Originally posted by sunshadow21 A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic.
Nah .. there are plenty of alternatives for loss. You can always have a NPC takes your armor away.
You really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat.
If loss is the key mechanic, losing it to an NPC, losing it to a player or losing it to general decay all result in pretty much the same thing. PvP isn't required to remove things from the world.
The other interactions come down to preference. For someone who isn't interested in PvP, tracking the person down who killed them and took their armor isn't fun. Tracking an NPC down who took their armor might be fun. But it comes down to preference, not necessity.
I challenge that most people would find tracking down an NPC interesting if they don't find tracking down a PC interesting. In the end, a dev created NPC simply do not offer the range of reactions and challenges that a PC foe, whether it be a rival craftsman or an enemy combatant, can provide. Player to player interactions that have the potential to be either positive or negative are very important to a sandbox, and no NPC can ever full replicate that. Most people don't classify it as such, but those interactions are all potentially pvp like in nature.
Also, loss doesn't have to facilitate only combat, it can also facilitate having to find a craftsmen capable of making that armor that you need to replace. Or it can cause you to become that craftsman. Also, while pvp is not the only form of loss, it is one of the more meaningful ones that can drive people in ways that other forms by themselves cannot and it can be more encompassing than anything else. It can be not getting that sale on the marketplace, meaning you have to reevaluate your product, pricing, and/or marketing techniques. It could be not being the first to build the Colussus meaning that you're that much more driven to be the first to make the Pyramids. Can devs implement these challenges via NPCs? To some extent, sure, but not really to the depth that other players can. A sandbox is only as good as the people in the sandbox and their interactions with each other; it is truly a community driven type of game where each interaction could potentially lead to anything. No NPC driven content will ever match player driven content in the long run.
Originally posted by GrayKodiak I do not think the idea is that anarchy= immersion, I believe it is more accurate to say complete freedom combined with invincibility = a break from immersion.
Here's the problem: I don't feel the same way.
PvP option may be important for *your* immersion.
PvP completely destroys all immersion for me. Completely. Game over. I do not play MMOs to play *against* people.
The entire point of this thread is not everyone agrees with you and that non-PvP play does not automatically mean themepark. There exist people who would rather have a Trammel-only UO type game than a WoW type game. You may not be one of them, that's fine, but why on earth are you trying to convince people not to build the game that they want to play in? Why is the concept of such a game so threatening to you that you are posting in this thread?
Originally posted by GrayKodiak I do not think the idea is that anarchy= immersion, I believe it is more accurate to say complete freedom combined with invincibility = a break from immersion.
Here's the problem: I don't feel the same way.
PvP option may be important for *your* immersion.
PvP completely destroys all immersion for me. Completely. Game over. I do not play MMOs to play *against* people.
The entire point of this thread is not everyone agrees with you and that non-PvP automatically means themepark. There exist people who would rather have a Trammel-only UO type game than a WoW type game. You may not be one of them, that's fine, but why on earth are you trying to convince people not to build the game that they want to play in? Why is the concept of such a game so threatening to you that you are posting in this thread?
Thats only true if you limit your definition of pvp to combat only. Wanting to build the biggest and best monument is also a form of pvp though; it's one that's more group vs group, but its still pvp. Even control of rare resources is pvp, just a more passive version. That is the biggest challenge I see when talking about pvp; there's this blind notion that it must be combat and combat only, when in fact, in a true sandbox, anything you do could potentially end up putting you in a challenge with another player, whether it be on the battlefield, the marketplace, or in some other fashion. It doesn't need to be the driving force, but that competitive element in its many forms is important to many people even when they don't realize it.
Originally posted by sunshadow21 Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by sunshadow21Originally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by sunshadow21 A true sandbox needs loss as the cycle of creation can has to be able to renew itself and some form of competition to give that cycle purpose. Therefore, pvp in some form or another is necessary. The mistake is assuming that pvp must be combat only whereas it can take many forms. It can be anything from combat to a functional market to competition for rare resources, and all of these things are needed to some degree to make a sandbox work. They don't need to be the emphasis, but they do need to be present; otherwise, accomplishments don't really feel as notable and once something is done, there's little point to repeating it, something that in an mmo is problematic.
