Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
The name sandbox came from kids playing in a sandbox doing what ever they find fun. How comes it's not worth the name sandbox unless the kids start to kill eachother?
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
The name sandbox came from kids playing in a sandbox doing what ever they find fun. How comes it's not worth the name sandbox unless the kids start to kill eachother?
His assertion is ridiculous.
Especially if the target demographic doesn't like pvp.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
In essence you are trying to explain to some people the concept of "specious reasoning".
the toilet paper example is perfect.
And that happens a LOT on these boards.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
Originally posted by DocBrody A sandbox without OW PvP can't even be called sandbox. Would still be a themepark just with more fluff.
I think OW PVP is essential to a sandbox provide "player created" challenges and fun in all aspects.
Your imagination is incredibly limited if PvP is the only player created challenge you can come up with. Also I dont agree with the OP, when ever I've talked about MMO's with people who I know to prefer PvE they usually complaint because themeparks dont have interactive virtual worlds, just linear hand held leveling zones.
Non linear, non handheld open virtual world should not be the privilige of PvP players only. PvP is only a single feature when talking about sandboxes, so many ways to make sandbox features without ever even thinking about PvP.
Just saying, there can easily be a sandbox game without PvP. If PvP is absolute must for a sandbox game in some people's opinions, well, have fun with that narrow minded selfish idea.
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
A pacifist god with an aura of immunity but the same aura prents aggresion. It definately is an explanation for it. Works for me.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
A pacifist god with an aura of immunity but the same aura prents aggresion. It definately is an explanation for it. Works for me.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
edit- Eve is great example of this. High sec = safety with no access to top end mats and such.
You can remain safe though and purchase them from me for a price ;O
Usually I feel like there is no one magic bullet that will make or break a game's long term prospects.
Mostly I feel it has to be a culmination of many good systems working together to keep a game afloat much more so than any one thing. Even if that one thing is something I feel is vital to my personal enjoyment like gear destruction/full loot or pvp.
This PVE/PVP dichotomy we discuss and define games by lately aren't really what makes games in my opinion.
The right game could come about with probably every single game mechanic in opposition to what most here would call good game design and still make some company very rich in the long run. Our ideas on what works and what can work is too mired in our history.
As evidenced by the cries by many of us to both create inventive games, and at the same time keep games inside the boxes we are accustomed to them being.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
As long at it not takes 50 people group to count as risk,imo there is a lot higher rist countering a mob solo than it is when grouped,anyway most mmo's have a group bonus for killing stuff wich I think is redicilous, it should be bouns for the less people you got in your group, that is risk bonus.
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
A pacifist god with an aura of immunity but the same aura prents aggresion. It definately is an explanation for it. Works for me.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
edit- Eve is great example of this. High sec = safety with no access to top end mats and such.
You can remain safe though and purchase them from me for a price ;O
you get better rewards - other gods will give rewards thet will actually make your char stronger in some way, or you will find good loot more often etc. - so, here is your reward
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
A pacifist god with an aura of immunity but the same aura prents aggresion. It definately is an explanation for it. Works for me.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
edit- Eve is great example of this. High sec = safety with no access to top end mats and such.
You can remain safe though and purchase them from me for a price ;O
Risk vs reward has never really interested me very much. Now Challenge vs rewards, absolutely.
If fighting real people is a greater challenge, then someone engaging in that challenge should get something. But IMO they should only get something from that encounter, not from other encounters such as pve.
Maybe have human skin or brain tissue be a material that increases gear/weapon stats somehow, human soul gems
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
As long at it not takes 50 people group to count as risk,imo there is a lot higher rist countering a mob solo than it is when grouped,anyway most mmo's have a group bonus for killing stuff wich I think is redicilous, it should be bouns for the less people you got in your group, that is risk bonus.
yeah, but this (the group bonus) is not about realism or risk vs reward. its purpose is to promote grouping and therefore community, so i am all for it (and i am a person who does spend 95% of his mmorpg time playing solo)
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
As long at it not takes 50 people group to count as risk,imo there is a lot higher rist countering a mob solo than it is when grouped,anyway most mmo's have a group bonus for killing stuff wich I think is redicilous, it should be bouns for the less people you got in your group, that is risk bonus.
yeah, but this (the group bonus) is not about realism or risk vs reward. its purpose is to promote grouping and therefore community, so i am all for it (and i am a person who does spend 95% of his mmorpg time playing solo)
Yes but figure how fun it would be to build a small super group with your friends instead of just joining a huge group where you can even go take a crap while the rest of the group takes down the dragon?
