact that no one tries FFA world pvp with pve in a AAA production is speaking volumes.
Lets wait Archeage and Black Desert to see if ffa pvp and AAA mmorpgs really dont mix.
And if ArcheAge and Black Desert turn out to be just another bait and switch FFA, forced PvP farm job, they will die in a fire like every other FFA, forced PvP farm job has.
In before the but brigade drags EVE Online in to the mud. It doesn't work with terrain based games and EVE was from a different time. It won't be duplicated.
The themeparks tend to be dying in fires as well these days.
Seem to be the story of the whole games industry. In fact the only ones that seem to be doing well are indy developers. Outside eve, the only "big name" MMO that does the sandbox thing is Darkfall. I wouldn't call AA and Black Desert sandbox games either.
Adventurine are a bunch of Greek charlatans pretending to be a gaming company. Fools keep them afloat along with the Greek government grants.
Sony might just pull this off with EQN. I'm still waiting with baited breath on this title and trying to hold off my jaded view until they reveal the details. CCP is the only company that has produced a viable pvp sandbox. I'm hoping Sony knuckles up and gives a pvp sandbox the AAA treatment. We will know Friday.
I agree with the OP. SWG was the best, most amazing crafting and market experience I've ever had in any game, anywhere, since I started gaming 11 years ago and never once was I flagged for PvP. Eve Online might have actually BEAT my SWG experience, as a matter of fact I know it WOULD HAVE if there wasn't forced PvP.
PvP existed in the SWG but I wasn't FORCED to participate in any portion of the game I didn't want to participate in.
If you make PvPers craft or raid continuously... that's what it feels like to be made to PvP when you don't have any interest in that aspect of the game. Anybody out there frothy for a PvP open world where everyone is forced to play where they can be killed by skilled player killers... is probably a griefer... otherwise, why do you want so badly to have PvE people in your game?
It's not fun being a predator when you have no prey.
I agree with the OP. SWG was the best, most amazing crafting and market experience I've ever had in any game, anywhere, since I started gaming 11 years ago and never once was I flagged for PvP. Eve Online might have actually BEAT my SWG experience, as a matter of fact I know it WOULD HAVE if there wasn't forced PvP.
PvP existed in the SWG but I wasn't FORCED to participate in any portion of the game I didn't want to participate in.
If you make PvPers craft or raid continuously... that's what it feels like to be made to PvP when you don't have any interest in that aspect of the game. Anybody out there frothy for a PvP open world where everyone is forced to play where they can be killed by skilled player killers... is probably a griefer... otherwise, why do you want so badly to have PvE people in your game?
It's not fun being a predator when you have no prey.
That is a typical but sad and untrue theory about 99% of pvpers. FFA doesn't mean squat to most of us. We want a good solid reason to pvp ex. - territory control that "means" something. I promise it's about 1% that get a thrill out of whacking an unsuspecting weaker opponent.
Actually I and many others could care less about FFA if they implement a nice and realistic faction system that makes sense.
edit- EQ is well known for an extremely intricate faction system so my fingers are crossed.
100% agreed with what the OP said. The sandbox concept doesn't exclude PVP, no more no less. FFA PVP sandbox is NOT automagically a good thing by its own, just an option and still has to be properly realised as any other concepts too.
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
btw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
This kind of attitude, especially the first line, pretty much sums up why I don't like PvP nor PvPers in MMORPGs.
Out of interest, do you go to McDonalds and complain to people there how much you hate fastfood/burgers?
Tip: Stay out of McDonalds if you don't like burgers. What's so hard to understand?
Don't like PvALL (Every PvPer is PvEer too btw) then don't PLAY, stop turning every MMO into optional carebear PvE-only land, play the games they made for you.
I love how you see the games as "MINE" - like a little kid. Mine mine mine you can't have none! Nowhere in my post or anyone else's response has anyone said anything about changing sandboxes to only PvE, it has been about having OPTIONS for both play styles. But every response of yours is the same - PvP sandbox you want PvE go play themepark get out of MY game - mine mine mine
Comments
World pvp is always bad for players that dont have friend in game.
