Alright since it seems my point went off the mark here, let me elaborate a bit.
This has already been attempted by Darkfall and Mortal Online. Granted, both are still running (though I hear the latter is in financial trouble) but is there really room for more? We already have ToA contending for this same very, very small niche.
In the meantime, we have exactly zero, ZERO open world sandbox games which would offer consensual (player faction based) PvP, despite the fact the target audience for such a game is MUCH bigger than the FFA Full Loot PvP niche.
I don't know what the developers' expectations are, but I don't think they're aiming for three-digit subscriber/paying customer numbers, which is probably what they will get, at best.
Dude you and your crowd don't want a sandbox, you want a themepark with housing. Rules are made by the players with supporting systems in a sandbox. Hard rules like "you can't hit that person in the mouth for being an ass until he checks a box" simply does not belong.
First, you claim a hard rule about "consensual" PvP doesn't belong, yet you want a "hard rule" for FFA PvP. Sorry, but there can be no such thing as "rules free," it is just a question of how many "rules" are in the game...and those rules aren't just made by the players, they are also made by the game developer/company. Between FFA PvP, total PvE, or consensual PvP, consensual PvP is actually the least "hard rule" of them all because it allows player choice.
Second, a sandbox is about much more than just the PvP ruleset. There is a huge difference between wanting a sandbox that is PvE or consensual PvP and wanting "a themepark with housing." Just because a person doesn't care for FFA PvP doesn't mean they want a story line, quest driven experience that herds players from one leveled zone to another.
When I read post about what does and doesn't belong in a sandbox, whether or not sandboxes can be successful, and whether or not sandboxes must include FFA PvP, I think about Second Life. Second Life is about as sandbox as an MMO could ever get, nearly everything in Second Life is player created: avatars, clothing, buildings, environments, objects, scripts, animations, emotes, etc. Doesn't exactly qualify as a "themepark with housing" does it? Yet there is no FFA PvP (in that every person in Second Life is not required to participate in PvP events), although PvP (and PvE) does exist in Second Life, but in order to engage in PvP, a player must go to a sim that allows PvP and equip a script or HUD in order to engage in PvP or engage in PvP through roleplaying.
As far as your statement on not being able to hit someone in the mouth for the way he's behaving, PvP isn't the best way to deal with something like that anyway. Mute or report is the best way to deal with that person. In fact, FFA PvP can make jerks even bigger jerks because muting may not take care of their behavior at that point (although I do love XBox ONE's system that is suppose to cause people who choose to behave poorly to end up only playing with/against others who choose to behave poorly when it comes to online activities).
Althought i agree that open FFA PVP isn't required to a mmo be labeled a sandbox (altought it makes a mmo more "sandboxish" than restricted PVP), i still think that a sandbox mmo without instances and with limited resources can't work well without open FFA PVP.
The metagame aspects of diplomacy, social network, grouping and politics maybe can persists, but for sure will be far way poorer than in a mmo with realistic player interactions. The dispute for resources or power in the open world without free pvp wouldn't really occur: would be players camping them, trying to "tag" things before others, or players waiting in a line or queue provided by developers. Either way, would be dull and silly.
FFA PVP is a simple question of good or bad implementation. There are many ways to avoid mindless gank (the only good reason to object ffa pvp, since it "pollutes" the gameplay) without take off this feature and together all his benefits to the game world, players fun and mmo "sandboxiness".
Althought i agree that open FFA PVP isn't required to a mmo be labeled a sandbox (altought it makes a mmo more "sandboxish" than restricted PVP), i still think that a sandbox mmo without instances and with limited resources can't work well without open FFA PVP.
The metagame aspects of diplomacy, social network, grouping and politics maybe can persists, but for sure will be far way poorer than in a mmo with realistic player interactions. The dispute for resources or power in the open world without free pvp wouldn't really occur: would be players camping them, trying to "tag" things before others, or players waiting in a line or queue provided by developers. Either way, would be dull and silly.
FFA PVP is a simple question of good or bad implementation. There are many ways to avoid mindless gank (the only good reason to object ffa pvp, since it "pollutes" the gameplay) without take off this feature and together all his benefits to the game world, players fun and mmo "sandboxiness".