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
As long at it not takes 50 people group to count as risk,imo there is a lot higher rist countering a mob solo than it is when grouped,anyway most mmo's have a group bonus for killing stuff wich I think is redicilous, it should be bouns for the less people you got in your group, that is risk bonus.
yeah, but this (the group bonus) is not about realism or risk vs reward. its purpose is to promote grouping and therefore community, so i am all for it (and i am a person who does spend 95% of his mmorpg time playing solo)
Yes but figure how fun it would be to build a small super group with your friends instead of just joining a huge group where you can even go take a crap while the rest of the group takes down the dragon?
i agree with that, but there i am rewarded by fun of that small group with friends, i dont need other reward in form of (small) group bonus
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
A pacifist god with an aura of immunity but the same aura prents aggresion. It definately is an explanation for it. Works for me.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
edit- Eve is great example of this. High sec = safety with no access to top end mats and such.
You can remain safe though and purchase them from me for a price ;O
Actually, combine the ideas. Make high sec, med sec and low sec areas.
So high sec areas are pure pve areas, where the gods of Order/Life/Justice protect the inhabitants of the land, preventing all aggression.
Medium sec are lands protected by the god of War/Competition or something. Basically, that god will allow pking, but only among factions (either game factions or player guilds/alliances), so pvp without friendly fire.
Low sec are lands ruled by the Gods of Death/Chaos. They allow for anything to happen within their realm.
You can have any and all crafting mats available in all areas, but the best ones are more common in the lower sec zones. Something like, the best materials are those that grow in a land soaked with blood, because the lifegiving force flows with blood, enhancing the mats. The reason why high sec can have those mats, is the fact that players are killing animals or are dying to mobs, but mob blood is less potent and player blood doesn't flow as often in high sec.
So you have gankfest pvp, meaningful pvp, and pure pve. Anyone can play how they wish, but there are more rewards to be had in riskier environments. Additionally, for things like playermade structures, in higher security areas, you have to pay rent on land owned by the kingdom. However, low sec is frontier land owned by none, but your stuff may be pillaged and burned to the ground or taken over by opposing forces.
Ensure that it's not a bottlenecked entrance to the different zones, and voila, we have a decent system that makes sense in lore and players can be mostly happy.
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
A pacifist god with an aura of immunity but the same aura prents aggresion. It definately is an explanation for it. Works for me.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
edit- Eve is great example of this. High sec = safety with no access to top end mats and such.
You can remain safe though and purchase them from me for a price ;O
Actually, combine the ideas. Make high sec, med sec and low sec areas.
So high sec areas are pure pve areas, where the gods of Order/Life/Justice protect the inhabitants of the land, preventing all aggression.
Medium sec are lands protected by the god of War/Competition or something. Basically, that god will allow pking, but only among factions (either game factions or player guilds/alliances), so pvp without friendly fire.
Low sec are lands ruled by the Gods of Death/Chaos. They allow for anything to happen within their realm.
You can have any and all crafting mats available in all areas, but the best ones are more common in the lower sec zones. Something like, the best materials are those that grow in a land soaked with blood, because the lifegiving force flows with blood, enhancing the mats. The reason why high sec can have those mats, is the fact that players are killing animals or are dying to mobs, but mob blood is less potent and player blood doesn't flow as often in high sec.
So you have gankfest pvp, meaningful pvp, and pure pve. Anyone can play how they wish, but there are more rewards to be had in riskier environments. Additionally, for things like playermade structures, in higher security areas, you have to pay rent on land owned by the kingdom. However, low sec is frontier land owned by none, but your stuff may be pillaged and burned to the ground or taken over by opposing forces.
Ensure that it's not a bottlenecked entrance to the different zones, and voila, we have a decent system that makes sense in lore and players can be mostly happy.
sure, you can do this, but why would any pve fan play such game, when for him to get the best materials he is pretty much forced to go to ffa pvp zone?
that is not what my nor venge's post was about tho, they are response to claims that "immunity to pvp is unrealistic" - actually it can be easily made as realistic as any other game feature (not having to sleep, to go to the bathroom, not being extremely tired from constant fighting or wearing heavy armor etc.)