Its all about killing player while he fight mob or move with 1 or more friends killing a lone players.
Out of interest, do you go to McDonalds and complain to people there how much you hate fastfood/burgers?
Tip: Stay out of McDonalds if you don't like burgers. What's so hard to understand?
Don't like PvALL (Every PvPer is PvEer too btw) then don't PLAY, stop turning every MMO into optional carebear PvE-only land, play the games they made for you.
None of your ranting and insulting language has lent any proof to the concept that Sandbox has to be PvP orientated.The only thing you've verified is your own preferences and prejudices.I am far from being PvE only and may even agree that PvP does enhance a sandbox game but it's not necessary or integral to a game being sandbox at all.
Neither does a sandbox have to be realistic and anarchistic,all that is required to be sandbox is the "sand" and tools for people to interact with it with.Where PvP and PvE come into it is from the GAME part of sandbox game and a sandbox game can have one of either or both and can enforce rule sets on what you can do with the sandbox elements too.
It's actually pretty rare that forums demand a pvp game to be changed to something else, despite what people think. And even more rare that the devs actually cave to the forums about well anything really.
What is far more common is this.
PVP game is released, a few/lots try it, many leave because it is too pvp oriented. A few whine on forums but not enought to matter. The devs lose money, The Devs change the game to bring back those other people.
It is not the people whining about pvp that caused the game to change, it was that the devs misjudged their market, are losing money, about to lose their jobs. The devs are chasing the players, not the other way around.
OP I agree with you 100%. PvP IMO brings out the worst in people, especially gamers and I would love to see a studio have the balls to produce a PvE sandbox.
Check my sig, its been there since day 1.
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!!!
From Chess to Football and from Football to Super Mario Cart and from SMC to Olympics,PvP brings out the worst in people?
And there is PvE sandbox called Second Life ,are you playing it ?
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
There's not one MMO in existence that offers FFA PvP and it not devolve into this exact mindset. Some MMO's will try and place restrictions and consequences on doing so but that kind of reinforces the argument that random and indiscriminate PvP'ing is all about ganking and griefing. Name me one MMO which doesn't include some technical or developmental aspect to restrict random killing and I'll show you a niche game which barely stays afloat.
Remove nullsec from Eve, or remove the punishment/legal system in Age of Wushu and the game wil lquickly devolve to a barely playable state.
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!!!
I'm not a "Full" PvP fan, but I do think there is a need for PvP in nearly any RPG multiplayer game, whether it's an MMORPG or not. I just think it needs to be a flagging style or there needs to be PvP zones with some sort of reason for engaging in the PvP.
The Secret World had this Facebook game where you had a map of the world, and hot spots around the world where the three factions where vying for control of the area. It might be a small country, or some section of a country. In the Facebook game, you sent in "agents" to deal with things and collected information from the game. The faction that sent the most agents or collected the most something from mini games won the areas. I could see something like that in a game, except with the option to PvP for the areas or engage in PvE missions in the areas themselves for control of the area. Something like that would allow for PvP, make the PvP meaningful, but at the same time it wouldn't be a problem for anyone who didn't want to PvP.
Of course, for it to be some sort of sandbox, players would have to be able to move into the area and setup shop, and risk losing it to something, but I think the general idea is a good one. I really wish TSW had gone more in the direction of the their Facebook game for their PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Lets wait Archeage and Black Desert to see if ffa pvp and AAA mmorpgs really dont mix.
Amen, brother. Sandbox is nobody telling you "you can't go there" or "you can't do that". You may regret taking an action, but there isn't an invisible wall stopping you from doing it.
So sad to see masses try to take over a term like that. I hope devs don't cave.
Sounds more like a coffee shop than a sandbox.
You guys misunderstand. Sandbox means freedom from restrictions that are built into the game. Not freedom from other players. Players are content in sandboxes.
Hard to take something over that never had a real definition to begin with but keep up the valiant effort. Circular logic and strawman fallacies are never tiresome to read.
So sad to see masses try to take over a term like that. I hope devs don't cave.
