Originally posted by Bladestrom A sandbox requires something to entertain for years that's for sure, and whatever that is, it has to consume resources to keep the economy from collapsing from the weight of rich players. This is either going to be battleground based pvp with massive gear damage costs (unlikely) or a pvp where your gear is destroyed & stolen. So this is why nearly all sandboxes have open world pvp.
Or just make mobs nastily inclined to aggro everything that moves and make all gear break and limit ability to repair, as well as requiring upkeep on all properties and resources to feed and tend any livestock, too?
Or make PvP areas and PvE areas on the same server, but make it so the sole incentive to enter a PvP area is for PvP. Which always for some reason tends to kill the thrill for a lot of so called PvPers. If they know the only people they'll have to fight are there to actually fight, they get all disinterested for some reason.
Somehow most pve focused player come always with such a kind of response..
Look.. i as a pvp player play all kind of pvp games.. MOBAs, RTS, FPS and MMORPGs.. actually 99% of all games i do play are multiplayer and 100% of my multiplayer games shall have pvp.. because i actually enjoy to play with and against other players. I know that's my preference and not everyone shares that. And i am completely ok with pve MMOs, hell even with Themeparks.. if someone enjoys that.. i just will not play them anymore.
And now to your pvp area thing. We don't enjoy that kind of thing because we can just fight other pvp players, or what is implied.. not able to gank pve players. The thrill of MMO PvP (for most of us) is not the combat alone.. because for that MOBAs, RTS or FPS multiplayer games are the better fit.. and they will always be a lot better than themepark pvp(arena, battlegrounds all that stuff).. and most pvp players play that stuff, too. (like myself) But what a simple Multiplayer Game, or a themepark PvP addOn can not offer is actual a virtual world, where you fight over ingame property, fight for ideals.. or simple said for something more than just to combat.. that your combat does have a reason, a meaning behind it. And i really don't talk about simple rewards like pvp gears from battlegrounds, which will become in the end just another grind, and a prerequest to be even able to play competive pvp.. something like that is really counter productive and against most pvp players.
And there have to be something on the line.. like territory, resources or/and full loot, something which is more about influence, about making a statement, about fighting against the odds, about fighting for a greater good, about more than just combat between two sides of players. And i will not say that you can't do anything like that with different zones and/or with some zones for pve only players.. most devs just don't do it, and most pve players don't like it, when there is something valuable in the world(ingame world), which they can't access(without pvping).
To be fair, though, devs could design that to be more interesting, with massive sieges and keeps and reasons to bring in willing crafters by the dozens as well as the PvPers. Shoot, you wouldn't have to pay me much gold to venture into a PvP area to work as a crafter mercenary of sorts on keeps and siege equipment, it would be fun. I just don't want to have to drag myself out into ganker central just to gather mats I can't get anywhere else.
Yeap.. exactly that.. and more do we want.. but sieges and/or keeps without any meaning is rather boring.. because it is not just the combat we do look for.
Edit: And I could then take that gold and hire a caravan leader later to bring goods into those PvP zones where players will naturally pay somewhat more for them and of course use them up faster than in a PvE area, thus continuing the circle of profit and destruction without me ever having the annoyance of three high levels running up and one hitting me while I'm skinning something and recovering health, then dancing on my corpse. That never has to happen to make an MMO a sandbox, or even a PvP sandbox.
And that is a lot more what i do like and most pvp sandbox players would like.. we do want to play mercenaries for a caravan(but there have to be reasons to travel through pvp zones), and yes.. if resources in pvp areas would be more expensive(but again.. it have to be necessary to actually buy that stuff, or be there to buy that stuff). And about skinning and get killed.. let say it like that.. i am really ok if there are pve areas, where you can exactly do that.. skin your stuff undistrubted.. but some animals may just live in a pvp area.. and maybe just because they live there, thus fur my be a lot rarer and withit expensive.. so that some adventures(like me) can take that risk, and hunt there, and skin there.. with the risk to get killed by doing so.. but with the higher reward for beeing successful.
And truth is most MMOs just miss that part.. the part for pvp to be more than just combat.. ok there are not a lot of sandbox anyway.. but there are not a lot of good sandboxes with meaningful pvp, too. EvE may be the only one.. and EvE lacks a lot of other stuff.
Comments in green.
@Topic: Sandbox is not a synonymous with pvp, but for me a good MMO sandbox should have a good and meaningful pvp system.. but not just pvp.. it should be a true virtual world with everything(incl. pvp and for me some kind of player loot and some kind of criminal system and more)
Sandbox means freedom. The game telling you you cannot attack goes directly against that core value of freedom.
The game telling you, you have to pvp is freedom though...apparently.
This is just retarded. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying you should play this game or die... the game isnt telling you anything, just because pvp is allowed doesnt mean everyone is just gonna turn into a homocidal maniac, there should be consequences for murderers but NEVER just magically dis allow it...
everyone who knows about what makes a sandbox MMO knows about Raph Koster who said
there is the "online dilemma":
everyone wants to influence the world inhabited by players but some don't want to be influenced by other players inhabiting the world? WTH?
There you have the reason why your shallow MMO is a themepark, or why your themeparks are shallow. The online dilemma, and developers catering to ambivalent people and carebears.