From my experience, you need a mix of both pvp and pve elements. Games that fully lack one or the either tend to limit themselves even more than sandbox games in general. It isn't so much that non-pvp sandboxes can't do well enough, but they often have to compensate for the lack of destruction and loss created by pvp in ways that turn off just as many players as the pvp alternatives. Limited amounts of ow pvp, via things like wars or bounties, need to be in place for the entire world, and there needs to be rules in place to handle not only that, but also areas with varying degrees of security, but pvp is part of a sandbox, and to completely shut that down or shunt it off to the side does limit the sandbox and can in some ways force even worse systems and solutions that people like even less. For all the games I've played, I still think EVE's basic concept is the best one to look at (what players do with it is an entirely different subject). You have a range of security options, but even in the highest security, there are still ways to pvp if you are willing to pay for it. There doesn't have to be a lot of extra systems like decay put in to facilitate loss because that is driven by the pvp in the sections that its fully sanctioned. It has a full fledged political system as well as a fully supported crafting system.
PVP may not be absolutely essential, but for all of it's problems, the alternatives to create that same sense of loss, motivation, and renewal of the creative process are in my experience even less popular. I play Wurm; I love Wurm; most people really don't. A big part of this is because even without PvP (which there are servers for as well), its not all that fun to the average gamer; it takes a long time to accomplish much of anything, and doing one task usually turns into doing multiple tasks as you discover you lack the right tool, or need to find better mats, or simply need to grind a skill up a lot before you can do what you want to do. Deeds, which mitigate many of the loss factors of the game, also create a lot of headaches and problems at the same time. And that's before you start looking at the failure rates you'll encounter for making many, if not most things, especially in the early part of the game. Ryzom was great, but after a while, it just got boring; all creation and no real ways to simulate destruction and restart the cycle of creation leads to its own host of problems. A Tale in the Desert has to reset itself periodically, which is something some people enjoy, but many do not. All of these are good, viable games, but you can't tell me that they are fundamentally better than games that choose to have pvp elements. For every aspect of pvp that players dislike and are glad to not see, these games simply introduce some other form of annoyance that turn people off.
In the end, truly commercially successful sandboxes (and I would hesitate greatly before considering any of the examples in the above paragraph as such) are going to have to follow EVE's footsteps in how they balance the two sides. PvP does not need to be the focus, nor does it need to be there in equal amounts in all parts of the world and gameplay, but given the alternatives, it's still the most natural and simplest to implement solution to many of the challenges created by a sandbox, and therefore cannot simply be ignored. Technically, its not absolutely required, but functionally, some degree of owpvp really is a necessity in a sandbox to avoid a gaping hole that has be designed around.
A quick comment on those who don't like others impinging on their freedoms and actions in the game. Players that don't want to ever have to worry about the actions of other players need to stick to themeparks and single player games, because even a sandbox that doesn't allow for direct attacks is still going to hold plenty of opportunity for indirect pvp that require the targeted player to adapt their own game play to deal with. People who think that just because combat isn't an option anymore they don't have to care about what others are doing are fooling themselves, especially since many of the worst problems I've seen arise don't include combat to begin with. Certain types of players will always find ways to abuse the world and rules put forth by the devs, and devs can't limit those people overly much without also limiting everyone else in the process. The only way to deal with them is for other players to develop strategies and tactics that limit the impact of the problem players. Devs cannot be expected to provide all of the solutions; they must provide the tools, but the players must do the heavy lifting and the work.
Realism has nothing to do with sandboxes or themeparks. I'm not even sure how that argument got started.
Sandbox is about creativity, thats it.
It got started because sandbox is about giving players tools and letting them create content. How exactly do you create content without freedom?
fine, in that case, i want the freedom to make force anyone to dance with me for 2 mins any time i want, ok?
What point are you trying to make? There are technical limitations in video games so they're not going to have a "make dance with you" mechanic. If games had ultimate and perfect computing power and programming, there probably would be an option to do something like that. I'm sure eventually video games will give you full control of all limbs and at that point you will be able to do such a thing.
Originally posted by Holophonist That would be too far and deter meaningful pking as well, which definitely should be part of a sandbox.
this is very typical - you are talking about realism, but dont want pking to have really serious (aka realistic) consequences
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
As I've said so many times, the point of a developer is to impose rules where your technical limitations stop you. So yes you have to take out things like controlling your character's breathing because it's simply not feasible to implement it into a game. But turning off pvp isn't because of a lack of technical limitation. It's a lack of courage and creativity. There's absolutely no doubt that developers deem it more profitable to turn off ow pvp rather than to spend the time to develop an interesting and organic system that lets players in large part police themselves.
