Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Sandbox Instincts: Live and let die
Archlyte
Member RarePosts: 1,405
I have never been much of a fan of open PvP much less full loot, which I detest. I am, however, someone who wants a good sandbox experience. To further that description: I want a game in which I have a great deal of freedom and other meaningful (read: rewarding) pursuits other than the usual: quests, Arena PvP, dungeons.
I have played EVE online a few times and I never liked it. The game just seemed like an excuse to annoy other players. I argued at length with a friend over the merits of the game versus the big downfall I saw in the fact that the main entree of the game was behind a PvP wall. I argued that the game has only incentives for killing players and no controls designed to limit the amount of that behavior that exists. After those words left my mouth I suddenly realized...
without unrestricted killing the game would be stagnant. It would break the game.
The economy would be plain, the game could erupt in an artificial pax romana that would remove the necessary danger from the game. It could easily make EVE like any other cookie cutter MMO.
What if instead you just made killing penalized with meta punishments like Chronicles of Elyria? Well for EVE I believe that would basically result in combat with other players that was so rare and careful that it would make the sandbox part of the game pretty tranquil. There would be whale asshats, but regular players would restrict their fighting behaviors to NPCs and wherever they could get flagged for no-consequence PvP.
What about a sandbox with normal MMO combat? Certainly that would be fine, but it would result in a game that is really more about building or trading.
So I am now wondering
Do sandbox MMORPGs need some element of danger of the magnitude of Unrestricted PvP?
What do you think? Is it really a sandbox without the PvP? If so, what drives the change necessary for it to be emergent content versus canned?
I have played EVE online a few times and I never liked it. The game just seemed like an excuse to annoy other players. I argued at length with a friend over the merits of the game versus the big downfall I saw in the fact that the main entree of the game was behind a PvP wall. I argued that the game has only incentives for killing players and no controls designed to limit the amount of that behavior that exists. After those words left my mouth I suddenly realized...
without unrestricted killing the game would be stagnant. It would break the game.
The economy would be plain, the game could erupt in an artificial pax romana that would remove the necessary danger from the game. It could easily make EVE like any other cookie cutter MMO.
What if instead you just made killing penalized with meta punishments like Chronicles of Elyria? Well for EVE I believe that would basically result in combat with other players that was so rare and careful that it would make the sandbox part of the game pretty tranquil. There would be whale asshats, but regular players would restrict their fighting behaviors to NPCs and wherever they could get flagged for no-consequence PvP.
What about a sandbox with normal MMO combat? Certainly that would be fine, but it would result in a game that is really more about building or trading.
So I am now wondering
Do sandbox MMORPGs need some element of danger of the magnitude of Unrestricted PvP?
What do you think? Is it really a sandbox without the PvP? If so, what drives the change necessary for it to be emergent content versus canned?
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Comments
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
With PvE content you have to jump through all the hoops and frequently deliver deep, thought out content.
For PvP you give each player a stick and a bag full of loot and they create their own content with that.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
And I am not talking about EvE which I find an excellent game, but more in general.
Personally I think we need to get rid of the KOS (Kill On Sight) mentality in order for Sandbox PvP to really work and appeal a broader audience.
You say that without the freedom to kill anyone this kind of games will die, I think the opposite is true.
How will it work?
First of all PvP should be focusing on RvR and GvG, which mean that only players of the opposite faction or enemy Guild should be able to attack you.
You still have many chances to PvP but you will also have the chance to enjoy other aspects of the game since you don't have to watch your back every second.
Rewards from RvR and GvG battles should be good enough to entice you to participate often and enjoy a meaningful experience, without penalizing too much to avoid people Rage Quitting.
We need to exchange the meaningless (and mean) "murder" mentality for the "fighter" mentality where people fight for a reason, whether is pride, reaches or fame.
Meaningful PvP is the way to go, killing people on sight is just a bad design in a Sandbox MMO, it will never work.
Part of the problem with the PvP sandboxes is that XP and gear takes away a lot from the game. If you instead progress by making your guild castle impressive and your realm huge the combat in itself would be more fun. The question of course is if that would keep players longterm but people are still playing counterstrike, playing for the fun of combat might be a better solution then bribing people with personal loot.
You could have mechanics for locking your XP to a specific guild trait and an empire upgrade instead for your personal character, I at least would think that fun.
Then combat would be more about war then murder, you could even have mechanics that allies up realms that are weak against stronger realms for balance, changing alliances when someone gets too strong or too weak.
Seems like nothing has been successfully written to provide an ongoing world, just a world frozen in time between 6 month patches that change some little thing in the ruleset or add a dungeon.