Nah .. there are plenty of alternatives for loss. You can always have a NPC takes your armor away.You really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat. If loss is the key mechanic, losing it to an NPC, losing it to a player or losing it to general decay all result in pretty much the same thing. PvP isn't required to remove things from the world. The other interactions come down to preference. For someone who isn't interested in PvP, tracking the person down who killed them and took their armor isn't fun. Tracking an NPC down who took their armor might be fun. But it comes down to preference, not necessity. I challenge that most people would find tracking down an NPC interesting if they don't find tracking down a PC interesting. In the end, a dev created NPC simply do not offer the range of reactions and challenges that a PC foe, whether it be a rival craftsman or an enemy combatant, can provide. Player to player interactions that have the potential to be either positive or negative are very important to a sandbox, and no NPC can ever full replicate that. Most people don't classify it as such, but those interactions are all potentially pvp like in nature.
Also, loss doesn't have to facilitate only combat, it can also facilitate having to find a craftsmen capable of making that armor that you need to replace. Or it can cause you to become that craftsman. Also, while pvp is not the only form of loss, it is one of the more meaningful ones that can drive people in ways that other forms by themselves cannot and it can be more encompassing than anything else. It can be not getting that sale on the marketplace, meaning you have to reevaluate your product, pricing, and/or marketing techniques. It could be not being the first to build the Colussus meaning that you're that much more driven to be the first to make the Pyramids. Can devs implement these challenges via NPCs? To some extent, sure, but not really to the depth that other players can. A sandbox is only as good as the people in the sandbox and their interactions with each other; it is truly a community driven type of game where each interaction could potentially lead to anything. No NPC driven content will ever match player driven content in the long run.
Rather than getting bogged down in details, I'll come back to my point, which is that PvP is a preference, not a requirement.
For PvP to be more meaningful, the players using it have to actually like it. If the PvP implemented in a game isn't enjoyed by a particular player, then it isn't meaningful, it's onerous.
PvP isn't required for sandbox game play. Some players prefer PvP based games and some players don't. The thread title is right. PvP is absolutely not necessary in a sandbox game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I challenge that most people would find tracking down an NPC interesting if they don't find tracking down a PC interesting.
I challenge anyone who think they know what other people wants in their games.
You don't dictate what i find interesting.
With something as complex as tracking, its actually fairly reasonable to make that case. Most people who truly enjoy the task of tracking are going to prefer the depth and unpredictability of the challenge that a fellow player provides over the limited and largely predictable nature inherent in NPCs. Much of the enjoyment of the task comes not just from the end result, but from overcoming truly unknown and unpredictable challenges. It's possible to implement something that skips the process and simply tells you where the NPC/person is at, but it isn't going to garner the kind of interest that a full system does; it simply doesn't mean as much to the player.
I challenge that most people would find tracking down an NPC interesting if they don't find tracking down a PC interesting.
I challenge anyone who think they know what other people wants in their games.
You don't dictate what i find interesting.
With something as complex as tracking, its actually fairly reasonable to make that case. Most people who truly enjoy the task of tracking are going to prefer the depth and unpredictability of the challenge that a fellow player provides over the limited and largely predictable nature inherent in NPCs. Much of the enjoyment of the task comes not just from the end result, but from overcoming truly unknown and unpredictable challenges. It's possible to implement something that skips the process and simply tells you where the NPC/person is at, but it isn't going to garner the kind of interest that a full system does; it simply doesn't mean as much to the player.
And a player can simply log off and unless you want to camp him 24/7, he cannot be found.
I would much rather deal with NPCs. Ha .. here is one person (me) whose preference you cannot dictate.
These include greatly reduced player driven politics, a 'stale' economy lacking one of the major reasons for supply and demand, and overall the lessening of competitive gameplay that playing against other players provides.
Player vs player enabled content in a sandbox setting creates reasons for players to form community in a way that player vs environment struggles to accomplish. Where are the heroic deeds in a pve sandbox? I see few myself because in a 'sandbox' without pvp you at the end of the day are only ever having conflict vs scripts and not people that are able to write their own stories.
Rather than getting bogged down in details, I'll come back to my point, which is that PvP is a preference, not a requirement.
For PvP to be more meaningful, the players using it have to actually like it. If the PvP implemented in a game isn't enjoyed by a particular player, then it isn't meaningful, it's onerous.