I agree. Open FFA PVP is crucial to the sandbox nature of an MMO. This doesn't mean that there can't be any limits of sorts, but if most of the game doesn't allow FFA PVP than the sandbox elements will suffer.
So we must be talking about different things here and arguing without reason, since to me EVE has open ffa pvp. I do not advocate a open pvp without any consequence.
This is the mindset the developers must fight and avoid.
To a developer with a sandbox mindset, is really very hard to try create a world simulator with the maximum fidelity possible to reality and then spoil it with a imersion-breaker unreal feature precisely in the most outstanding part of the mmo - the fight interactions -.
Originally posted by kishe I like how same people can glorify FFA pvp, hate Trammel and love Eve as the ultimate FFA PVP experience when in eve 3/4 of zones can be considered "trammel-like". Sure you can attack anyone in 0,5-1.0 zones but you'll just get insta-killed 1,5 seconds later.
3/4? You sure?
Hi sec systems: 1090
Low sec systems: 817
Null sec systems: 3524 (230 are Jove space so not visitable)
Wormhole systems: 2499
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
I agree. Open FFA PVP is crucial to the sandbox nature of an MMO. This doesn't mean that there can't be any limits of sorts, but if most of the game doesn't allow FFA PVP than the sandbox elements will suffer.
ATITD, Second Life, Free Realms, Furcadia and a few other MMOs seem to indicate otherwise. Please, type it out. I really want to see someone reply with
"But wouldn't they be more immersive games if you could kill each other?"
The ability to murder anyone around you is not and never has been a requirement or necessity for sandbox gameplay. I get the feeling that if a company built an MMO that was an actual sandbox, some of you would completely reject it if you weren't allowed to kick over other people's castles.
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
FFA PvP is actually anti-realism, unless your MMO is in a kind of "Mad Max" like total anarchy world. Even during the middle ages, people weren't killing each other mindlessly and repeatedly in the streets for no reason.
The worst enemy of a "world simulator" would be FFA PvP. Nothing breaks immersion more than seeing people killing each other all over the place with no valid reason except "just because I can".
Not to mention the fact that the only way to make it "realistic" would be if anyone who was killed was permanently banned from the game or at least permadeath of that character.
That's the problem with players being the enforcers against unlawful gankers. What could they do to discourage people from ganking? The only option is permadeath of a character or permaban of an account, mimicking reality in which murderers are executed or put in jail for life.
Otherwise there will be no way to stop excessive ganking, as gankers will just keep coming back and doing it again.
Of course those who are killed by ganking would also permanently lose their character.
Sounds like a lot of fun to me... /sarcasm
Played: DAoC, AC2, WoW, CoH, GW, GW2, WAR, AoC, Champions Online, Rift, Dragon Nest, Vindictus, Warframe, Neverwinter, Dungeon Fighter Online
Originally posted by Galadourn FFA is tricky and, so far, I've not seen any game balancing it right.
Meridian had full loot PvP and it worked because:
1 character per account (not many had two at that time)
no restrictions on PvP. . killers could never enter town because they would be ganged up on. There was never a time that anyone could not attack someone else (initially anyway)
small community . . everyone knew who the killers where because the map was smaller and the server population was small.
I think trying to "balance" it is what makes it broken. Killers didn't have "red towns" to bank in so if they got killed they lost everything. They were not red or blue so they could not exploit a karma system. . when Drithen's Fury was caught in town he was always a possible target.
This is the mindset the developers must fight and avoid.
To a developer with a sandbox mindset, is really very hard to try create a world simulator with the maximum fidelity possible to reality and then spoil it with a imersion-breaker unreal feature precisely in the most outstanding part of the mmo - the fight interactions -.
FFA PvP is actually anti-realism, unless your MMO is in a kind of "Mad Max" like total anarchy world. Even during the middle ages, people weren't killing each other mindlessly and repeatedly in the streets for no reason.
The worst enemy of a "world simulator" would be FFA PvP. Nothing breaks immersion more than seeing people killing each other all over the place with no valid reason except "just because I can".