I think that what you are saying makes sense, and I agree that the problem with PvP as a mechanic is the asshole element of it. As a mechanic though (in absence of a game world that does it successfully on it's own) I can't think of a better way to produce a changing environment complex enough not to feel like a simple rotation of events that is super predictable.
I am finding that MMORPG players can sometimes be extreme creatures of habit, routine, and comfort.
MMORPGs are extremely static games that simply have a larger play area and more stat and rule complexity than say your typical console game. The world is pre-made and not fungible, the characters are eternal as long as the game is running and do not have an arc but a progression. They do not regress or stagnate. The societies of these eternals are simply convenience gatherings. They are rarely together for anything other than hard repetition and chat.
Playing an MMORPG with PvP flagging or PvE only is (and there is nothing wrong with this of course) basically a god game where you are the serially immortal avatar in a world you cannot change. You cannot be changed, you cannot change others, you cannot experience hardship other than delay. Everything can be done given enough time.
Given the ingrained experience of being a god, it is highly annoying to be faced with such insults as adversity, danger, and change.
How would you do that with PvE? I agree that it could be done, but what would it look like?
So it becomes a MMO based on Gear progression.
If you take out the Gear progression to further balance PvP, it becomes a Battlefield Online and you lose the Sandbox part, as the game-play becomes quite linear.
Capture the flag, rinse and repeat.
No much of a MMORPG anymore.
PvP can work in MMORPG only if you put strict rules, so the PVP is still interesting but you don't lose 80% of the population.
Problem is, developers are too lazy to come up with a comprehensive alignment system because it takes too much thinking and extra code, and use the Sandbox label (freedom) to cover their shortcomings.
Exactly. Sounds like some people want a non-rpg and in this case that means non-mmoRPG. It is as if people are going to a baseball game then bitch that it isn't golf.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
If you were to attempt to have a game with emergent content, how else could you do it with enough variation without constant danger to provide the churn in the world?
I'm thinking now that a great amount of the typical sandbox vs. theme park complaining was the tip of the iceberg. It's really about Static games Versus games that are dynamic. I am not exemplifying any type of game as better. I am simply pointing out that typical MMORPGs are static as hell. People who want the same old MMORPG but complain that it is not exciting or fulfilling are wasting their time. You can not get a new experience from the same game repackaged.
Archeage, ESO, BDO while not wholly sandboxes (but what is) also use various mechanics to put some controls on player behavior while again letting players manage their risk.
Probably the only complaint I have is most don't go quite far enough in punishing the aggressors or making them put the same level of risk as I do.
Things are normally heavily in favor of the wolves which is why they tend to run wild and take full advantage, which drives the sheep into extinction.
Now if you are a wolf you love this sort of design, unless you are the rare sort who understands the necessity of controls for the overall health of the ecosystem.
Notice the real world parallels I'm trying to make. I feel MMORPGs should more realistically represent real life, as they can be entertaining virtual worlds if designed well. (again EVE is close)
What we normally get are murder simulation games which is fine if that's what you enjoy.
I'd like to see a title created that went a bit farther than what has been delivered so far.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The ppl that don't think it is a sandbox are the ones that can't think for themselves and do what others tell them to do.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
A game could be considered a sandbox but lack any real change. EVE comes close to this because if it weren't for the ability to take systems and erect structures (even though it is sponsored by the ruleset and UI) the game would simply be a fight reset-fight-situation.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
The best MMORPG will be developed on this theory. See, I figured out a while back that we have been living in the primitive years of the MMORPG. The games that we've been playing, the things that we've been doing, they've all be disjointed, miscombobulations of trying to get certain mechanics right.
But you can't just throw a mechanic into a game and expect it to not pull another one of those squares out of shape. Every mechanic must serve to keep the overall shape of the game in perfect proportion or you are going to have what we have always had. People are going to play it until they figure out how to game the system, they are going to game the system until they run off all of the people who aren't interested in gaming the system, then they, themselves, are going to get bored and they are going to move on to the next game in order to do the same thing.
Now I don't know if we have enough mechanics yet that we could generate the perfect MMORPG, but what I do know is that if you don't code in a very specific system of penalties and rewards to any game that implements PVP, all you are going to have is a slow shooter that requires even less skill to play.
Aligment systems sadly wont work because some people just don't care and the more you are trying to restrict the griefing the more inventive they get. That is the reason they play for, no guards, aligment, prison or knightly order will stop them.
The only solution is to make combat more fair so you can't grind for some months and then autokill any noob with zero chance of dying themself. You don't have to be as extreme as zero progression though but you need at least as low powergap so a great playing noob can kill a badly playing vet.
Besides that you don't turn people with too few XP and gear into helpless sheep you also make combat more fun. There is a reason so many play PvP in FPS games and so few does it in MMOs.