Yes, players in a pvp game should be able to attack other players, but there should be consequences.
Other players are consequence. You attack someone from wrong guild = consequence.
Theres no place for solo player sheep mentality in sandbox games.
Player consequences CAN work at times, but with 200+ man guilds jumping from game to game together, they have nothing to stop them from killing people without any repercussions. In such cases, other consequences are necessary.
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server. Then see what servers has the most players, then see what servers retains the most players. In games that have done that the numbers are clear.
Server stats for WoW servers in the last 30 days if we're talking about rule set populations. Doesn't seem like that many folks have a problem open world pvp. Now full loot, that's another story
edit: inb4 nobody goes out into wow's open world anymore, that's a stereotype. i resubbed for a brief stint for wod and there was indeed open world pvp at least on emerald dream. eq2's nagafen has seen a massive drop in population but i suspect that's because its dev team gave the pvp aspect of that game little to no attention and that's fine, but there was a time when nagafen was on the same level as antonia bayle.
Age of Conan's pvp server is about the same as it's pve server in terms of population, if not higher. It tried that silly blood and glory rule set and no that didn't work, but i suspect it partly had something to do with bad word of mouth involving exploits and people being able to transfer over pvp 10 characters. Whoops.
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server.
This is basically the worst possible solution. Make the game that sucks at both.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server.
This is basically the worst possible solution. Make the game that sucks at both.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
When I see a response like zzax's I assume his reasoning went as follows:
PvE Server: OMG, I can't grief noobs!
PvP Server: Ugh, now I'm facing people that actually WANT to fight me.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
The problem with trying to compromise is you end up watering down one side of the equation.
A good game has a delicate balance of systems that work in concert with the games "core" values.
The economy, crafting, world, and combat, of a great PVE game isn't going to look anything like the combat, crafting, world, and economy of a great PVP game.
A simple rule-set switch doesn't redesign all those systems, you end up with a set of boxes, where non-of them fit together quite right.
Look at the arena combat of WoW, or the RvR in a game like ESO or GW2...
They are fun granted, but they arn't particularly good, and they are a long way from great.
Why is the PvE in ESO so wonky? because the combat system is for PvP, while the gear, loot, and crafting is meant for PvE. Which makes both suffer.
Why does PvP in wow suck so much? because it's a PVE theme park game, with arena and battle ground tacked on.
That doesn't mean it's not fun, that does however mean that it's always going to be lacking something that a more specialized game does better.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
Lets be honest here, no one will make two different games for two rulesets, its either a pure PvE game with PvP flag enabled (so called PvP server), or its PvP focused game where PvE is trivial and pointless.
The problem with trying to compromise is you end up watering down one side of the equation.
A good game has a delicate balance of systems that work in concert with the games "core" values.
The economy, crafting, world, and combat, of a great PVE game isn't going to look anything like the combat, crafting, world, and economy of a great PVP game.
A simple rule-set switch doesn't redesign all those systems, you end up with a set of boxes, where non-of them fit together quite right.
Look at the arena combat of WoW, or the RvR in a game like ESO or GW2...
They are fun granted, but they arn't particularly good, and they are a long way from great.
Why is the PvE in ESO so wonky? because the combat system is for PvP, while the gear, loot, and crafting is meant for PvE. Which makes both suffer.
Why does PvP in wow suck so much? because it's a PVE theme park game, with arena and battle ground tacked on.
That doesn't mean it's not fun, that does however mean that it's always going to be lacking something that a more specialized game does better.
Worked fine on EQ PvP servers. The PvP servers were always behind in the progression due to fighting, but otherwise everything worked like a PvE server except you could actually contest content.
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server. Then see what servers has the most players, then see what servers retains the most players. In games that have done that the numbers are clear.
Lets say we had 2 different types of PvE servers. Type 1 would be the normal PvE server where you would have your basic quest hubs and mobs that waited in an area to be killed for experience and loot. Type 2 would be a more difficult PvE server where the player would really have to pay attention because the mobs could hunt down players. Server 1 would still be the most populated due to the fact that humans will always take the easiest path.