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
I think we should talk about fun. What does realism have to do with video games? I don't play games to have realism.
The problem with the "freedom" deabte is that the argument is not about freedom, it's about projecting power and the concept that "might is right". Should the strong be able to impose their will upon the weak?
To some people, that is elemental to their fantasy.
To some people, it is the antithesis of their fantasy.
The question is whether each of us wants "might is right" to define conflicts of interest all the time, part of the time or none of the time. The answer is not the same for everyone. No matter what rhetorical flourishes we use to explain our own preference, that isn't going to change anyone else's preference. So there's no point in arguing preferences, it's just a question of whether different preferences can comfortably coexist in a single game.
And the problem with your argument is it's 100% based on the false premise that people only want freedom because they want to project power or dominate people or whatever else.
Also in DFUW, you know who the strongest clans are? The casual, "zergy" ones. Their are basically 2 or 3 really huge alliances in the game. Most of the hardcore elitist pvp'ers have very little in terms of territory or any real influence. So what you're saying is the strong will impose their will upon the weak, but what actually happens is the weak band together to protect themselves from the strong.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
As long at it not takes 50 people group to count as risk,imo there is a lot higher rist countering a mob solo than it is when grouped,anyway most mmo's have a group bonus for killing stuff wich I think is redicilous, it should be bouns for the less people you got in your group, that is risk bonus.
yeah, but this (the group bonus) is not about realism or risk vs reward. its purpose is to promote grouping and therefore community, so i am all for it (and i am a person who does spend 95% of his mmorpg time playing solo)
Yes but figure how fun it would be to build a small super group with your friends instead of just joining a huge group where you can even go take a crap while the rest of the group takes down the dragon?
i agree with that, but there i am rewarded by fun of that small group with friends, i dont need other reward in form of (small) group bonus
Still most people find it more fun hunting in small groups than raids,even some dev's are quiting adding content for large groups and raids since people dont want this form of gaming,so no reason for group bonus I think. We could disguss all night for the reason why peole avoid raids and large groups but I think we all know so we just leav that.
Comments
The name sandbox came from kids playing in a sandbox doing what ever they find fun. How comes it's not worth the name sandbox unless the kids start to kill eachother?
this is very typical - you are talking about realism, but dont want pking to have really serious (aka realistic) consequences
His assertion is ridiculous.
Especially if the target demographic doesn't like pvp.
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
There are many examples of things that have multiple issues, however those issues may not be related they just happen to be on or affect the same circumstance.
A silly argument that illustrates this is my tissue paper. It's both white and soft, but white neither white nor soft affects each other.
Same with realism and freedom.
Realism issues can be explained in game. It isn't realistic for me to turn into an bumblebee, beat up a dragon and run away as a fast as a gazelle, but if the game has mechanisms in place for that, it is now believable.
The game may have a wall around something that restricts my freedom. That may be unrealistic or if there is an in game reason it could be very realistic.
2 different issues, possible affecting the same object but may not be affecting each other.
edit - My brother was just telling me about a book he read where all traces of anger, aggression, fear... were over centuries systematically removed from humans. We don't think thats realistic, but in the context of that book it was completely realistic.
In essence you are trying to explain to some people the concept of "specious reasoning".
the toilet paper example is perfect.
And that happens a LOT on these boards.
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
how about this - every player when creating his char can choose a deity, which will give him some bonus and one of the deities will give him invulnerability from all player chars?
Your imagination is incredibly limited if PvP is the only player created challenge you can come up with. Also I dont agree with the OP, when ever I've talked about MMO's with people who I know to prefer PvE they usually complaint because themeparks dont have interactive virtual worlds, just linear hand held leveling zones.
Non linear, non handheld open virtual world should not be the privilige of PvP players only. PvP is only a single feature when talking about sandboxes, so many ways to make sandbox features without ever even thinking about PvP.
Just saying, there can easily be a sandbox game without PvP. If PvP is absolute must for a sandbox game in some people's opinions, well, have fun with that narrow minded selfish idea.
A pacifist god with an aura of immunity but the same aura prents aggresion. It definately is an explanation for it. Works for me.
As long as risk vs. reward is factored in. People willing to take more risks should get better rewards. I don't mean mindless pve bots.
edit- Eve is great example of this. High sec = safety with no access to top end mats and such.