In sandbox MMOs players influence the world and each other, that includes of course PvP economically, in direct combat or any other way of influence, players competing over ressources etc.
but even your shallow PvE MMO raid has PvP, your loot roll? PVP
Killsteal? PVP
Someone camps a spawning box and snatches it away from under your nose? PVP, again
so stop being little babies, let the sandboxes be sandboxes and the themeparks, the other thing.
Both are just games and you have nothing to lose anyway..
Originally posted by DocBrody idiotic 20%, a Pve heavy MMO is of course a themepark because it's shallow beating up scripted AI robots with a stick. there is no such thing as a PvE driven sandbox MMO if it were it would simply end up being a THEME PARK, that is the ultimate truth, period...
See, some folks assert sandbox = pvp, but I think PVP'ness has nothing to do with that question.
1. Games which tell players what to do and richly reward them for complying, while penalizing them for deviating are Themeparks.
2. Games which do not tell players what to do, and do not overly enrich players for completing quests are Sandboxes.
Whether or not they are PvP has absolutely nothing to do with the classification. You can have any combination:
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Situation: Terrible Dragon infests the region, causing trouble.
Story based themepark game: You and a band of heroes team up, after much hard work, to fight the Terrible Dragon in an epic battle!
Sandbox style game: You can decide to make offerings of gold/cattle/virgins to get the Terrible Dragon to leave you alone. You can try to negotiate with the Terrible Dragon to convince it that a hated neighboring region would be a much better place to infest. You can form a Cult of the Terrible Dragon, to worship and protect your new god. You can try to make a great spell that will make the land stink so bad that the Terrible Dragon will leave in disgust. You and a band of heroes can team up, and after much hard work, fight the Terrible Dragon in an epic battle! You can just ignore Terrible Dragon (until he eats you).
Of course, then there's the question of which of these is easier for developers to build, and how will they pay off in actual player support.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Sandbox means freedom. The game telling you you cannot attack goes directly against that core value of freedom.
The game telling you, you have to pvp is freedom though...apparently.
This is just retarded. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying you should play this game or die... the game isnt telling you anything, just because pvp is allowed doesnt mean everyone is just gonna turn into a homocidal maniac, there should be consequences for murderers but NEVER just magically dis allow it...
You're mixing a lot of other issues here. The question was does a game have to have pvp to be a sandbox. His response was that with out the freedom to choose it can't be. It's not about how to make it work in a pvp game.
Choosing not to play the game doesn't solve the paradox, it's just an easy answer for people who want something. People advocating that you have to have the freedom to choose to attack anyone seem to like to ignore the other side of their own freedom. When one person chooses to pvp, they remove the other persons choice. That isn't actual freedom, it's anarchy where the strong decide for everyone.
Consequences again only effect the one choosing to enter pvp. They're not relevant to the freedom of choice. Only if you should do it or not, and what happens after.
Sandbox means freedom. The game telling you you cannot attack goes directly against that core value of freedom.
The game telling you, you have to pvp is freedom though...apparently.
This is just retarded. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying you should play this game or die... the game isnt telling you anything, just because pvp is allowed doesnt mean everyone is just gonna turn into a homocidal maniac, there should be consequences for murderers but NEVER just magically dis allow it...
You're mixing a lot of other issues here. The question was does a game have to have pvp to be a sandbox. His response was that with out the freedom to choose it can't be. It's not about how to make it work in a pvp game.
Choosing not to play the game doesn't solve the paradox, it's just an easy answer for people who want something. People advocating that you have to have the freedom to choose to attack anyone seem to like to ignore the other side of their own freedom. When one person chooses to pvp, they remove the other persons choice. That isn't actual freedom, it's anarchy where the strong decide for everyone.
Consequences again only effect the one choosing to enter pvp. They're not relevant to the freedom of choice. Only if you should do it or not, and what happens after.
suggestion: you look at the real world , then you translate that to a MMO.
If you do it half assed with artifical protection mode barriers and safety nets, what will it be? You guessed it- THEMEPARK MMO
If you do it the right way without magic unicorn safemode, with a full range of choice and everyone having real influence what will it be? You guessed it - SANDBOX MMO
Test it out, go to Afghanistan and see if a little PvE-only flag will somehow magically shield you from the possibility of getting ganked by Taliban?
this is why life is not a themepark unless you are Michael Jackson and build one, but really who wants to be Michael Jackson and live in some sort of weird Disneyland?
idiotic 20%, a Pve heavy MMO is of course a themepark because it's shallow beating up scripted AI robots with a stick.
there is no such thing as a PvE driven sandbox MMO if it were it would simply end up being a THEME PARK, that is the ultimate truth, period.
You can ask a question: How much salt can you pour into sugar before it all becomes salt?
not even remotely true. *coughs* "period!
I don't believe you actually understand what a theme park is to make that claim.
take your favorite sandbox game, remove pvp (and it would be a unanimous choice by many) and all it would become is "a sandbox without x".
You aren't suddenly led around by quests, you aren't suddenly held back unless you are "x" level, you aren't suddenly subjected to a storyline with your role firmly created by the developers.
You just have the same sandbox game but with, for some, an unwanted activity removed.
If you need to be literal about it then take a "real" sandbox, throw in some toys but don't allow, say "water" or the use of hexagonal pails, "whatever". It doesn't suddenly become "something else". It becomes a sandbox without water or certain pails.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Sandbox means freedom. The game telling you you cannot attack goes directly against that core value of freedom.