So when someone says "PvE games have the most players" I always think "You don't say". If you are fighting a mob your level it's almost impossible to die, you get to partake in quest with your buddies and maybe even some home decorating afterwards. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why so many players like PvE.
Most games dont do it anymore because they dont ant to have to develop two games at once and make changes on the PvP server they wouldnt have to make on the PvE server (in the name of 'balance'). Or worse yet change everything on both servers and piss everyone off.
Yes, PvE servers wouldn't need any changes because PvE is designed for you to win, i'm sure I don't have to explain why this can't be the same for PvP.
This thought that 'sand box' MUST have PvP is ludicrous from its origin. Especially open world (forced) PvP where you have n choice BUT to be open to attack. Sure the strawman is "dont play the game" which was my point 30 pages ago(comment deleted)...if people that dont PvP dont play the game then you have 20 guys all running around a game guys took years to make and spent a lot of (other peoples) money on to put out there.
Yes, open to attack but somewhere along the lines the words open to attack translated into i'm going to die and lose my stuff which is actually quite sad. The defeated mentality draws up all the worst possible scenarios...
Without some restrictions games become unplayable very quickly. At least for most (vast majority) of players. Yet the PvP zealots claim these restrictions make the game 'non sand box' but that is the way these guys view the world.
Sandbox to me means player driven economy, freedom of choice, minimal restriction. If what you're asking for is more restrictions then a sandbox isn't what you want.
Make a game with a lot of horizontal progressions, sprinkle in some RP aspects, a lot of exploration, decent (but not overly micromanaged) crafting system, 'cool' factor, and 'litle things' content and you have a decent chance at a decent game.
Which any Themepark can offer....
People just assume PvP is the easiest 'player made content' there is and that PvP alone will help bridge gaps between developed content in games. But in a full PvP game with little to know restrictions the results are not going to have the desired effect. Its been proven time and time again
EVE is the game everyone holds up as 'proof' PvP works. Yet EVE numbers are fake. Theyre based on a game where the population is years old, has plateuad and died off. The numbers now are simply guys with trillions of Isk and dozens of PLEX playing for free. In so way shape or form should that game be used as an example or a case study in how a game being developed in 2015 should go about doing it the 'right' way. It is basically a free to play game with a niche player base who has spent literally tears advancing their toons to where they are now. Not to mention EVE isnt even a PvP game and for the most part 99% of the accounts in it dont go into space where they can be attacked (without major repercussions to the attacker). So while there might always be a risk to getting attacked, the chances of it for most (unless theyre carrying something someone might want) are almost nil.
PvE content is expensive and it has to be updated monthly or people will leave the game. PvP, not so expensive and it pays the bills.
Lets say the number for EvE is 250k subs, that's still a great number for a space sim game.
I played that game for about 5 years, I lost a single ship (on my generic account) and that was only when I first started playing and took a set up contract and people knew what I was carrying. So to think that it is some example of 'perfection' is crazy.
The problem with trying to compromise is you end up watering down one side of the equation.
A good game has a delicate balance of systems that work in concert with the games "core" values.
The economy, crafting, world, and combat, of a great PVE game isn't going to look anything like the combat, crafting, world, and economy of a great PVP game.
A simple rule-set switch doesn't redesign all those systems, you end up with a set of boxes, where non-of them fit together quite right.
Look at the arena combat of WoW, or the RvR in a game like ESO or GW2...
They are fun granted, but they arn't particularly good, and they are a long way from great.
Why is the PvE in ESO so wonky? because the combat system is for PvP, while the gear, loot, and crafting is meant for PvE. Which makes both suffer.
Why does PvP in wow suck so much? because it's a PVE theme park game, with arena and battle ground tacked on.
That doesn't mean it's not fun, that does however mean that it's always going to be lacking something that a more specialized game does better.
Worked fine on EQ PvP servers. The PvP servers were always behind in the progression due to fighting, but otherwise everything worked like a PvE server except you could actually contest content.
