Eve Online has free for all PVP, and it is one of the only MMOs that is still growing at a steady pace after 9 years of development. CCP did it right by allowing players to PVP anywhere - however they do this by punishing those that PVP in safe and busy zones.
More like boxpark since the game has zero sand in it to build with. That's kind of what the "sand" part lends to. The fact you can mold and build something
Those that like FFA PvP is going to stick to their guns. They also have to concede their genre will never get the love it deserves in the same breath. No amount of tweaking to the FFA PvP system is going to make it popular
FFA PvP lovers: Accept you are a niche group with all the negative it brings with it, of poor investor support and little to no interest from the common crowd
More like boxpark since the game has zero sand in it to build with. That's kind of what the "sand" part lends to. The fact you can mold and build something
GW2 offers the player more freedom to operate in the themepark created by the developers than the common wow-clone, however it does not give the players tools to manipulate the enviroment created the developers (digging sand in sandbox). GW2 is 100% Themepark, however it is a very large themepark offering different ways to approach each ride.
In order for any type of FFA full loot pvp game to work you need one in which gear has very little overall value (UO is an example of this I was more upset losing my herbs to cast spells than armor or weapons) and relative power between characters needs to be very small. You simply can not allow for 100% I win because of gear or player level. if you do not meet these conditions I really do not see a FFA full loot pvp model working for todays generation of gamers.
This is the audience games are made for like it or not companies are not going to spend 20-50 million dollars making a AAA game aimed at one of the smallest audiences. We can not even get a decent pve sandbox game made and you want one that has full loot open pvp on top of it? LOL.... You can get a FFA sandbox player to go over to themepark once in awhile (DAOC) but you are never going to get sheep over to a FFA full loot game.
In order for any type of FFA full loot pvp game to work you need one in which gear has very little overall value (UO is an example of this I was more upset losing my herbs to cast spells than armor or weapons) and relative power between characters needs to be very small. You simply can not allow for 100% I win because of gear or player level. if you do not meet these conditions I really do not see a FFA full loot pvp model working for todays generation of gamers.
This is the audience games are made for like it or not companies are not going to spend 20-50 million dollars making a AAA game aimed at one of the smallest audiences. We can not even get a decent pve sandbox game made and you want one that has full loot open pvp on top of it? LOL.... You can get a FFA sandbox player to go over to themepark once in awhile (DAOC) but you are never going to get sheep over to a FFA full loot game.
What you need to understand is this
When you say "in order for FFA full loot PvP to work" you are only going to make it work for those that likes FFA PvP. Those that is only interested in the sandbox part is not going to be taken back by an awesome FFA PvP system because it holds no interest no matter how you tweak it.
The only thing left to discuss is if you can make FFA PvP mainstream. I don't personally believe you can
More like boxpark since the game has zero sand in it to build with. That's kind of what the "sand" part lends to. The fact you can mold and build something
Those that like FFA PvP is going to stick to their guns. They also have to concede their genre will never get the love it deserves in the same breath. No amount of tweaking to the FFA PvP system is going to make it popular
FFA PvP lovers: Accept you are a niche group with all the negative it brings with it, of poor investor support and little to no interest from the common crowd
I disagree, while GW2 is more themepark than sandbox, the skills sets is more what I was refering to, there will be so many combinations, that no two warriors will be alike.
When you add the effects you get from other players skills, like fireing an arrow thru someones elses firewall, gives you a fire arrow. The possibilities are endless.
There is your "sand"
But I dont see how you could say I like FFA PvP when my post doesnt say that? I hate it, because it always brings griefers who kill the community. Literally.
In order for any type of FFA full loot pvp game to work you need one in which gear has very little overall value (UO is an example of this I was more upset losing my herbs to cast spells than armor or weapons) and relative power between characters needs to be very small. You simply can not allow for 100% I win because of gear or player level. if you do not meet these conditions I really do not see a FFA full loot pvp model working for todays generation of gamers.
This is the audience games are made for like it or not companies are not going to spend 20-50 million dollars making a AAA game aimed at one of the smallest audiences. We can not even get a decent pve sandbox game made and you want one that has full loot open pvp on top of it? LOL.... You can get a FFA sandbox player to go over to themepark once in awhile (DAOC) but you are never going to get sheep over to a FFA full loot game.
What you need to understand is this
When you say "in order for FFA full loot PvP to work" you are only going to make it work for those that likes FFA PvP. Those that is only interested in the sandbox part is not going to be taken back by an awesome FFA PvP system because it holds no interest no matter how you tweak it.