The game telling you, you have to pvp is freedom though...apparently.
This is just retarded. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying you should play this game or die... the game isnt telling you anything, just because pvp is allowed doesnt mean everyone is just gonna turn into a homocidal maniac, there should be consequences for murderers but NEVER just magically dis allow it...
You're mixing a lot of other issues here. The question was does a game have to have pvp to be a sandbox. His response was that with out the freedom to choose it can't be. It's not about how to make it work in a pvp game.
Choosing not to play the game doesn't solve the paradox, it's just an easy answer for people who want something. People advocating that you have to have the freedom to choose to attack anyone seem to like to ignore the other side of their own freedom. When one person chooses to pvp, they remove the other persons choice. That isn't actual freedom, it's anarchy where the strong decide for everyone.
Consequences again only effect the one choosing to enter pvp. They're not relevant to the freedom of choice. Only if you should do it or not, and what happens after.
suggestion: you look at the real world , then you translate that to a MMO.
If you do it half assed with artifical protection mode barriers and safety nets, what will it be? You guessed it- THEMEPARK MMO
If you do it the right way without magic unicorn safemode, with a full range of choice and everyone having real influence what will it be? You guessed it - SANDBOX MMO
Test it out, go to Afghanistan and see if a little PvE-only flag will somehow magically shield you from the possibility of getting ganked by Taliban?
this is why life is not a themepark unless you are Michael Jackson and build one, but really who wants to be Michael Jackson and live in some sort of weird Disneyland?
The real world has perma death too so I guess it can't be a sandbox with out that as well ? Or are we only cherry picking what supports the things you want like always ?
Sandbox means freedom. The game telling you you cannot attack goes directly against that core value of freedom.
The game telling you, you have to pvp is freedom though...apparently.
This is just retarded. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying you should play this game or die... the game isnt telling you anything, just because pvp is allowed doesnt mean everyone is just gonna turn into a homocidal maniac, there should be consequences for murderers but NEVER just magically dis allow it...
You're mixing a lot of other issues here. The question was does a game have to have pvp to be a sandbox. His response was that with out the freedom to choose it can't be. It's not about how to make it work in a pvp game.
Choosing not to play the game doesn't solve the paradox, it's just an easy answer for people who want something. People advocating that you have to have the freedom to choose to attack anyone seem to like to ignore the other side of their own freedom. When one person chooses to pvp, they remove the other persons choice. That isn't actual freedom, it's anarchy where the strong decide for everyone.
Consequences again only effect the one choosing to enter pvp. They're not relevant to the freedom of choice. Only if you should do it or not, and what happens after.
suggestion: you look at the real world , then you translate that to a MMO.
If you do it half assed with artifical protection mode barriers and safety nets, what will it be? You guessed it- THEMEPARK MMO
If you do it the right way without magic unicorn safemode, with a full range of choice and everyone having real influence what will it be? You guessed it - SANDBOX MMO
Test it out, go to Afghanistan and see if a little PvE-only flag will somehow magically shield you from the possibility of getting ganked by Taliban?
this is why life is not a themepark unless you are Michael Jackson and build one, but really who wants to be Michael Jackson and live in some sort of weird Disneyland?
No game exists without a ton of abstractions. Many games don't require such basic things as sleep, eating and drinking, taking a dump, realistic time or materials for item production, time for putting on or taking off armor, on and on and on....
There's unlikely to be a fully 1 to 1 virtual recreation-of-reality game. Every one will have a ton of abstractions. You are just fixated on this one aspect which you view as the defining characteristic for a so-called 'Sandbox'. It's just another abstraction. And if that abstraction gets in the way of game developers making a living, it will get dumped fast. That's a reality for you.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
idiotic 20%, a Pve heavy MMO is of course a themepark because it's shallow beating up scripted AI robots with a stick.
there is no such thing as a PvE driven sandbox MMO if it were it would simply end up being a THEME PARK, that is the ultimate truth, period.
You can ask a question: How much salt can you pour into sugar before it all becomes salt?
not even remotely true. *coughs* "period!
I don't believe you actually understand what a theme park is to make that claim.
take your favorite sandbox game, remove pvp (and it would be a unanimous choice by many) and all it would become is "a sandbox without x".
You aren't suddenly led around by quests, you aren't suddenly held back unless you are "x" level, you aren't suddenly subjected to a storyline with your role firmly created by the developers.
You just have the same sandbox game but with, for some, an unwanted activity removed.
If you need to be literal about it then take a "real" sandbox, throw in some toys but don't allow, say "water" or the use of hexagonal pails, "whatever". It doesn't suddenly become "something else". It becomes a sandbox without water or certain pails.
you know this is total BS, also hypothetical and a non working what if scenario, so you ask what happens if we remove player competition and the player driven element from sandbox MMOs? Seriously?
I tell you what happens, it means SHUT DOWN because there will be nothing left in this sandbox MMO worth playing if you remove the core mechanic of being PLAYER DRIVEN.
Your theneparks are NPC driven, get it in your heads people.