PvP isn't required for sandbox game play. Some players prefer PvP based games and some players don't. The thread title is right. PvP is absolutely not necessary in a sandbox game.
Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world. It doesn't always have to be front and center, and it doesn't have to be in every single action a player takes, but the potential for it must be for a sandbox mmo to survive. EVE is a good example of this; most people go about their day to day business in high sec without worrying much about other players or pvp in general, but they can't completely ignore the other players either. They are still having to deal with them via the marketplace and competition for the good resources. The key to a good sandbox is to make sure that pvp in its various forms is always a possibility, but almost never an inevitability unless the person goes out of their way to make it inevitable.
I challenge that most people would find tracking down an NPC interesting if they don't find tracking down a PC interesting.
I challenge anyone who think they know what other people wants in their games.
You don't dictate what i find interesting.
With something as complex as tracking, its actually fairly reasonable to make that case. Most people who truly enjoy the task of tracking are going to prefer the depth and unpredictability of the challenge that a fellow player provides over the limited and largely predictable nature inherent in NPCs. Much of the enjoyment of the task comes not just from the end result, but from overcoming truly unknown and unpredictable challenges. It's possible to implement something that skips the process and simply tells you where the NPC/person is at, but it isn't going to garner the kind of interest that a full system does; it simply doesn't mean as much to the player.
And a player can simply log off and unless you want to camp him 24/7, he cannot be found.
I would much rather deal with NPCs. Ha .. here is one person (me) whose preference you cannot dictate.
I would say you don't get the concept of tracking if you don't accept that people logging off is part of the inherent challenge of it. Eventually, you'll figure out all the tricks a NPC can pull, when they can pull them, and how to get around them, and the challenge is gone; even if you don't, someone else will and broadcast it widely enough that the challenge is still largely gone. Unpredictability is the key element that other PCs bring to the table that make things like tracking remain fun and challenging; remove that unpredictability, you remove much of the purpose of the system right off the bat and you may as well simply tell people where the npc is hiding outright after the games been out for more than a month.
Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world.
Why is PvP the only form of content not manually created by devs that you can imagine?
Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world.
Why is PvP the only form of content not manually created by devs that you can imagine?
Because I don't limit my definition of PvP. To me, PvP can potentially include any and all player and player group interactions. That doesn't mean that all interactions have to be confrontational, and indeed most probably shouldn't be if the game is to be a healthy one, but that option must always be there in the background. Without that potential, most of everything else in a sandbox loses much of its meaning. There needs to be ways to control it, like EVE's security ratings, so that different interactions have different levels of potential, but unless the all of the players directly involved agree to an understanding that removes it for a specified purpose or goal, it must be there. To me, the best use of PvP is the PvP that never actually occurs because the players find ways to deal with and remove that potential as they work together toward a common goal. Without that potential for failure or risk, things simply don't mean as much, and even many of those who profess to hate PvP are showing this by their lack of satisfaction with most modern MMOs after a month or two.
Rather than getting bogged down in details, I'll come back to my point, which is that PvP is a preference, not a requirement. For PvP to be more meaningful, the players using it have to actually like it. If the PvP implemented in a game isn't enjoyed by a particular player, then it isn't meaningful, it's onerous. PvP isn't required for sandbox game play. Some players prefer PvP based games and some players don't. The thread title is right. PvP is absolutely not necessary in a sandbox game.
Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world. It doesn't always have to be front and center, and it doesn't have to be in every single action a player takes, but the potential for it must be for a sandbox mmo to survive. EVE is a good example of this; most people go about their day to day business in high sec without worrying much about other players or pvp in general, but they can't completely ignore the other players either. They are still having to deal with them via the marketplace and competition for the good resources. The key to a good sandbox is to make sure that pvp in its various forms is always a possibility, but almost never an inevitability unless the person goes out of their way to make it inevitable.
A Tale In The Desert operates just fine without combat, much less PvP. A Tale In The Desert is a sandbox game. PvP is not required for a sandbox game to operate because if it was, A Tale In The Desert wouldn't work at all.
If PvP was a requirement for sandbox games, it would be impossible to create a single player sandbox because it would be impossible to have PvP. Since it's possible to have a single player sandbox, it is possible to have a sandbox without PvP.