The only thing left to discuss is if you can make FFA PvP mainstream. I don't personally believe you can
God forbid we make anything that doesn't appeal to the mainstream.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
In order for any type of FFA full loot pvp game to work you need one in which gear has very little overall value (UO is an example of this I was more upset losing my herbs to cast spells than armor or weapons) and relative power between characters needs to be very small. You simply can not allow for 100% I win because of gear or player level. if you do not meet these conditions I really do not see a FFA full loot pvp model working for todays generation of gamers.
This is the audience games are made for like it or not companies are not going to spend 20-50 million dollars making a AAA game aimed at one of the smallest audiences. We can not even get a decent pve sandbox game made and you want one that has full loot open pvp on top of it? LOL.... You can get a FFA sandbox player to go over to themepark once in awhile (DAOC) but you are never going to get sheep over to a FFA full loot game.
What you need to understand is this
When you say "in order for FFA full loot PvP to work" you are only going to make it work for those that likes FFA PvP. Those that is only interested in the sandbox part is not going to be taken back by an awesome FFA PvP system because it holds no interest no matter how you tweak it.
The only thing left to discuss is if you can make FFA PvP mainstream. I don't personally believe you can
God forbid we make anything that doesn't appeal to the mainstream.
Then don't complain your beloved FFA full loot PvP won't attract investors and you are stuck with sub par games.
You have accepted you are not part of the mainstream. Then don't complain you don't get the love the mainstream gets. It kind of goes hand in hand here.
To me, the biggest problem with FFA, Fulll Loot, PVP is the inherent LONG TERM imbalance in risk v reward.
Predators don't tend to hunt eachother.
And that is why FFA PvP & FL fail. And will never be developed. So quit whinging.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
As has been pointed out above, the reality of Internet anonymity is that a substantial population of players will take advantage of FFA/Full loot freedom to drive off the rest of the players. They openly admit and boast of this and will not change.
My own opinion is that you could address some of the biggest problems by a rework of game mechanics, to wit:
- Allow anyone to attack anyone else, but to do so means announcing this and giving the intended victim 30 seconds to react; they could try to run but if they don't move they get options to surrender or pay a portion of loot in ransom if they don't want to fight, thus buying temporary immunity from future attacks of that player; the attacker could refuse your offer but then would not be able to loot you or get credit from the kill. You could toggle off this effect if you wanted others to attack you at will and vice versa. You could also disable it where guilds were in consensual wars with other guilds. This would set up a matrix of interactions between players between simply KOS and taking everything. Someone who is crafting or mining would have the option of paying off the robber and continuing their pursuits. The robber/attacker would have an incentive to leave his/her victim alive since it would allow them to be periodically sheared of wealth. Credit for a kill would only occur if the victim decided to fight or run, or the PVP was consensual (unflagged) to begin with, either as an individual preference or due to guild v guild warring. If you kill someone and full loot them, that disables your ability to full loot that person again for 1 day, e.g., although you can continue to kill them if you wish.
- in towns or secure areas, an option would be added to demand that the attacker be arrested by the local police. This would in turn create an option for the robber to either fight the police (represented by a random spawn that appears in ten seconds) or abandon their attempt and escape in safety. The attacker could full loot/kill the victim only if he/she had defeated the police spawn in combat. The chances of success for non-combat evasion or escape could be made into a mini-game dependent on thief skills, making certain classes more useful for urban crime and emphasizing that such crime can be non-violent in nature. There are ways to make this a fun game of chance and guessing. When police appear, for example, the attacker/criminal can choose to surrender and pay a fine or be incacerated for a period of time (which need not reflect being in a jail, but simply being teleported somewhere out of the way where they have to trudge back to civilization from if they pay a small fine).
Anyway, these are just ideas. But the point is to replace the stark kill or be killed nature of the interactions with a richer matrix of player choices. The choice matrix is a flag you set or unset. If set, the victim can choose to run or fight, either because they think they can get away or because they can win the fight, but in either case take the full risk of being killed and/or full looted. Or, the victim can choose to "pay the piper" by giving up a portion of their loot in exchange for temporary, e.g. thirty minutes, immunity from being attacked by that player and their guild. In cities, a richer matrix of "crime and anticrime" options would appear involving police.
I think this is doable. It would put players in the position of constantly making choices and add a rich layer of roleplay. The key of course is designing such a system so the chances of manipulating/exploiting it are minimal.