They removed Fear and Charm from PvP... otherwise everything else is the same.
The answer can be given in one simple word. Freedom.
Sandbox games are about giving the player freedom to do almost anything, that is what draws people to them. We don't want rails and theme park. We want freedom to exist and feel part of a real alternative world, and unfortunately that also involves the freedom to do bad things. Today so called "gamers" don't seem to be able to communicate in game and form actual communities and co-operate, as well as attracting crybaby's who want all the freedom to exist in these worlds but can't deal with other peoples interpretation of it, so instead of using the freedom given to them and form co-operative guilds for protection to hunt down griefers, they just cry, and so the "sandbox" becomes watered down and eventually non-existent.
Simple solutions are always the simplest. Make a PvE server and a PvP server.
This is basically the worst possible solution. Make the game that sucks at both.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
Because a good game will be designed around either the inclusion or exclusion of pvp. If it's possible to simply have a pvp server and a non-pvp server than that means the game couldn't have been designed around having pvp and designed around not having it. The games would have to be vastly different from each other, and that point, why not just make different games?
The answer can be given in one simple word. Freedom.
Sandbox games are about giving the player freedom to do almost anything, that is what draws people to them. We don't want rails and theme park. We want freedom to exist and feel part of a real alternative world, and unfortunately that also involves the freedom to do bad things. Today so called "gamers" don't seem to be able to communicate in game and form actual communities and co-operate, as well as attracting crybaby's who want all the freedom to exist in these worlds but can't deal with other peoples interpretation of it, so instead of using the freedom given to them and form co-operative guilds for protection to hunt down griefers, they just cry, and so the "sandbox" becomes watered down and eventually non-existent.
Exactly, sandbox games are about freedom. They have fewer restrictions and that means they offer more freedom to the players.
Holy crap there are actually divisions in the pvpers!
I still can't wrap my brain around it though, I know the economies might be different but so long as they stay server based and nobody can transfer that's neither here nor there.
They could implement a partial loot system (watering down alert?), so for example there's a certain part of a certain map that contains an abundance of a rare crafting material- but it's full of monsters that you'd pretty much need a group to take down, on a pve server you group up to take out the monsters and get your crafting material. On a pvp server you'd do the same thing or lie in wait and ambush the returning party with your own party and with the partial loot system, potentially take the crafting materials that they just looted. (i say partial because otherwise you'd probably have to tune the mobs to account for a lower gear adequacy)
As for combat, in spite of all the whining, which I think is just that- whining, I think most companies are capable of doing an adequate job at balancing pve and pvp. Might take some extra outside the box thinking but it could be quite a tangle
But I guess it really all boils down to what you're looking for in your open world pvp, if you're hell bent on full loot free for all with no compromises (and I really don't think the compromises are all that bad, I may need an example of this "watering down" you're talking about because I might not understand) then I guess there's no point trying to dissuade you. Good luck with your search and I hope you find what you're looking for!
edit: i just realized that the pve side of the example i was talking about has some quandaries attached to it (Ffaaaarmers!) but it's still a start!
Holy crap there are actually divisions in the pvpers!
I still can't wrap my brain around it though, I know the economies might be different but so long as they stay server based and nobody can transfer that's neither here nor there.
They could implement a partial loot system (watering down alert?), so for example there's a certain part of a certain map that contains an abundance of a rare crafting material- but it's full of monsters that you'd pretty much need a group to take down, on a pve server you group up to take out the monsters and get your crafting material. On a pvp server you'd do the same thing or lie in wait and ambush the returning party with your own party and with the partial loot system, potentially take the crafting materials that they just looted. (i say partial because otherwise you'd probably have to tune the mobs to account for a lower gear adequacy)
As for combat, in spite of all the whining, which I think is just that- whining, I think most companies are capable of doing an adequate job at balancing pve and pvp. Might take some extra outside the box thinking but it could be quite a tangle
But I guess it really all boils down to what you're looking for in your open world pvp, if you're hell bent on full loot free for all with no compromises (and I really don't think the compromises are all that bad, I may need an example of this "watering down" you're talking about because I might not understand) then I guess there's no point trying to dissuade you. Good luck with your search and I hope you find what you're looking for!
edit: i just realized that the pve side of the example i was talking about has some quandaries attached to it (Ffaaaarmers!) but it's still a start!