THEMEPARKS ARE NPC DRIVEN
SANDBOX MMOS ARE PLAYER DRIVEN
you don't want player competition? So you simply want a themepark then because there is no meaningful player competiton. Stick with what you like. Or maybe get a single player sandbox RPG for your playstation.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
And stop talking about quest systems, you can have any type of quest system as open, closed, linear or non-linear as you want in your themepark MMOs, it will still be a themepark MMO no matter what, because look above
NPC driven, shallow, no consequecne.
why?
look further above, "the online dilemma / paradoxon"
@Topic: Sandbox is not a synonymous with pvp, but for me a good MMO sandbox should have a good and meaningful pvp system.. but not just pvp.. it should be a true virtual world with everything(incl. pvp and for me some kind of player loot and some kind of criminal system and more)
While pvpers in a multi-zone scenario would need to be able to sustain any extra expenses (repairs, siege equipment, time not spent farming mobs or gathering) with better gold acquisition in the PvP areas, there is still no need to force those who never wish to enter those zones to go there to progress, or to progress faster, or to acquire specific gear or items.
In addition, devs would always have to carefully balance the drops (say from PVP zone open world bosses) to prevent the PVPers from being the only ones in the game who have any economic clout A tricky balancing act, I'm sure. Which is another good reason for multiple servers with different rulesets rather than throwing the PVE and PVP crowds on one server together.
But when they do get thrown together, the worst possible solution is for devs to lure people who don't want to PVP out of safe zones. I can tell you from experience: We won't like it. We won't suddenly learn to appreciate the joy of being ganked. Oh, one or two oddballs might, but most of us are going to complain on the forums and then quit the game. And afterward we'll avoid any game with any open world PVP from then on. And when a game with features we like that we can't find elsewhere comes out (like ArcheAge) there will be a fuss about it and bitter complaining on both sides. Complaining that could have been entirely avoided with separate server rulesets or truly non-consensual-PVP-free gameplay on mixed region servers.
But this is getting off topic: I guess if PVPers really want to say that any game without non-consensual PVP is a themepark, even if it has housing, crafting, shipbuilding, trade caravans, no quests at all, and decisions that change the game world, then I guess I want a themepark with all those features. I don't care what it's called, I just want those things without having to ever again deal with Billy, Joe, and little Jimmy repeatedly ganking me for no reason other than sheer boredom and possibly sadistic tendencies. I'm just not interested in being an afternoon of amusing content for Billy, Joe, and little Jimmy.
I did try to become a sadistic ganker in return at one point, to stealth up on opposing faction members and slaughter them, but I hated doing that just as much as I hated being the victim. There just isn't anything fun about it for me. Sieges, now giant sieges I can get into, as long as I can be a merc and not a regular guild member. And as long as I can go 'home' to my safe area after it's done and plant my potatoes.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Sandbox means freedom. The game telling you you cannot attack goes directly against that core value of freedom.
The game telling you, you have to pvp is freedom though...apparently.
This is just retarded. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying you should play this game or die... the game isnt telling you anything, just because pvp is allowed doesnt mean everyone is just gonna turn into a homocidal maniac, there should be consequences for murderers but NEVER just magically dis allow it...
You're mixing a lot of other issues here. The question was does a game have to have pvp to be a sandbox. His response was that with out the freedom to choose it can't be. It's not about how to make it work in a pvp game.
Choosing not to play the game doesn't solve the paradox, it's just an easy answer for people who want something. People advocating that you have to have the freedom to choose to attack anyone seem to like to ignore the other side of their own freedom. When one person chooses to pvp, they remove the other persons choice. That isn't actual freedom, it's anarchy where the strong decide for everyone.
Consequences again only effect the one choosing to enter pvp. They're not relevant to the freedom of choice. Only if you should do it or not, and what happens after.
suggestion: you look at the real world , then you translate that to a MMO.
If you do it half assed with artifical protection mode barriers and safety nets, what will it be? You guessed it- THEMEPARK MMO
If you do it the right way without magic unicorn safemode, with a full range of choice and everyone having real influence what will it be? You guessed it - SANDBOX MMO
Test it out, go to Afghanistan and see if a little PvE-only flag will somehow magically shield you from the possibility of getting ganked by Taliban?
this is why life is not a themepark unless you are Michael Jackson and build one, but really who wants to be Michael Jackson and live in some sort of weird Disneyland?
The real world has perma death too so I guess it can't be a sandbox with out that as well ? Or are we only cherry picking what supports the things you want like always ?
Strawman argument / exaggeration and you know it. But hey, I'll play along- permadeath, why not. If there is an inheritance system, sure, next of kin in Star Citizen, sufficient realism
Many games/ game experiences get or can can be destroyed by PvP.
Because there will be always some guys just using it in the way to destroy player experiences.
PvP can work for all players even the carebears, if done right. FFA PvP is defnitly not the way it will work for all.
Ive never heard of a PvP-Player complaining about PvE destroying his Expierence in PvP (when someones think like this RPGs are way the wrong game anyway)
So if the mix of PvP and PvE is done right then it can work for both playstyles, if you get forced to PvP at anytime with full-loot it wont.
And further more tbh, a Sandbox "RPG" dont need PVP at all, cause a Sandbox RPG can live from so much more then just killing other people(which reason you ever have to do so). If you can make a good RP of a fight, people dont need to be forced to do pvp.
i think if you want to force other people to PVP, go and play CoD or BF, there you get what you want, FFA PVP.
So overall again: PVP can destroy a good game. PvE cant destroy a good game.
The real world has perma death too so I guess it can't be a sandbox with out that as well ? Or are we only cherry picking what supports the things you want like always ?