I disagree, while GW2 is more themepark than sandbox, the skills sets is more what I was refering to, there will be so many combinations, that no two warriors will be alike.
When you add the effects you get from other players skills, like fireing an arrow thru someones elses firewall, gives you a fire arrow. The possibilities are endless.
There is your "sand"
Say it with me
"Sand" is building
Firing arrows that change to fire arrows mid-air is not "sand". If that's the requirement to call things sandbox then you can call anything sandboxy
When you consider that one of the best sandbox games ever, SWG pre NGE, did not have ffa full loot pvp, that pretty much proves your theory. IMO UO became a much better game with the addition of trammel. Those that did not want the pvp aspect could avoid or lessen their exposure to it. Even in Eve you can somewhat avoid the pvp aspect of the game if you so desire.
That is what has basically doomed the current crop of full loot ffa pvp games like Darkfall, Mortal Online and killed Shadowbane. Populations are small because most people don't want to constantly deal with some of the asshats that always gravitate to such games.
The Sandbox definition has never required a ffa pvp aspect ever. It was present in some of the early sandbox games, but those developers had to make changes to the game's pvp to keep them popular.
Well I never played SWG as I am not a Sci-Fi fan in gaming nor Do I think that RP'ing a Moisture Farmer or a Cantina Dancer is akin to great gameplay. I love sandboxes that focus on combat and exploration first and foremost so that is why I played Asherons Call and to me its the besxt sandbox ever made and in that game their was only 1 PvP server (with FFA Loot) but like 8 servers that were PvE only and the population on the PvE was always higher then the PvP.
PvE will always and forever enjoy the higher population esp when it comes to a full on loot structure.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
You can't have a sandbox without FFA PVP and full loot with item destruction. Sandboxes are about creation but creation losing any sort of meaning without destruction. EVE is the only mmorpg with a real economy because people actually lose the stuff they have. Which means they need to replace it. Which means crafting isn't useless like it is in mmorpg's where people all get the same best gear and never lose it. PVP fuels crafting and keeps the game world from becoming too cluttered with people's creations. You cannot avoid pvp in EVE regardless of what any above posters say. You can kill anyone in the "safe" zones of space through either a suicide gank or a corporation war declaration. Any style than FFA pvp with full loot will be a failure of a sandbox. The more freedom the better.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Themepark = on rails quest driven, being hand held from creation to level cap.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
That is the only 2 defenitions of the 2 sub classes in the genre. Where did this notion that their "had" to be player content for Sandboxs or FFA PvP loot? Its not true at all no matter how you want it to be. Can you do player made content? Sure, but its not a requirement. Doesnt matter what anyone says but GW2 features some aspects of a sandbox but its still mosttly a themepark.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
Why Darkfall became a free for all pvp sandbox games is becouse Claus lead designer of Darkfall he was the one who came up with name in end of 90s played back then first muds, later with his other norwegian friends started playing in games like UO and AC. iN 2001 they started with ideas of making there own game and project Darkfall was born.
So Darkfall was from start a game that will give freedom and hardcore PVP that they experience in specially Asheron's call-Darktide.
2003 they started from scratch in greece as aventurine, first name of company was razorwax back in norway.
P.S Oh and GW2 is not even close to be called sandbox or close to be called free for all pvp like Darkfall even EVE is a rather tame carebear sandbox.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
-EvE: low sec/null sec - PoS , alts for moving goods between high/low and null, etc. No real risk for being a PK.
Friend of mine plays EvE a lot - null sec corp, always telling me about these great battles and camping gates and blowing people up. Says he doesn't care if he loses 500 million in ships/parts in a night, easily makes that back in industry and null sec ratting. Or just buys Plex.
Where is the risk there?
The risk is all, 100% on the newbie who doesn't have the skills/connections to make that kind of isk.
Losing a 100 million battleship is nothing when you can make 100 million in an hour.
Losing a 2 million crusier is EVERYTHING when you have to grind L2 missions for a few days to make that 2 mil back.
The only problem with this argument is that the risk is mitigated by good organization of players. He can make back that 500million isk because his organization secures a nice piece of space to make money in. Its not low risk free because the devs made it that way for them, its low risk because they put in the effort to organize together and minimize the risk.
Essentially you are saying certain players/guilds need to be nerfed for trying too hard and choosing to not be so casual.