You can remain safe though and purchase them from me for a price ;O
Life IS Feudal
Usually I feel like there is no one magic bullet that will make or break a game's long term prospects.
Mostly I feel it has to be a culmination of many good systems working together to keep a game afloat much more so than any one thing. Even if that one thing is something I feel is vital to my personal enjoyment like gear destruction/full loot or pvp.
This PVE/PVP dichotomy we discuss and define games by lately aren't really what makes games in my opinion.
The right game could come about with probably every single game mechanic in opposition to what most here would call good game design and still make some company very rich in the long run. Our ideas on what works and what can work is too mired in our history.
As evidenced by the cries by many of us to both create inventive games, and at the same time keep games inside the boxes we are accustomed to them being.
As long at it not takes 50 people group to count as risk,imo there is a lot higher rist countering a mob solo than it is when grouped,anyway most mmo's have a group bonus for killing stuff wich I think is redicilous, it should be bouns for the less people you got in your group, that is risk bonus.
you get better rewards - other gods will give rewards thet will actually make your char stronger in some way, or you will find good loot more often etc. - so, here is your reward
Risk vs reward has never really interested me very much. Now Challenge vs rewards, absolutely.
If fighting real people is a greater challenge, then someone engaging in that challenge should get something. But IMO they should only get something from that encounter, not from other encounters such as pve.
Maybe have human skin or brain tissue be a material that increases gear/weapon stats somehow, human soul gems
yeah, but this (the group bonus) is not about realism or risk vs reward. its purpose is to promote grouping and therefore community, so i am all for it (and i am a person who does spend 95% of his mmorpg time playing solo)
Yes but figure how fun it would be to build a small super group with your friends instead of just joining a huge group where you can even go take a crap while the rest of the group takes down the dragon?
i agree with that, but there i am rewarded by fun of that small group with friends, i dont need other reward in form of (small) group bonus
Actually, combine the ideas. Make high sec, med sec and low sec areas.
So high sec areas are pure pve areas, where the gods of Order/Life/Justice protect the inhabitants of the land, preventing all aggression.
Medium sec are lands protected by the god of War/Competition or something. Basically, that god will allow pking, but only among factions (either game factions or player guilds/alliances), so pvp without friendly fire.
Low sec are lands ruled by the Gods of Death/Chaos. They allow for anything to happen within their realm.
You can have any and all crafting mats available in all areas, but the best ones are more common in the lower sec zones. Something like, the best materials are those that grow in a land soaked with blood, because the lifegiving force flows with blood, enhancing the mats. The reason why high sec can have those mats, is the fact that players are killing animals or are dying to mobs, but mob blood is less potent and player blood doesn't flow as often in high sec.
So you have gankfest pvp, meaningful pvp, and pure pve. Anyone can play how they wish, but there are more rewards to be had in riskier environments. Additionally, for things like playermade structures, in higher security areas, you have to pay rent on land owned by the kingdom. However, low sec is frontier land owned by none, but your stuff may be pillaged and burned to the ground or taken over by opposing forces.
Ensure that it's not a bottlenecked entrance to the different zones, and voila, we have a decent system that makes sense in lore and players can be mostly happy.
sure, you can do this, but why would any pve fan play such game, when for him to get the best materials he is pretty much forced to go to ffa pvp zone?
that is not what my nor venge's post was about tho, they are response to claims that "immunity to pvp is unrealistic" - actually it can be easily made as realistic as any other game feature (not having to sleep, to go to the bathroom, not being extremely tired from constant fighting or wearing heavy armor etc.)
From my experience, you need a mix of both pvp and pve elements. Games that fully lack one or the either tend to limit themselves even more than sandbox games in general. It isn't so much that non-pvp sandboxes can't do well enough, but they often have to compensate for the lack of destruction and loss created by pvp in ways that turn off just as many players as the pvp alternatives. Limited amounts of ow pvp, via things like wars or bounties, need to be in place for the entire world, and there needs to be rules in place to handle not only that, but also areas with varying degrees of security, but pvp is part of a sandbox, and to completely shut that down or shunt it off to the side does limit the sandbox and can in some ways force even worse systems and solutions that people like even less. For all the games I've played, I still think EVE's basic concept is the best one to look at (what players do with it is an entirely different subject). You have a range of security options, but even in the highest security, there are still ways to pvp if you are willing to pay for it. There doesn't have to be a lot of extra systems like decay put in to facilitate loss because that is driven by the pvp in the sections that its fully sanctioned. It has a full fledged political system as well as a fully supported crafting system.