You keep saying that PvP is necessary, that PvP is needed for a sandbox MMO to survive, but you're not telling us why. Eve needs PvP because it's designed into the game from the ground up. Eve could have been designed with no PvP at all like ATitD, and the game would still be a perfectly functional sandbox.
If what you're saying is that you prefer sandbox games with PvP, then sure, you're right. But if you're saying that sandbox games require PvP, you're wrong. It's not a requirement.
**
From a different direction, if someone says that not all PvP involves combat, but rather competition, then yeah, all MMORPG require some minimal form of PvP, even if it's just two players racing to get to a resource node first. I don't think that's what most people are discussing here and that's not what most people think of when someone says, "PvP". When someone says, "PvP", they think some form of player combat involving in game combat skills resulting in one or both players being dead.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Rather than getting bogged down in details, I'll come back to my point, which is that PvP is a preference, not a requirement. For PvP to be more meaningful, the players using it have to actually like it. If the PvP implemented in a game isn't enjoyed by a particular player, then it isn't meaningful, it's onerous. PvP isn't required for sandbox game play. Some players prefer PvP based games and some players don't. The thread title is right. PvP is absolutely not necessary in a sandbox game.
Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world. It doesn't always have to be front and center, and it doesn't have to be in every single action a player takes, but the potential for it must be for a sandbox mmo to survive. EVE is a good example of this; most people go about their day to day business in high sec without worrying much about other players or pvp in general, but they can't completely ignore the other players either. They are still having to deal with them via the marketplace and competition for the good resources. The key to a good sandbox is to make sure that pvp in its various forms is always a possibility, but almost never an inevitability unless the person goes out of their way to make it inevitable.
A Tale In The Desert operates just fine without combat, much less PvP. A Tale In The Desert is a sandbox game. PvP is not required for a sandbox game to operate because if it was, A Tale In The Desert wouldn't work at all.
If PvP was a requirement for sandbox games, it would be impossible to create a single player sandbox because it would be impossible to have PvP. Since it's possible to have a single player sandbox, it is possible to have a sandbox without PvP.
You keep saying that PvP is necessary, that PvP is needed for a sandbox MMO to survive, but you're not telling us why. Eve needs PvP because it's designed into the game from the ground up. Eve could have been designed with no PvP at all like ATitD, and the game would still be a perfectly functional sandbox.
If what you're saying is that you prefer sandbox games with PvP, then sure, you're right. But if you're saying that sandbox games require PvP, you're wrong. It's not a requirement.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
Perhaps instead of saying that sandboxs must be pvp oriented, it would make more sense to say that sandboxes must contain pvp elements. That makes it clearer that pvp is important to the format, but does not have to be the driving force of the game.
Originally posted by sunshadow21 Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by sunshadow21Originally posted by lizardbones
Rather than getting bogged down in details, I'll come back to my point, which is that PvP is a preference, not a requirement. For PvP to be more meaningful, the players using it have to actually like it. If the PvP implemented in a game isn't enjoyed by a particular player, then it isn't meaningful, it's onerous. PvP isn't required for sandbox game play. Some players prefer PvP based games and some players don't. The thread title is right. PvP is absolutely not necessary in a sandbox game. Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world. It doesn't always have to be front and center, and it doesn't have to be in every single action a player takes, but the potential for it must be for a sandbox mmo to survive. EVE is a good example of this; most people go about their day to day business in high sec without worrying much about other players or pvp in general, but they can't completely ignore the other players either. They are still having to deal with them via the marketplace and competition for the good resources. The key to a good sandbox is to make sure that pvp in its various forms is always a possibility, but almost never an inevitability unless the person goes out of their way to make it inevitable. A Tale In The Desert operates just fine without combat, much less PvP. A Tale In The Desert is a sandbox game. PvP is not required for a sandbox game to operate because if it was, A Tale In The Desert wouldn't work at all. If PvP was a requirement for sandbox games, it would be impossible to create a single player sandbox because it would be impossible to have PvP. Since it's possible to have a single player sandbox, it is possible to have a sandbox without PvP. You keep saying that PvP is necessary, that PvP is needed for a sandbox MMO to survive, but you're not telling us why. Eve needs PvP because it's designed into the game from the ground up. Eve could have been designed with no PvP at all like ATitD, and the game would still be a perfectly functional sandbox. If what you're saying is that you prefer sandbox games with PvP, then sure, you're right. But if you're saying that sandbox games require PvP, you're wrong. It's not a requirement. Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
See my note above. When discussing "PvP", most people think of player combat, not player competition. Competition between players, whether required or not is going to exist in multiplayer games, even the cooperative ones.