Strawman argument / exaggeration and you know it. But hey, I'll play along- permadeath, why not. If there is an inheritance system, sure, next of kin in Star Citizen, sufficient realism
Of course it was a strawman...every real life vrs games argument is. It was a shot at how you construct you sandbox argument. So no...the taliban wouldn't send all your stuff to your kids so I guess you have to lose that too if it's a "real" sandbox.
Maybe I shouldnt say anything but I have a lot of mixed thought about this.
On one hand I see that a Sandbox should have OW FFA but on the other hand I think there needs to be some kind of deterrent to keep it in check. After all you are suppose to be on one side or the other in a faction so killing your own faction members should carry some penalty.
idiotic 20%, a Pve heavy MMO is of course a themepark because it's shallow beating up scripted AI robots with a stick.
there is no such thing as a PvE driven sandbox MMO if it were it would simply end up being a THEME PARK, that is the ultimate truth, period.
You can ask a question: How much salt can you pour into sugar before it all becomes salt?
not even remotely true. *coughs* "period!
I don't believe you actually understand what a theme park is to make that claim.
take your favorite sandbox game, remove pvp (and it would be a unanimous choice by many) and all it would become is "a sandbox without x".
You aren't suddenly led around by quests, you aren't suddenly held back unless you are "x" level, you aren't suddenly subjected to a storyline with your role firmly created by the developers.
You just have the same sandbox game but with, for some, an unwanted activity removed.
If you need to be literal about it then take a "real" sandbox, throw in some toys but don't allow, say "water" or the use of hexagonal pails, "whatever". It doesn't suddenly become "something else". It becomes a sandbox without water or certain pails.
you know this is total BS, also hypothetical and a non working what if scenario, so you ask what happens if we remove player competition and the player driven element from sandbox MMOs? Seriously?
I tell you what happens, it means SHUT DOWN because there will be nothing left in this sandbox MMO worth playing if you remove the core mechanic of being PLAYER DRIVEN.
Your theneparks are NPC driven, get it in your heads people.
THEMEPARKS ARE NPC DRIVEN
SANDBOX MMOS ARE PLAYER DRIVEN
you don't want player competition? So you simply want a themepark then because there is no meaningful player competiton. Stick with what you like. Or maybe get a single player sandbox RPG for your playstation.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
And stop talking about quest systems, you can have any type of quest system as open, closed, linear or non-linear as you want in your themepark MMOs, it will still be a themepark MMO no matter what, because look above
NPC driven, shallow, no consequecne.
why?
look further above, "the online dilemma / paradoxon"
I was under the believe that "sandboxes meant freedom". Not npc driven.
secondly, removing pvp doesn't make it npc driven.
Take your favorite sandbox (not sure if you listed it earlier here) and remove pvp. What do the npc's do? If there were never quests then there still won't be quests.
If you could go wherever you wanted you still can go wherever you want.
you are conflating the ideas of freedom and allowing "everything". But you are never going to get that as I can't name one sandbox game that allows "everything".
If you have a low fantasy sandbox game and you remove magic it's still a sandbox game. It's just now a medievil sandbox game. And you can't scream "noooo you removed magic therefore you removed choice and freedom".
The game is always going to have some sort of boundaries. and if a group of people unanimously decide that they dont' want pvp then it is no longer a desire function.
As far as competition, I see absolutely no reasonable argument why a sandbox has to have competition. At all. Why can't a sandbox be about just creating within the given boundaries of that game? Why can't a sandbox be about a meeting of the minds to create? And, most importantly, if the group of people playing have all decided this to be the desired "ruleset" then there is no real argument.
They will still be driving the world, non-npc driven, but have decided that a certain activity is of no interest.
edit: but sure, let's speak with more concrete examples. Pick your definitive sandbox game and let's go from there.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ive never heard of a PvP-Player complaining about PvE destroying his Expierence in PvP
You should read some of the tear-filled essays on the Eve forum, then. They go on and on about how awful High-Sec is and how it ruins the game. And the Darkfall forum has a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over safe areas, too.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Many games/ game experiences get or can can be destroyed by PvP.
Because there will be always some guys just using it in the way to destroy player experiences.
PvP can work for all players even the carebears, if done right. FFA PvP is defnitly not the way it will work for all.
Ive never heard of a PvP-Player complaining about PvE destroying his Expierence in PvP (when someones think like this RPGs are way the wrong game anyway)
So if the mix of PvP and PvE is done right then it can work for both playstyles, if you get forced to PvP at anytime with full-loot it wont.
And further more tbh, a Sandbox "RPG" dont need PVP at all, cause a Sandbox RPG can live from so much more then just killing other people(which reason you ever have to do so). If you can make a good RP of a fight, people dont need to be forced to do pvp.
i think if you want to force other people to PVP, go and play CoD or BF, there you get what you want, FFA PVP.
So overall again: PVP can destroy a good game. PvE cant destroy a good game.
NO ONE can destroy my precious "player experience" , except developers who put glitter farting unicorn mounts into MMOs or dumb down game mechanics until a 12 year old with a lobotomy finds the game too easy,
I'm personally bored by "Safemode Barbieland reincarnation 47", not every MMO needs to have a safemode Barbieland mode.