The entire game has to be designed differently. The gold/gear sinks/faucets, the content, etc. I mean seriously just think about the content in any given mmo. In a game like Darkfall the content is fighting other players. That's where the devs' time is spent. If you were to turn off pvp, you'd have a shitty pve game because the devs' didn't spend much time on pve, because that's not what the game is about. Conversely think of a themepark game that is designed around pve. You have taunts and charms and fears etc because the game is designed primarily to be pve focused. The progression in a pve game is you get stronger so you can fight bigger things and you just get stronger and stronger and stronger forever. But if you turn pvp on in a game like that, all of a sudden the people who play the most will win every fight because they're simply a higher level. That's why ow pvp games often have more of a focus on horizontal progression, and skill-based combat. Whereas themepark games have a lot of vertical progression and relatively easy combat.
Holy crap there are actually divisions in the pvpers!
I still can't wrap my brain around it though, I know the economies might be different but so long as they stay server based and nobody can transfer that's neither here nor there.
They could implement a partial loot system (watering down alert?), so for example there's a certain part of a certain map that contains an abundance of a rare crafting material- but it's full of monsters that you'd pretty much need a group to take down, on a pve server you group up to take out the monsters and get your crafting material. On a pvp server you'd do the same thing or lie in wait and ambush the returning party with your own party and with the partial loot system, potentially take the crafting materials that they just looted. (i say partial because otherwise you'd probably have to tune the mobs to account for a lower gear adequacy)
As for combat, in spite of all the whining, which I think is just that- whining, I think most companies are capable of doing an adequate job at balancing pve and pvp. Might take some extra outside the box thinking but it could be quite a tangle
But I guess it really all boils down to what you're looking for in your open world pvp, if you're hell bent on full loot free for all with no compromises (and I really don't think the compromises are all that bad, I may need an example of this "watering down" you're talking about because I might not understand) then I guess there's no point trying to dissuade you. Good luck with your search and I hope you find what you're looking for!
edit: i just realized that the pve side of the example i was talking about has some quandaries attached to it (Ffaaaarmers!) but it's still a start!
This right here is pretty much why, unless you want to get into some PvP whining, it is pretty much pointless to comment on this massive thread.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
the term "sandbox" originates from our childhood days, where there was a box full of sand and you could do whatever you want in it. build. hunt. or just destroy the other people's fun, like bullies did.
that's why a real sandbox has pvp. to simulate the bullies.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
the term "sandbox" originates from our childhood days, where there was a box full of sand and you could do whatever you want in it. build. hunt. or just destroy the other people's fun, like bullies did.
that's why a real sandbox has pvp. to simulate the bullies.
You want to pretend to be a bully? Go play GTA 5.
Oh right, you don't actually get to fuck with real people in that game, do you.
The entire game has to be designed differently. The gold/gear sinks/faucets, the content, etc. I mean seriously just think about the content in any given mmo. In a game like Darkfall the content is fighting other players. That's where the devs' time is spent. If you were to turn off pvp, you'd have a shitty pve game because the devs' didn't spend much time on pve, because that's not what the game is about.
So building things, having emergent gameplay is not appealing at all to pve players?
Conversely think of a themepark game that is designed around pve. You have taunts and charms and fears etc
Can be balanced in a pvp setting. Taunts included, warhammer had a good way of making this work and it's a pity I haven't seen it like that since.
because the game is designed primarily to be pve focused. The progression in a pve game is you get stronger so you can fight bigger things and you just get stronger and stronger and stronger forever. But if you turn pvp on in a game like that, all of a sudden the people who play the most will win every fight
People who play the most in ANY GAME will likely win every fight, whether that has to do with resource/gear acquisition or just plain experience. That is how gaming works.