However, a single player game doesn't have player competition, and it's possible to have a single player sandbox. A popular one even. PvP, even using the expanded definition, isn't required for a sandbox game, though it's going to be an element of a multiplayer game, even if player combat is limited.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
We are talking about combat pvp here.
If you include comparison .. there is no pve. You can always see if you have better gear than the next guy.
See my note above. When discussing "PvP", most people think of player combat, not player competition. Competition between players, whether required or not is going to exist in multiplayer games, even the cooperative ones.
However, a single player game doesn't have player competition, and it's possible to have a single player sandbox. A popular one even. PvP, even using the expanded definition, isn't required for a sandbox game, though it's going to be an element of a multiplayer game, even if player combat is limited.
Single player games are a different animal with different requirements and they provide a different function. They also have different expectations, so comparisons between them and mmos are limited at best. It's possible to make great single player sandboxes, but they will inherently have different strengths, weaknesses, and features than a sandbox mmo. And you will note that I'm going to great pains to make it clear that I despise the limited definition of pvp usually put out there.
In the end, player interaction is key to any multiplayer game, and completely removing the possibility of negative interactions without limiting the range of positive interactions is nigh impossible. It's not absolutely impossible, but functionally it may as well be. Rather than trying to fight the possibility of those negative reactions, its better to accept them and integrate them into the gameplay of a sandbox game; that makes it easier to control the excessive examples of it and to an extent turns them into a positive. Even if the devs try to say no pvp, players will still find a way to do it, so why not simply implement it from the start when everything else can be designed to deal with it? For a healthy sandbox, accepting and embracing competition of all kinds is functional necessity. Use whatever term you care to, but as much as I don't particularly care for the term PvP, its still the best one out there to describe the kind of elements needed.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
We are talking about combat pvp here.
If you include comparison .. there is no pve. You can always see if you have better gear than the next guy.
And you are missing my larger point that pvp is not just combat. Many people try to argue that they are against pvp and the competition it breeds, but they are comparing equipment in their next breath. If people are against pvp combat, they need to say combat, not competition. Some do, but many don't.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
We are talking about combat pvp here.
If you include comparison .. there is no pve. You can always see if you have better gear than the next guy.
And you are missing my larger point that pvp is not just combat. Many people try to argue that they are against pvp and the competition it breeds, but they are comparing equipment in their next breath. If people are against pvp combat, they need to say combat, not competition. Some do, but many don't.
Most here equate pvp to pvp-combat. You should know that.
If you extend it to competition .. well ... then it encompasses almost everything from gear comparison, to race to the end of the dungeon (challenge mode dungeon in WOW). And pvp loses all its meaning.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
We are talking about combat pvp here.
If you include comparison .. there is no pve. You can always see if you have better gear than the next guy.
And you are missing my larger point that pvp is not just combat. Many people try to argue that they are against pvp and the competition it breeds, but they are comparing equipment in their next breath. If people are against pvp combat, they need to say combat, not competition. Some do, but many don't.
No they really don't. People need to stop trying to broaden well known terms into something they're not till it's so confusing for anyone trying to read what people are saying no one knows what anyone is talking about.
PvP is player vrs player combat. If you want to include competition between players come up with a different acronym for it. MMO has already been bastardized to the point of being meaningless, we don't need to do it to every gaming term.
Comments
I challenge that most people would find tracking down an NPC interesting if they don't find tracking down a PC interesting. In the end, a dev created NPC simply do not offer the range of reactions and challenges that a PC foe, whether it be a rival craftsman or an enemy combatant, can provide. Player to player interactions that have the potential to be either positive or negative are very important to a sandbox, and no NPC can ever full replicate that. Most people don't classify it as such, but those interactions are all potentially pvp like in nature.