Accept it, a sandbox MMO world is cruel and no MMO is obliged by law to be carebear compatible.
idiotic 20%, a Pve heavy MMO is of course a themepark because it's shallow beating up scripted AI robots with a stick.
there is no such thing as a PvE driven sandbox MMO if it were it would simply end up being a THEME PARK, that is the ultimate truth, period.
You can ask a question: How much salt can you pour into sugar before it all becomes salt?
not even remotely true. *coughs* "period!
I don't believe you actually understand what a theme park is to make that claim.
take your favorite sandbox game, remove pvp (and it would be a unanimous choice by many) and all it would become is "a sandbox without x".
You aren't suddenly led around by quests, you aren't suddenly held back unless you are "x" level, you aren't suddenly subjected to a storyline with your role firmly created by the developers.
You just have the same sandbox game but with, for some, an unwanted activity removed.
If you need to be literal about it then take a "real" sandbox, throw in some toys but don't allow, say "water" or the use of hexagonal pails, "whatever". It doesn't suddenly become "something else". It becomes a sandbox without water or certain pails.
you know this is total BS, also hypothetical and a non working what if scenario, so you ask what happens if we remove player competition and the player driven element from sandbox MMOs? Seriously?
I tell you what happens, it means SHUT DOWN because there will be nothing left in this sandbox MMO worth playing if you remove the core mechanic of being PLAYER DRIVEN.
Your theneparks are NPC driven, get it in your heads people.
THEMEPARKS ARE NPC DRIVEN
SANDBOX MMOS ARE PLAYER DRIVEN
you don't want player competition? So you simply want a themepark then because there is no meaningful player competiton. Stick with what you like. Or maybe get a single player sandbox RPG for your playstation.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
And stop talking about quest systems, you can have any type of quest system as open, closed, linear or non-linear as you want in your themepark MMOs, it will still be a themepark MMO no matter what, because look above
NPC driven, shallow, no consequecne.
why?
look further above, "the online dilemma / paradoxon"
I was under the believe that "sandboxes meant freedom". Not npc driven.
secondly, removing pvp doesn't make it npc driven.
Take your favorite sandbox (not sure if you listed it earlier here) and remove pvp. What do the npc's do? If there were never quests then there still won't be quests.
If you could go wherever you wanted you still can go wherever you want.
you are conflating the ideas of freedom and allowing "everything". But you are never going to get that as I can't name one sandbox game that allows "everything".
If you have a low fantasy sandbox game and you remove magic it's still a sandbox game. It's just now a medievil sandbox game. And you can't scream "noooo you removed magic therefore you removed choice and freedom".
The game is always going to have some sort of boundaries. and if a group of people unanimously decide that they dont' want pvp then it is no longer a desire function.
As far as competition, I see absolutely no reasonable argument why a sandbox has to have competition. At all. Why can't a sandbox be about just creating within the given boundaries of that game? Why can't a sandbox be about a meeting of the minds to create? And, most importantly, if the group of people playing have all decided this to be the desired "ruleset" then there is no real argument.
They will still be driving the world, non-npc driven, but have decided that a certain activity is of no interest.
edit: but sure, let's speak with more concrete examples. Pick your definitive sandbox game and let's go from there.
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
For me, sandboxes are about realistic and credible mechanisms.
Realistic setting is only FFA OWPvP. However, it is much better and again more credible with effective regulatory mechanisms in place (like jail / death penalty in real life). Without the regulation, there may be highly excessive amount of pvp / killing going on in the game world which may make the sandbox feel unrealistic in spite of the fact that being able to kill anyone is actually a realistic mechanism.
I think a sandbox should use this setting in order to ressemble a credible virtual world which the sandbox is about, for me. I think that nonsensical artificial restrictions break the immersion and credibility.
Why cant I kill / hit the guy standing next to me? Oh because I am just playing a video game which does not allow it to keep certain order on the server. They decided to actually limit your possibilities in the game.
But that is just my view which I assume is not shared by many.
I share this view and it is good that triple A developers finally recognize us a valid target audience, after ignoring us for the last 10-15 years, catering to the same type of players over and over and over again in this over saturated market of shallowness
Comments
Unless you remove the sugar some how the salt will never change any of it.
I believe you are thinking far to small what PVE can be. Don't limit it to only combat activities.
Comments in green.
@Topic: Sandbox is not a synonymous with pvp, but for me a good MMO sandbox should have a good and meaningful pvp system.. but not just pvp.. it should be a true virtual world with everything(incl. pvp and for me some kind of player loot and some kind of criminal system and more)
This is just retarded. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying you should play this game or die... the game isnt telling you anything, just because pvp is allowed doesnt mean everyone is just gonna turn into a homocidal maniac, there should be consequences for murderers but NEVER just magically dis allow it...
everyone who knows about what makes a sandbox MMO knows about Raph Koster who said
there is the "online dilemma":
everyone wants to influence the world inhabited by players but some don't want to be influenced by other players inhabiting the world? WTH?
There you have the reason why your shallow MMO is a themepark, or why your themeparks are shallow. The online dilemma, and developers catering to ambivalent people and carebears.
In sandbox MMOs players influence the world and each other, that includes of course PvP economically, in direct combat or any other way of influence, players competing over ressources etc.
but even your shallow PvE MMO raid has PvP, your loot roll? PVP
Killsteal? PVP
Someone camps a spawning box and snatches it away from under your nose? PVP, again
so stop being little babies, let the sandboxes be sandboxes and the themeparks, the other thing.