Horizontal progression! - That's what I was looking for. So it's a big deal to you that people are kept on an even playing field in spite of the amount of time investment. Okay, that says it all for me.
Sorry didn't mean to make it sound offensive or anything, I mean there's probably a way to avoid power creep but in a full loot owpvp setting, there's going to be power bloat in organized groups anyways.
I think what is good to do is to brainstorm what would make an ideal pve sandbox game and figure out progression that would translate well to pvp. Call me a naive optimist, but I am still convinced that this can be done.
A big part of a lot of sandbox games is freedom. With that comes the freedom to kill players/loot them so that will attract gankers. Even going back to old school MUDs which often include permadeath, some players will just get off on ruining someone else's fun - killing a character they spent years on.
Personally, I like freedom in a sandbox styled game, so I don't think it should go away. If you want to curb random PKing, a better approach is to add consequences. Someone murder a member of their own nation/faction? Hold a trial and exile them if found guilty. If a player becomes kill on site to many of the main nations in the game, life will become harder for them. Unable to buy from the better crafters, harder to travel throughout the world, etc.
Comments
Other players are consequence. You attack someone from wrong guild = consequence.
Theres no place for solo player sheep mentality in sandbox games.
I know you're trying to insult people, but that doesn't make sense.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Player consequences CAN work at times, but with 200+ man guilds jumping from game to game together, they have nothing to stop them from killing people without any repercussions. In such cases, other consequences are necessary.
Luckily it isn't a binary problem. There is middle ground. There are many possible approaches and PvP implementations/systems/setups.
Some people are talking about this as if there is nothing between "no PvP at all" and "FFA gankfest". False dichotomy.
Server stats for WoW servers in the last 30 days if we're talking about rule set populations. Doesn't seem like that many folks have a problem open world pvp. Now full loot, that's another story
This is basically the worst possible solution. Make the game that sucks at both.
I don't follow this conclusion, how exactly would it suck at both? How is not possible for them to do this without mucking it up, can you elaborate on that?
When I see a response like zzax's I assume his reasoning went as follows:
PvE Server: OMG, I can't grief noobs!
PvP Server: Ugh, now I'm facing people that actually WANT to fight me.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
The problem with trying to compromise is you end up watering down one side of the equation.
A good game has a delicate balance of systems that work in concert with the games "core" values.
The economy, crafting, world, and combat, of a great PVE game isn't going to look anything like the combat, crafting, world, and economy of a great PVP game.
A simple rule-set switch doesn't redesign all those systems, you end up with a set of boxes, where non-of them fit together quite right.
Look at the arena combat of WoW, or the RvR in a game like ESO or GW2...
They are fun granted, but they arn't particularly good, and they are a long way from great.
Why is the PvE in ESO so wonky? because the combat system is for PvP, while the gear, loot, and crafting is meant for PvE. Which makes both suffer.
Why does PvP in wow suck so much? because it's a PVE theme park game, with arena and battle ground tacked on.
That doesn't mean it's not fun, that does however mean that it's always going to be lacking something that a more specialized game does better.
Lets be honest here, no one will make two different games for two rulesets, its either a pure PvE game with PvP flag enabled (so called PvP server), or its PvP focused game where PvE is trivial and pointless.
Edit: the guy above explained it pretty nicely^
Worked fine on EQ PvP servers. The PvP servers were always behind in the progression due to fighting, but otherwise everything worked like a PvE server except you could actually contest content.
They removed Fear and Charm from PvP... otherwise everything else is the same.
The answer can be given in one simple word. Freedom.
Sandbox games are about giving the player freedom to do almost anything, that is what draws people to them. We don't want rails and theme park. We want freedom to exist and feel part of a real alternative world, and unfortunately that also involves the freedom to do bad things. Today so called "gamers" don't seem to be able to communicate in game and form actual communities and co-operate, as well as attracting crybaby's who want all the freedom to exist in these worlds but can't deal with other peoples interpretation of it, so instead of using the freedom given to them and form co-operative guilds for protection to hunt down griefers, they just cry, and so the "sandbox" becomes watered down and eventually non-existent.