Too bad it's another indie developer thinking sandbox means FFA PvP.
Another game to join DFO and MO in my failure category.
Fixed it for you. Underlined the word I fixed/changed.
Take care now.
Because DFO and MO are brilliant successes. Welcome to reality. Not a single FFA PvP MMO became a big succes. Not a single one.
QFT.
FFA PVP in an MMO is something that just is not popular or all that well liked, its not even a question of class/skill balance, Its because only a very small minority of even avid hard core PvP'ers actually want it.No casual PvP player would ever stick with it and even the hard core would have trouble with it, because its pointless PvP, and PvP without reason or structure is just chaos, and a griefers paradise, and griefers would gravitate to a game like that like flies to a rotting corpse, and with similar results, nobody would want to have anything to do with it. The developers really have a good long think about what kind of game they are trying to create and what kinds of people would play it, if they are happy trying to make a game with such a narrow appeal, then fine, DF;UW and Mortal Online are their competitors, because player numbers are going to be low. very low.
Originally posted by Galadourn FFA is tricky and, so far, I've not seen any game balancing it right.
Meridian had full loot PvP and it worked because:
1 character per account (not many had two at that time)
no restrictions on PvP. . killers could never enter town because they would be ganged up on. There was never a time that anyone could not attack someone else (initially anyway)
small community . . everyone knew who the killers where because the map was smaller and the server population was small.
I think trying to "balance" it is what makes it broken. Killers didn't have "red towns" to bank in so if they got killed they lost everything. They were not red or blue so they could not exploit a karma system. . when Drithen's Fury was caught in town he was always a possible target.
Meridian 59 had a very small playerbase, people knew each other very well, this was after all, before MMO's really caught on, and when servers had dozens of players, and where peak times were when there was over 100 players on, besides it was more about RP'ing than level grinding or PvP'ing. MMO's have evolved significantly since then, and those kinds of game mechanics just would not work in a modern MMO.
This is the mindset the developers must fight and avoid.
To a developer with a sandbox mindset, is really very hard to try create a world simulator with the maximum fidelity possible to reality and then spoil it with a imersion-breaker unreal feature precisely in the most outstanding part of the mmo - the fight interactions -.
FFA PvP is actually anti-realism, unless your MMO is in a kind of "Mad Max" like total anarchy world. Even during the middle ages, people weren't killing each other mindlessly and repeatedly in the streets for no reason.
The worst enemy of a "world simulator" would be FFA PvP. Nothing breaks immersion more than seeing people killing each other all over the place with no valid reason except "just because I can".
Too bad it's another indie developer thinking sandbox means FFA PvP.
Another game to join DFO and MO in my failure category.
Fixed it for you. Underlined the word I fixed/changed.
Take care now.
Because DFO and MO are brilliant successes. Welcome to reality. Not a single FFA PvP MMO became a big succes. Not a single one.
QFT.
FFA PVP in an MMO is something that just is not popular or all that well liked, its not even a question of class/skill balance, Its because only a very small minority of even avid hard core PvP'ers actually want it.No casual PvP player would ever stick with it and even the hard core would have trouble with it, because its pointless PvP, and PvP without reason or structure is just chaos, and a griefers paradise, and griefers would gravitate to a game like that like flies to a rotting corpse, and with similar results, nobody would want to have anything to do with it. The developers really have a good long think about what kind of game they are trying to create and what kinds of people would play it, if they are happy trying to make a game with such a narrow appeal, then fine, DF;UW and Mortal Online are their competitors, because player numbers are going to be low. very low.
You guys seem to be missing the point...
"Target audience" and "niche" doesn't mean big success and having millions of players.
"Target audience" and "niche" doesn't mean big success and having millions of players.
That's what they thought about Dayz too...
You mean the game that has 23k people playing it ? For a small mmo that's a good number but it's a long ways from "millions" And it already had a large following when it was just a game mod.
"Target audience" and "niche" doesn't mean big success and having millions of players.
That's what they thought about Dayz too...