Both are just games and you have nothing to lose anyway..
See, some folks assert sandbox = pvp, but I think PVP'ness has nothing to do with that question.
1. Games which tell players what to do and richly reward them for complying, while penalizing them for deviating are Themeparks.
2. Games which do not tell players what to do, and do not overly enrich players for completing quests are Sandboxes.
Whether or not they are PvP has absolutely nothing to do with the classification. You can have any combination:
PVP Sandbox
PVE Sandbox
PVP Themepark
PVE Themepark
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
you can think what you want, but you are dead wrong , sandbox MMO have everything to do with player driven/player competitom.
your definitions of open world / "game does not tell you what to do" fits for WOW or any other run off the mill themepark too.
You can pick up any quest you want and go where you want, there. Open World Themepark made for you.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Situation: Terrible Dragon infests the region, causing trouble.
Story based themepark game: You and a band of heroes team up, after much hard work, to fight the Terrible Dragon in an epic battle!
Sandbox style game: You can decide to make offerings of gold/cattle/virgins to get the Terrible Dragon to leave you alone. You can try to negotiate with the Terrible Dragon to convince it that a hated neighboring region would be a much better place to infest. You can form a Cult of the Terrible Dragon, to worship and protect your new god. You can try to make a great spell that will make the land stink so bad that the Terrible Dragon will leave in disgust. You and a band of heroes can team up, and after much hard work, fight the Terrible Dragon in an epic battle! You can just ignore Terrible Dragon (until he eats you).
Of course, then there's the question of which of these is easier for developers to build, and how will they pay off in actual player support.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
You're mixing a lot of other issues here. The question was does a game have to have pvp to be a sandbox. His response was that with out the freedom to choose it can't be. It's not about how to make it work in a pvp game.
Choosing not to play the game doesn't solve the paradox, it's just an easy answer for people who want something. People advocating that you have to have the freedom to choose to attack anyone seem to like to ignore the other side of their own freedom. When one person chooses to pvp, they remove the other persons choice. That isn't actual freedom, it's anarchy where the strong decide for everyone.
Consequences again only effect the one choosing to enter pvp. They're not relevant to the freedom of choice. Only if you should do it or not, and what happens after.
suggestion: you look at the real world , then you translate that to a MMO.
If you do it half assed with artifical protection mode barriers and safety nets, what will it be? You guessed it- THEMEPARK MMO
If you do it the right way without magic unicorn safemode, with a full range of choice and everyone having real influence what will it be? You guessed it - SANDBOX MMO
Test it out, go to Afghanistan and see if a little PvE-only flag will somehow magically shield you from the possibility of getting ganked by Taliban?
this is why life is not a themepark unless you are Michael Jackson and build one, but really who wants to be Michael Jackson and live in some sort of weird Disneyland?
not even remotely true. *coughs* "period!
I don't believe you actually understand what a theme park is to make that claim.
take your favorite sandbox game, remove pvp (and it would be a unanimous choice by many) and all it would become is "a sandbox without x".
You aren't suddenly led around by quests, you aren't suddenly held back unless you are "x" level, you aren't suddenly subjected to a storyline with your role firmly created by the developers.
You just have the same sandbox game but with, for some, an unwanted activity removed.
If you need to be literal about it then take a "real" sandbox, throw in some toys but don't allow, say "water" or the use of hexagonal pails, "whatever". It doesn't suddenly become "something else". It becomes a sandbox without water or certain pails.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The real world has perma death too so I guess it can't be a sandbox with out that as well ? Or are we only cherry picking what supports the things you want like always ?
No game exists without a ton of abstractions. Many games don't require such basic things as sleep, eating and drinking, taking a dump, realistic time or materials for item production, time for putting on or taking off armor, on and on and on....
There's unlikely to be a fully 1 to 1 virtual recreation-of-reality game. Every one will have a ton of abstractions. You are just fixated on this one aspect which you view as the defining characteristic for a so-called 'Sandbox'. It's just another abstraction. And if that abstraction gets in the way of game developers making a living, it will get dumped fast. That's a reality for you.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
you know this is total BS, also hypothetical and a non working what if scenario, so you ask what happens if we remove player competition and the player driven element from sandbox MMOs? Seriously?
I tell you what happens, it means SHUT DOWN because there will be nothing left in this sandbox MMO worth playing if you remove the core mechanic of being PLAYER DRIVEN.
Your theneparks are NPC driven, get it in your heads people.
THEMEPARKS ARE NPC DRIVEN
SANDBOX MMOS ARE PLAYER DRIVEN
you don't want player competition? So you simply want a themepark then because there is no meaningful player competiton. Stick with what you like. Or maybe get a single player sandbox RPG for your playstation.
Is it really that hard to comprehend?
And stop talking about quest systems, you can have any type of quest system as open, closed, linear or non-linear as you want in your themepark MMOs, it will still be a themepark MMO no matter what, because look above
NPC driven, shallow, no consequecne.
why?
look further above, "the online dilemma / paradoxon"
While pvpers in a multi-zone scenario would need to be able to sustain any extra expenses (repairs, siege equipment, time not spent farming mobs or gathering) with better gold acquisition in the PvP areas, there is still no need to force those who never wish to enter those zones to go there to progress, or to progress faster, or to acquire specific gear or items.