Also, loss doesn't have to facilitate only combat, it can also facilitate having to find a craftsmen capable of making that armor that you need to replace. Or it can cause you to become that craftsman. Also, while pvp is not the only form of loss, it is one of the more meaningful ones that can drive people in ways that other forms by themselves cannot and it can be more encompassing than anything else. It can be not getting that sale on the marketplace, meaning you have to reevaluate your product, pricing, and/or marketing techniques. It could be not being the first to build the Colussus meaning that you're that much more driven to be the first to make the Pyramids. Can devs implement these challenges via NPCs? To some extent, sure, but not really to the depth that other players can. A sandbox is only as good as the people in the sandbox and their interactions with each other; it is truly a community driven type of game where each interaction could potentially lead to anything. No NPC driven content will ever match player driven content in the long run.
Here's the problem: I don't feel the same way.
PvP option may be important for *your* immersion.
PvP completely destroys all immersion for me. Completely. Game over. I do not play MMOs to play *against* people.
The entire point of this thread is not everyone agrees with you and that non-PvP play does not automatically mean themepark. There exist people who would rather have a Trammel-only UO type game than a WoW type game. You may not be one of them, that's fine, but why on earth are you trying to convince people not to build the game that they want to play in? Why is the concept of such a game so threatening to you that you are posting in this thread?
I challenge anyone who think they know what other people wants in their games.
You don't dictate what i find interesting.
Thats only true if you limit your definition of pvp to combat only. Wanting to build the biggest and best monument is also a form of pvp though; it's one that's more group vs group, but its still pvp. Even control of rare resources is pvp, just a more passive version. That is the biggest challenge I see when talking about pvp; there's this blind notion that it must be combat and combat only, when in fact, in a true sandbox, anything you do could potentially end up putting you in a challenge with another player, whether it be on the battlefield, the marketplace, or in some other fashion. It doesn't need to be the driving force, but that competitive element in its many forms is important to many people even when they don't realize it.
You really want to lose your armor to an NPC that you can never get it back from? A large part of pvp isnt just the loss, but the new opportunities it creates for game play. Whether it be making new armor or buying new armor so that you can go after the person who killed you, or trying to get the old armor back from the person who stole it from you after they killed you, that person to person interaction is very important to a lot of people. The trick is expanding the opportunities for that interaction beyond simply being combat.
If loss is the key mechanic, losing it to an NPC, losing it to a player or losing it to general decay all result in pretty much the same thing. PvP isn't required to remove things from the world. The other interactions come down to preference. For someone who isn't interested in PvP, tracking the person down who killed them and took their armor isn't fun. Tracking an NPC down who took their armor might be fun. But it comes down to preference, not necessity.
I challenge that most people would find tracking down an NPC interesting if they don't find tracking down a PC interesting. In the end, a dev created NPC simply do not offer the range of reactions and challenges that a PC foe, whether it be a rival craftsman or an enemy combatant, can provide. Player to player interactions that have the potential to be either positive or negative are very important to a sandbox, and no NPC can ever full replicate that. Most people don't classify it as such, but those interactions are all potentially pvp like in nature.
Also, loss doesn't have to facilitate only combat, it can also facilitate having to find a craftsmen capable of making that armor that you need to replace. Or it can cause you to become that craftsman. Also, while pvp is not the only form of loss, it is one of the more meaningful ones that can drive people in ways that other forms by themselves cannot and it can be more encompassing than anything else. It can be not getting that sale on the marketplace, meaning you have to reevaluate your product, pricing, and/or marketing techniques. It could be not being the first to build the Colussus meaning that you're that much more driven to be the first to make the Pyramids. Can devs implement these challenges via NPCs? To some extent, sure, but not really to the depth that other players can. A sandbox is only as good as the people in the sandbox and their interactions with each other; it is truly a community driven type of game where each interaction could potentially lead to anything. No NPC driven content will ever match player driven content in the long run.
Rather than getting bogged down in details, I'll come back to my point, which is that PvP is a preference, not a requirement.
For PvP to be more meaningful, the players using it have to actually like it. If the PvP implemented in a game isn't enjoyed by a particular player, then it isn't meaningful, it's onerous.
PvP isn't required for sandbox game play. Some players prefer PvP based games and some players don't. The thread title is right. PvP is absolutely not necessary in a sandbox game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I do dictate and many people does.
For example legendary auction house trick.
Buy every single item that someone is interested and then sell it to them for 10x price.
thats really easy one.
a)then you go to cash shop and buy it with real money,pretty cool you think.
b) grind it like theres no tomorrow ,even better.