You mean the game that has 23k people playing it ? For a small mmo that's a good number but it's a long ways from "millions" And it already had a large following when it was just a game mod.
it is mistirious to me that DayZ took of like that! since it runs on the old Arma2 Engine, grafics and animations are just meh and the gameplay and features you can mostly also find in a A3 free mod as well. im really angry at them and myself for the catch they made and got me spending 20$ for a mod...
Lif on the opposite really has some fresh ideas, a decent engine and different approaches and with the proper community has a lot of potential!
They lost me and so many others with the FFA PvP. To spend so much time making a game and then slap something like that on it to then make it for a small portion of the gaming population is crazy when they can easily have a separate server with FFA turned on. It then makes the game the kind of game anyone may play.
Comments
First, you claim a hard rule about "consensual" PvP doesn't belong, yet you want a "hard rule" for FFA PvP. Sorry, but there can be no such thing as "rules free," it is just a question of how many "rules" are in the game...and those rules aren't just made by the players, they are also made by the game developer/company. Between FFA PvP, total PvE, or consensual PvP, consensual PvP is actually the least "hard rule" of them all because it allows player choice.
Second, a sandbox is about much more than just the PvP ruleset. There is a huge difference between wanting a sandbox that is PvE or consensual PvP and wanting "a themepark with housing." Just because a person doesn't care for FFA PvP doesn't mean they want a story line, quest driven experience that herds players from one leveled zone to another.
When I read post about what does and doesn't belong in a sandbox, whether or not sandboxes can be successful, and whether or not sandboxes must include FFA PvP, I think about Second Life. Second Life is about as sandbox as an MMO could ever get, nearly everything in Second Life is player created: avatars, clothing, buildings, environments, objects, scripts, animations, emotes, etc. Doesn't exactly qualify as a "themepark with housing" does it? Yet there is no FFA PvP (in that every person in Second Life is not required to participate in PvP events), although PvP (and PvE) does exist in Second Life, but in order to engage in PvP, a player must go to a sim that allows PvP and equip a script or HUD in order to engage in PvP or engage in PvP through roleplaying.
As far as your statement on not being able to hit someone in the mouth for the way he's behaving, PvP isn't the best way to deal with something like that anyway. Mute or report is the best way to deal with that person. In fact, FFA PvP can make jerks even bigger jerks because muting may not take care of their behavior at that point (although I do love XBox ONE's system that is suppose to cause people who choose to behave poorly to end up only playing with/against others who choose to behave poorly when it comes to online activities).
Althought i agree that open FFA PVP isn't required to a mmo be labeled a sandbox (altought it makes a mmo more "sandboxish" than restricted PVP), i still think that a sandbox mmo without instances and with limited resources can't work well without open FFA PVP.
The metagame aspects of diplomacy, social network, grouping and politics maybe can persists, but for sure will be far way poorer than in a mmo with realistic player interactions. The dispute for resources or power in the open world without free pvp wouldn't really occur: would be players camping them, trying to "tag" things before others, or players waiting in a line or queue provided by developers. Either way, would be dull and silly.
FFA PVP is a simple question of good or bad implementation. There are many ways to avoid mindless gank (the only good reason to object ffa pvp, since it "pollutes" the gameplay) without take off this feature and together all his benefits to the game world, players fun and mmo "sandboxiness".
I agree. Open FFA PVP is crucial to the sandbox nature of an MMO. This doesn't mean that there can't be any limits of sorts, but if most of the game doesn't allow FFA PVP than the sandbox elements will suffer.
Executive Editor (Games) http://www.wccftech.com
So we must be talking about different things here and arguing without reason, since to me EVE has open ffa pvp. I do not advocate a open pvp without any consequence.
To a developer with a sandbox mindset, is really very hard to try create a world simulator with the maximum fidelity possible to reality and then spoil it with a imersion-breaker unreal feature precisely in the most outstanding part of the mmo - the fight interactions -.
3/4? You sure?
Hi sec systems: 1090
Low sec systems: 817
Null sec systems: 3524 (230 are Jove space so not visitable)
Wormhole systems: 2499
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Fixed it for you. Underlined the word I fixed/changed.
Take care now.
"My Fantasy is having two men at once...