For something that's supposed to be about freedom, there certainly are a lot of rules involved in any game that has successful "Full" PvP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I agree with the OP. Sandboxes can be so much more. The better option at the current state of MMO's for FFA PVP is in uncontested areas, battlegrounds, openly serving in a faction, conflict, spying, stealing, or a war. The open PVP idea is theoretically nice, unfortunately, it's often poorly implemented to the point it's abused or just incomplete without enough gain/loss involved.
Without complex systems to allow it to work and keep it in check, I mostly pass on it until there's nothing more to do in the gaming world. PVP should be a possible consequence of player choices, not the goal, and definitely not the priority.
And if ArcheAge and Black Desert turn out to be just another bait and switch FFA, forced PvP farm job, they will die in a fire like every other FFA, forced PvP farm job has.
In before the but brigade drags EVE Online in to the mud. It doesn't work with terrain based games and EVE was from a different time. It won't be duplicated.
The themeparks tend to be dying in fires as well these days.
Life IS Feudal
Seem to be the story of the whole games industry. In fact the only ones that seem to be doing well are indy developers. Outside eve, the only "big name" MMO that does the sandbox thing is Darkfall. I wouldn't call AA and Black Desert sandbox games either.
Some do and they should.
When a themepark MMO is built and sold on a gimmick it gets the treatment it deserves.
I'm not a Themepark advocate. I hate cookie cutter MMO's and I hate forced questing as much as I hate forced PvP. Many MMO models both Theme and sandbox are making the single fatal mistake. They are using trending media to determine their design. Trends are short lived and you can't develop around them. Either of them.
AA and Black Desert are at this point an iteration of browser based nation builders that started with Evony. If they follow it to the letter they will fail. Evony was a server hop game of elimination. That won't work in persistent MMO worlds. I'm seriously hoping Developers aren't that short sighted as to not see that but maybe they are and they will get failed games as a result.
I can't comment on EQN because I haven't even looked at it. SWG PreCU is proof Sony if nobody else can make a sandbox that doesn't revolve around forced PvP but SWG NGE is the pinnacle of bait and switch and Development betrayal as well.
Adventurine are a bunch of Greek charlatans pretending to be a gaming company. Fools keep them afloat along with the Greek government grants.
Sony might just pull this off with EQN. I'm still waiting with baited breath on this title and trying to hold off my jaded view until they reveal the details. CCP is the only company that has produced a viable pvp sandbox. I'm hoping Sony knuckles up and gives a pvp sandbox the AAA treatment. We will know Friday.
Life IS Feudal
I agree with the OP. SWG was the best, most amazing crafting and market experience I've ever had in any game, anywhere, since I started gaming 11 years ago and never once was I flagged for PvP. Eve Online might have actually BEAT my SWG experience, as a matter of fact I know it WOULD HAVE if there wasn't forced PvP.
PvP existed in the SWG but I wasn't FORCED to participate in any portion of the game I didn't want to participate in.
If you make PvPers craft or raid continuously... that's what it feels like to be made to PvP when you don't have any interest in that aspect of the game. Anybody out there frothy for a PvP open world where everyone is forced to play where they can be killed by skilled player killers... is probably a griefer... otherwise, why do you want so badly to have PvE people in your game?
It's not fun being a predator when you have no prey.
No bitchers.
That is a typical but sad and untrue theory about 99% of pvpers. FFA doesn't mean squat to most of us. We want a good solid reason to pvp ex. - territory control that "means" something. I promise it's about 1% that get a thrill out of whacking an unsuspecting weaker opponent.
Actually I and many others could care less about FFA if they implement a nice and realistic faction system that makes sense.
edit- EQ is well known for an extremely intricate faction system so my fingers are crossed.
Life IS Feudal
100% agreed with what the OP said. The sandbox concept doesn't exclude PVP, no more no less. FFA PVP sandbox is NOT automagically a good thing by its own, just an option and still has to be properly realised as any other concepts too.
I love how you see the games as "MINE" - like a little kid. Mine mine mine you can't have none! Nowhere in my post or anyone else's response has anyone said anything about changing sandboxes to only PvE, it has been about having OPTIONS for both play styles. But every response of yours is the same - PvP sandbox you want PvE go play themepark get out of MY game - mine mine mine