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/ **
With something as complex as tracking, its actually fairly reasonable to make that case. Most people who truly enjoy the task of tracking are going to prefer the depth and unpredictability of the challenge that a fellow player provides over the limited and largely predictable nature inherent in NPCs. Much of the enjoyment of the task comes not just from the end result, but from overcoming truly unknown and unpredictable challenges. It's possible to implement something that skips the process and simply tells you where the NPC/person is at, but it isn't going to garner the kind of interest that a full system does; it simply doesn't mean as much to the player.
I am not interested in PvP.
And a player can simply log off and unless you want to camp him 24/7, he cannot be found.
I would much rather deal with NPCs. Ha .. here is one person (me) whose preference you cannot dictate.
A 'sandbox' without pvp has severe restrictions.
These include greatly reduced player driven politics, a 'stale' economy lacking one of the major reasons for supply and demand, and overall the lessening of competitive gameplay that playing against other players provides.
Player vs player enabled content in a sandbox setting creates reasons for players to form community in a way that player vs environment struggles to accomplish. Where are the heroic deeds in a pve sandbox? I see few myself because in a 'sandbox' without pvp you at the end of the day are only ever having conflict vs scripts and not people that are able to write their own stories.
Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world. It doesn't always have to be front and center, and it doesn't have to be in every single action a player takes, but the potential for it must be for a sandbox mmo to survive. EVE is a good example of this; most people go about their day to day business in high sec without worrying much about other players or pvp in general, but they can't completely ignore the other players either. They are still having to deal with them via the marketplace and competition for the good resources. The key to a good sandbox is to make sure that pvp in its various forms is always a possibility, but almost never an inevitability unless the person goes out of their way to make it inevitable.
I would say you don't get the concept of tracking if you don't accept that people logging off is part of the inherent challenge of it. Eventually, you'll figure out all the tricks a NPC can pull, when they can pull them, and how to get around them, and the challenge is gone; even if you don't, someone else will and broadcast it widely enough that the challenge is still largely gone. Unpredictability is the key element that other PCs bring to the table that make things like tracking remain fun and challenging; remove that unpredictability, you remove much of the purpose of the system right off the bat and you may as well simply tell people where the npc is hiding outright after the games been out for more than a month.
Why is PvP the only form of content not manually created by devs that you can imagine?
Because I don't limit my definition of PvP. To me, PvP can potentially include any and all player and player group interactions. That doesn't mean that all interactions have to be confrontational, and indeed most probably shouldn't be if the game is to be a healthy one, but that option must always be there in the background. Without that potential, most of everything else in a sandbox loses much of its meaning. There needs to be ways to control it, like EVE's security ratings, so that different interactions have different levels of potential, but unless the all of the players directly involved agree to an understanding that removes it for a specified purpose or goal, it must be there. To me, the best use of PvP is the PvP that never actually occurs because the players find ways to deal with and remove that potential as they work together toward a common goal. Without that potential for failure or risk, things simply don't mean as much, and even many of those who profess to hate PvP are showing this by their lack of satisfaction with most modern MMOs after a month or two.
A Tale In The Desert operates just fine without combat, much less PvP. A Tale In The Desert is a sandbox game. PvP is not required for a sandbox game to operate because if it was, A Tale In The Desert wouldn't work at all.
If PvP was a requirement for sandbox games, it would be impossible to create a single player sandbox because it would be impossible to have PvP. Since it's possible to have a single player sandbox, it is possible to have a sandbox without PvP.
You keep saying that PvP is necessary, that PvP is needed for a sandbox MMO to survive, but you're not telling us why. Eve needs PvP because it's designed into the game from the ground up. Eve could have been designed with no PvP at all like ATitD, and the game would still be a perfectly functional sandbox.
If what you're saying is that you prefer sandbox games with PvP, then sure, you're right. But if you're saying that sandbox games require PvP, you're wrong. It's not a requirement.