PVP may not be absolutely essential, but for all of it's problems, the alternatives to create that same sense of loss, motivation, and renewal of the creative process are in my experience even less popular. I play Wurm; I love Wurm; most people really don't. A big part of this is because even without PvP (which there are servers for as well), its not all that fun to the average gamer; it takes a long time to accomplish much of anything, and doing one task usually turns into doing multiple tasks as you discover you lack the right tool, or need to find better mats, or simply need to grind a skill up a lot before you can do what you want to do. Deeds, which mitigate many of the loss factors of the game, also create a lot of headaches and problems at the same time. And that's before you start looking at the failure rates you'll encounter for making many, if not most things, especially in the early part of the game. Ryzom was great, but after a while, it just got boring; all creation and no real ways to simulate destruction and restart the cycle of creation leads to its own host of problems. A Tale in the Desert has to reset itself periodically, which is something some people enjoy, but many do not. All of these are good, viable games, but you can't tell me that they are fundamentally better than games that choose to have pvp elements. For every aspect of pvp that players dislike and are glad to not see, these games simply introduce some other form of annoyance that turn people off.
In the end, truly commercially successful sandboxes (and I would hesitate greatly before considering any of the examples in the above paragraph as such) are going to have to follow EVE's footsteps in how they balance the two sides. PvP does not need to be the focus, nor does it need to be there in equal amounts in all parts of the world and gameplay, but given the alternatives, it's still the most natural and simplest to implement solution to many of the challenges created by a sandbox, and therefore cannot simply be ignored. Technically, its not absolutely required, but functionally, some degree of owpvp really is a necessity in a sandbox to avoid a gaping hole that has be designed around.
A quick comment on those who don't like others impinging on their freedoms and actions in the game. Players that don't want to ever have to worry about the actions of other players need to stick to themeparks and single player games, because even a sandbox that doesn't allow for direct attacks is still going to hold plenty of opportunity for indirect pvp that require the targeted player to adapt their own game play to deal with. People who think that just because combat isn't an option anymore they don't have to care about what others are doing are fooling themselves, especially since many of the worst problems I've seen arise don't include combat to begin with. Certain types of players will always find ways to abuse the world and rules put forth by the devs, and devs can't limit those people overly much without also limiting everyone else in the process. The only way to deal with them is for other players to develop strategies and tactics that limit the impact of the problem players. Devs cannot be expected to provide all of the solutions; they must provide the tools, but the players must do the heavy lifting and the work.
Retention does not mean a lot if you play base is small.
You think a dev will prefer a 500k based with higher retention than 2M average players but the players churn a lot?
What point are you trying to make? There are technical limitations in video games so they're not going to have a "make dance with you" mechanic. If games had ultimate and perfect computing power and programming, there probably would be an option to do something like that. I'm sure eventually video games will give you full control of all limbs and at that point you will be able to do such a thing.
Then by your definition nobody can talk about realism until there is permadeath and death by thirst or hunger, sickness, taxes, phone bills, whatever else. No game is going to be perfectly realistic.
As I've said so many times, the point of a developer is to impose rules where your technical limitations stop you. So yes you have to take out things like controlling your character's breathing because it's simply not feasible to implement it into a game. But turning off pvp isn't because of a lack of technical limitation. It's a lack of courage and creativity. There's absolutely no doubt that developers deem it more profitable to turn off ow pvp rather than to spend the time to develop an interesting and organic system that lets players in large part police themselves.
I think we should talk about fun. What does realism have to do with video games? I don't play games to have realism.
And the problem with your argument is it's 100% based on the false premise that people only want freedom because they want to project power or dominate people or whatever else.
Also in DFUW, you know who the strongest clans are? The casual, "zergy" ones. Their are basically 2 or 3 really huge alliances in the game. Most of the hardcore elitist pvp'ers have very little in terms of territory or any real influence. So what you're saying is the strong will impose their will upon the weak, but what actually happens is the weak band together to protect themselves from the strong.
Still most people find it more fun hunting in small groups than raids,even some dev's are quiting adding content for large groups and raids since people dont want this form of gaming,so no reason for group bonus I think. We could disguss all night for the reason why peole avoid raids and large groups but I think we all know so we just leav that.