In addition, devs would always have to carefully balance the drops (say from PVP zone open world bosses) to prevent the PVPers from being the only ones in the game who have any economic clout A tricky balancing act, I'm sure. Which is another good reason for multiple servers with different rulesets rather than throwing the PVE and PVP crowds on one server together.
But when they do get thrown together, the worst possible solution is for devs to lure people who don't want to PVP out of safe zones. I can tell you from experience: We won't like it. We won't suddenly learn to appreciate the joy of being ganked. Oh, one or two oddballs might, but most of us are going to complain on the forums and then quit the game. And afterward we'll avoid any game with any open world PVP from then on. And when a game with features we like that we can't find elsewhere comes out (like ArcheAge) there will be a fuss about it and bitter complaining on both sides. Complaining that could have been entirely avoided with separate server rulesets or truly non-consensual-PVP-free gameplay on mixed region servers.
But this is getting off topic: I guess if PVPers really want to say that any game without non-consensual PVP is a themepark, even if it has housing, crafting, shipbuilding, trade caravans, no quests at all, and decisions that change the game world, then I guess I want a themepark with all those features. I don't care what it's called, I just want those things without having to ever again deal with Billy, Joe, and little Jimmy repeatedly ganking me for no reason other than sheer boredom and possibly sadistic tendencies. I'm just not interested in being an afternoon of amusing content for Billy, Joe, and little Jimmy.
I did try to become a sadistic ganker in return at one point, to stealth up on opposing faction members and slaughter them, but I hated doing that just as much as I hated being the victim. There just isn't anything fun about it for me. Sieges, now giant sieges I can get into, as long as I can be a merc and not a regular guild member. And as long as I can go 'home' to my safe area after it's done and plant my potatoes.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Strawman argument / exaggeration and you know it. But hey, I'll play along- permadeath, why not. If there is an inheritance system, sure, next of kin in Star Citizen, sufficient realism
This thematic again...
so my 2 cents in short.
Many games/ game experiences get or can can be destroyed by PvP.
Because there will be always some guys just using it in the way to destroy player experiences.
PvP can work for all players even the carebears, if done right. FFA PvP is defnitly not the way it will work for all.
Ive never heard of a PvP-Player complaining about PvE destroying his Expierence in PvP (when someones think like this RPGs are way the wrong game anyway)
So if the mix of PvP and PvE is done right then it can work for both playstyles, if you get forced to PvP at anytime with full-loot it wont.
And further more tbh, a Sandbox "RPG" dont need PVP at all, cause a Sandbox RPG can live from so much more then just killing other people(which reason you ever have to do so). If you can make a good RP of a fight, people dont need to be forced to do pvp.
i think if you want to force other people to PVP, go and play CoD or BF, there you get what you want, FFA PVP.
So overall again: PVP can destroy a good game. PvE cant destroy a good game.
Of course it was a strawman...every real life vrs games argument is. It was a shot at how you construct you sandbox argument. So no...the taliban wouldn't send all your stuff to your kids so I guess you have to lose that too if it's a "real" sandbox.
Maybe I shouldnt say anything but I have a lot of mixed thought about this.
On one hand I see that a Sandbox should have OW FFA but on the other hand I think there needs to be some kind of deterrent to keep it in check. After all you are suppose to be on one side or the other in a faction so killing your own faction members should carry some penalty.
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
I was under the believe that "sandboxes meant freedom". Not npc driven.
secondly, removing pvp doesn't make it npc driven.
Take your favorite sandbox (not sure if you listed it earlier here) and remove pvp. What do the npc's do? If there were never quests then there still won't be quests.
If you could go wherever you wanted you still can go wherever you want.
you are conflating the ideas of freedom and allowing "everything". But you are never going to get that as I can't name one sandbox game that allows "everything".
If you have a low fantasy sandbox game and you remove magic it's still a sandbox game. It's just now a medievil sandbox game. And you can't scream "noooo you removed magic therefore you removed choice and freedom".
The game is always going to have some sort of boundaries. and if a group of people unanimously decide that they dont' want pvp then it is no longer a desire function.
As far as competition, I see absolutely no reasonable argument why a sandbox has to have competition. At all. Why can't a sandbox be about just creating within the given boundaries of that game? Why can't a sandbox be about a meeting of the minds to create? And, most importantly, if the group of people playing have all decided this to be the desired "ruleset" then there is no real argument.
They will still be driving the world, non-npc driven, but have decided that a certain activity is of no interest.
edit: but sure, let's speak with more concrete examples. Pick your definitive sandbox game and let's go from there.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You should read some of the tear-filled essays on the Eve forum, then. They go on and on about how awful High-Sec is and how it ruins the game. And the Darkfall forum has a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over safe areas, too.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
NO ONE can destroy my precious "player experience" , except developers who put glitter farting unicorn mounts into MMOs or dumb down game mechanics until a 12 year old with a lobotomy finds the game too easy,
I'm personally bored by "Safemode Barbieland reincarnation 47", not every MMO needs to have a safemode Barbieland mode.
Accept it, a sandbox MMO world is cruel and no MMO is obliged by law to be carebear compatible.
Just. don't. play it.
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
I share this view and it is good that triple A developers finally recognize us a valid target audience, after ignoring us for the last 10-15 years, catering to the same type of players over and over and over again in this over saturated market of shallowness