One Cooking and One Cleaning!"
---------------------------
"A good man can make you feel sexy,
strong and able to take on the whole world...
oh sorry...that's wine...wine does that..."
ATITD, Second Life, Free Realms, Furcadia and a few other MMOs seem to indicate otherwise. Please, type it out. I really want to see someone reply with
"But wouldn't they be more immersive games if you could kill each other?"
The ability to murder anyone around you is not and never has been a requirement or necessity for sandbox gameplay. I get the feeling that if a company built an MMO that was an actual sandbox, some of you would completely reject it if you weren't allowed to kick over other people's castles.
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
No one was a lawless world with everyone killing everyone.
Not to mention the fact that the only way to make it "realistic" would be if anyone who was killed was permanently banned from the game or at least permadeath of that character.
That's the problem with players being the enforcers against unlawful gankers. What could they do to discourage people from ganking? The only option is permadeath of a character or permaban of an account, mimicking reality in which murderers are executed or put in jail for life.
Otherwise there will be no way to stop excessive ganking, as gankers will just keep coming back and doing it again.
Of course those who are killed by ganking would also permanently lose their character.
Sounds like a lot of fun to me... /sarcasm
Played: DAoC, AC2, WoW, CoH, GW, GW2, WAR, AoC, Champions Online, Rift, Dragon Nest, Vindictus, Warframe, Neverwinter, Dungeon Fighter Online
Currently Playing: Dungeon Fighter Online Global
Waiting for: None
Meridian had full loot PvP and it worked because:
1 character per account (not many had two at that time)
no restrictions on PvP. . killers could never enter town because they would be ganged up on. There was never a time that anyone could not attack someone else (initially anyway)
small community . . everyone knew who the killers where because the map was smaller and the server population was small.
I think trying to "balance" it is what makes it broken. Killers didn't have "red towns" to bank in so if they got killed they lost everything. They were not red or blue so they could not exploit a karma system. . when Drithen's Fury was caught in town he was always a possible target.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
They seem to be on the right track with this info
http://lifeisfeudal.com/mmorpgsandLiF/Death-and-Alignment-in-sandbox-MMO-game-Life-is-Feudal
Life IS Feudal
QFT.
FFA PVP in an MMO is something that just is not popular or all that well liked, its not even a question of class/skill balance, Its because only a very small minority of even avid hard core PvP'ers actually want it.No casual PvP player would ever stick with it and even the hard core would have trouble with it, because its pointless PvP, and PvP without reason or structure is just chaos, and a griefers paradise, and griefers would gravitate to a game like that like flies to a rotting corpse, and with similar results, nobody would want to have anything to do with it. The developers really have a good long think about what kind of game they are trying to create and what kinds of people would play it, if they are happy trying to make a game with such a narrow appeal, then fine, DF;UW and Mortal Online are their competitors, because player numbers are going to be low. very low.
Meridian 59 had a very small playerbase, people knew each other very well, this was after all, before MMO's really caught on, and when servers had dozens of players, and where peak times were when there was over 100 players on, besides it was more about RP'ing than level grinding or PvP'ing. MMO's have evolved significantly since then, and those kinds of game mechanics just would not work in a modern MMO.
You guys seem to be missing the point...
"Target audience" and "niche" doesn't mean big success and having millions of players.
That's what they thought about Dayz too...
Life IS Feudal
You mean the game that has 23k people playing it ? For a small mmo that's a good number but it's a long ways from "millions" And it already had a large following when it was just a game mod.
it is mistirious to me that DayZ took of like that! since it runs on the old Arma2 Engine, grafics and animations are just meh and the gameplay and features you can mostly also find in a A3 free mod as well. im really angry at them and myself for the catch they made and got me spending 20$ for a mod...
Lif on the opposite really has some fresh ideas, a decent engine and different approaches and with the proper community has a lot of potential!
They lost me and so many others with the FFA PvP. To spend so much time making a game and then slap something like that on it to then make it for a small portion of the gaming population is crazy when they can easily have a separate server with FFA turned on. It then makes the game the kind of game anyone may play.
Just makes no sense at all.