**
From a different direction, if someone says that not all PvP involves combat, but rather competition, then yeah, all MMORPG require some minimal form of PvP, even if it's just two players racing to get to a resource node first. I don't think that's what most people are discussing here and that's not what most people think of when someone says, "PvP". When someone says, "PvP", they think some form of player combat involving in game combat skills resulting in one or both players being dead.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
Except that PvP of some form in a sandbox is a base requirement since no dev team can possibly keep up with the players' ability to create and shape the world. It doesn't always have to be front and center, and it doesn't have to be in every single action a player takes, but the potential for it must be for a sandbox mmo to survive. EVE is a good example of this; most people go about their day to day business in high sec without worrying much about other players or pvp in general, but they can't completely ignore the other players either. They are still having to deal with them via the marketplace and competition for the good resources. The key to a good sandbox is to make sure that pvp in its various forms is always a possibility, but almost never an inevitability unless the person goes out of their way to make it inevitable.
A Tale In The Desert operates just fine without combat, much less PvP. A Tale In The Desert is a sandbox game. PvP is not required for a sandbox game to operate because if it was, A Tale In The Desert wouldn't work at all. If PvP was a requirement for sandbox games, it would be impossible to create a single player sandbox because it would be impossible to have PvP. Since it's possible to have a single player sandbox, it is possible to have a sandbox without PvP. You keep saying that PvP is necessary, that PvP is needed for a sandbox MMO to survive, but you're not telling us why. Eve needs PvP because it's designed into the game from the ground up. Eve could have been designed with no PvP at all like ATitD, and the game would still be a perfectly functional sandbox. If what you're saying is that you prefer sandbox games with PvP, then sure, you're right. But if you're saying that sandbox games require PvP, you're wrong. It's not a requirement.
Actually, from what I understand of A Tale in The Desetrt, PvP as I understand it is still important. There's still a ladder that measures your success vs the success of the other players. There's still competition for resources. There's still rivalries between neighbors and regions and such. It may not manifest itself in the ways that people traditionally view pvp, but it's still there.
See my note above. When discussing "PvP", most people think of player combat, not player competition. Competition between players, whether required or not is going to exist in multiplayer games, even the cooperative ones.
However, a single player game doesn't have player competition, and it's possible to have a single player sandbox. A popular one even. PvP, even using the expanded definition, isn't required for a sandbox game, though it's going to be an element of a multiplayer game, even if player combat is limited.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We are talking about combat pvp here.
If you include comparison .. there is no pve. You can always see if you have better gear than the next guy.
Single player games are a different animal with different requirements and they provide a different function. They also have different expectations, so comparisons between them and mmos are limited at best. It's possible to make great single player sandboxes, but they will inherently have different strengths, weaknesses, and features than a sandbox mmo. And you will note that I'm going to great pains to make it clear that I despise the limited definition of pvp usually put out there.
In the end, player interaction is key to any multiplayer game, and completely removing the possibility of negative interactions without limiting the range of positive interactions is nigh impossible. It's not absolutely impossible, but functionally it may as well be. Rather than trying to fight the possibility of those negative reactions, its better to accept them and integrate them into the gameplay of a sandbox game; that makes it easier to control the excessive examples of it and to an extent turns them into a positive. Even if the devs try to say no pvp, players will still find a way to do it, so why not simply implement it from the start when everything else can be designed to deal with it? For a healthy sandbox, accepting and embracing competition of all kinds is functional necessity. Use whatever term you care to, but as much as I don't particularly care for the term PvP, its still the best one out there to describe the kind of elements needed.
And you are missing my larger point that pvp is not just combat. Many people try to argue that they are against pvp and the competition it breeds, but they are comparing equipment in their next breath. If people are against pvp combat, they need to say combat, not competition. Some do, but many don't.
Very very few people argue that pvp is anything other than player combat with other players.
I would state the majority say it is player combat, that is the commonly referenced and accepted form.
As such unless the OP specfically stated some other form, it is reasonable to think he was talking about combat.
Talking about other forms of pvp, when the topic is about combat is a straw man aka irrelevant.
Most here equate pvp to pvp-combat. You should know that.
If you extend it to competition .. well ... then it encompasses almost everything from gear comparison, to race to the end of the dungeon (challenge mode dungeon in WOW). And pvp loses all its meaning.
If you mean competition, say so, instead of pvp.
No they really don't. People need to stop trying to broaden well known terms into something they're not till it's so confusing for anyone trying to read what people are saying no one knows what anyone is talking about.
PvP is player vrs player combat. If you want to include competition between players come up with a different acronym for it. MMO has already been bastardized to the point of being meaningless, we don't need to do it to every gaming term.