Because a good game will be designed around either the inclusion or exclusion of pvp. If it's possible to simply have a pvp server and a non-pvp server than that means the game couldn't have been designed around having pvp and designed around not having it. The games would have to be vastly different from each other, and that point, why not just make different games?
Exactly, sandbox games are about freedom. They have fewer restrictions and that means they offer more freedom to the players.
Holy crap there are actually divisions in the pvpers!
I still can't wrap my brain around it though, I know the economies might be different but so long as they stay server based and nobody can transfer that's neither here nor there.
They could implement a partial loot system (watering down alert?), so for example there's a certain part of a certain map that contains an abundance of a rare crafting material- but it's full of monsters that you'd pretty much need a group to take down, on a pve server you group up to take out the monsters and get your crafting material. On a pvp server you'd do the same thing or lie in wait and ambush the returning party with your own party and with the partial loot system, potentially take the crafting materials that they just looted. (i say partial because otherwise you'd probably have to tune the mobs to account for a lower gear adequacy)
As for combat, in spite of all the whining, which I think is just that- whining, I think most companies are capable of doing an adequate job at balancing pve and pvp. Might take some extra outside the box thinking but it could be quite a tangle
But I guess it really all boils down to what you're looking for in your open world pvp, if you're hell bent on full loot free for all with no compromises (and I really don't think the compromises are all that bad, I may need an example of this "watering down" you're talking about because I might not understand) then I guess there's no point trying to dissuade you. Good luck with your search and I hope you find what you're looking for!
edit: i just realized that the pve side of the example i was talking about has some quandaries attached to it (Ffaaaarmers!) but it's still a start!
The entire game has to be designed differently. The gold/gear sinks/faucets, the content, etc. I mean seriously just think about the content in any given mmo. In a game like Darkfall the content is fighting other players. That's where the devs' time is spent. If you were to turn off pvp, you'd have a shitty pve game because the devs' didn't spend much time on pve, because that's not what the game is about. Conversely think of a themepark game that is designed around pve. You have taunts and charms and fears etc because the game is designed primarily to be pve focused. The progression in a pve game is you get stronger so you can fight bigger things and you just get stronger and stronger and stronger forever. But if you turn pvp on in a game like that, all of a sudden the people who play the most will win every fight because they're simply a higher level. That's why ow pvp games often have more of a focus on horizontal progression, and skill-based combat. Whereas themepark games have a lot of vertical progression and relatively easy combat.
This right here is pretty much why, unless you want to get into some PvP whining, it is pretty much pointless to comment on this massive thread.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
the term "sandbox" originates from our childhood days, where there was a box full of sand and you could do whatever you want in it. build. hunt. or just destroy the other people's fun, like bullies did.
that's why a real sandbox has pvp. to simulate the bullies.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
You want to pretend to be a bully? Go play GTA 5.
Oh right, you don't actually get to fuck with real people in that game, do you.
The mind of a PvP'er
*&^% ....... Get me out of this @#$%ing thread!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Sorry didn't mean to make it sound offensive or anything, I mean there's probably a way to avoid power creep but in a full loot owpvp setting, there's going to be power bloat in organized groups anyways.
I think what is good to do is to brainstorm what would make an ideal pve sandbox game and figure out progression that would translate well to pvp. Call me a naive optimist, but I am still convinced that this can be done.
A big part of a lot of sandbox games is freedom. With that comes the freedom to kill players/loot them so that will attract gankers. Even going back to old school MUDs which often include permadeath, some players will just get off on ruining someone else's fun - killing a character they spent years on.
Personally, I like freedom in a sandbox styled game, so I don't think it should go away. If you want to curb random PKing, a better approach is to add consequences. Someone murder a member of their own nation/faction? Hold a trial and exile them if found guilty. If a player becomes kill on site to many of the main nations in the game, life will become harder for them. Unable to buy from the better crafters, harder to travel throughout the world, etc.