I think if people are really honest with themselves, there is a case to be made for both sides. Here is some (hopefully relevant) copypasta from a post I made over at archeagesource.com where people were debating the need for a "death penalty" of some kind when players die as a result of PvP combat:
This is a long-standing debate that has been going on for decades. Some interesting thoughts on both sides of the matter can be found HERE and HERE (the top half).
Personally, I am all for open PvP FFA (with perhaps a few safe zones such as npc cities). I feel meaningful risk forces blues to band together and enhances the community of the game, reinforcing the interdependence between players and alliances of guilds, ultimately spawning emergent play. A bit more about this is included in the second half of THIS INSIGHTFUL ESSAY from Koster's blog and THIS decent write up about the appeal of UO pre-trammel (though that author botches a couple of facts/details).
Even though I support PvP FFA and feel that PK's bring something important to a game, I understand how "PvP'ing" often turns into needless griefing and can destroy the community and game world/experience. It's a very delicate balance, quite similar to ecology and predator-prey models, but what is unfortunate is that many reds are simply *NOT* smart hunters and they don't understand that you have to let your prey survive and proliferate to guarantee a continual hunt. Griefing and tormenting people to the point that the prey/carebears/noob's ragequit can turn the game into a ghost town and ultimately limits the chances for profitable and fun PvP/PK'ing...
So, to address the actual topic of the OP, there should be penalties for dying beyond the debuff and the timesink of having to walk back to the spot of the battle (or a new hunting ground). I think, at the very least, AA should embrace something like what GW2 is supposedly going to do: after X number of deaths, armor/weapons degrade and require repair. Not only would this provide a costly consequence for repeated deaths, but it would reinforce the economy-side of the game. I can still remember how in UO the very act of fighting (even PvE) would reduce the effectiveness and condition of armor/weapons (potentially resulting in them breaking, if I remember correctly). It made access to a PC blacksmith a necessity and you got to know your local smithies (and many of them would get skill gains for repairing your gear). I used to like to tip them for their service, as well, even though they normally gave me my money back.
Also, I think it would be reasonable for the PK to get some percentage of the money that their prey was carrying when they died (10%? 50%? 100%?), with a very low chance of looting an actual peace of gear or random inventory item from the dead player's body.... That said, I did like the earlier suggestion (can't remember by whom) that higher level players who kill lowbies would not be able to get any loot from their "victory."
IMO, the pro-"real death penalty" camp are correct that a meaningful consequence is needed if only because risk yields rewards. It's just a matter of balancing between the two camps and having some kind of mechanism in place to check griefing (which is very hard to do, admittedly). UO struggled with it (and their "solution" of a reputation system didn't work, and the eventual creation of Trammel essentially destroyed the game). Still, the Dundee write up on Raph's blog points to the reality that there are other solutions to this problem than what we are typically used to seeing. What's more, these solutions could work if the game's dev are willing to work at the problem (and not just try to find an easy one-size-fits-all solution that are commonplace in today's MMORPG's). I, for one, still remember the great thrill of helping other blues take out one of those murderous reds (but I don't forget the hard knocks and lack of fun that is the result of being continually griefed by players who view the game as little more than a hunting ground for ganking up-and-comers).
I'm not sure if this was a useful post, but I hope it contributes something to the discussion =/
I disagree, while GW2 is more themepark than sandbox, the skills sets is more what I was refering to, there will be so many combinations, that no two warriors will be alike.
When you add the effects you get from other players skills, like fireing an arrow thru someones elses firewall, gives you a fire arrow. The possibilities are endless.
There is your "sand"
Say it with me
"Sand" is building
Firing arrows that change to fire arrows mid-air is not "sand". If that's the requirement to call things sandbox then you can call anything sandboxy
------------------------------------------------
If you think sandox means "building", then you are as clueless as the players saying sandbox is "FFA full loot", then you got Zylaxx who thinks he has the definitions, but he is wrong too.
EVE has its limitations, but its considered to be the highlight of sandbox games. The main reason is because your characters can develop in many different ways, just like GW2, the other reason is low sec space where you can build, but you cant build in high sec, so there are limitaions.
You will NEVER have a completly sandbox game, so the strict definitions just make it worse.
Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.
EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.
GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.
The only problem with this argument is that the risk is mitigated by good organization of players. He can make back that 500million isk because his organization secures a nice piece of space to make money in. Its not low risk free because the devs made it that way for them, its low risk because they put in the effort to organize together and minimize the risk.
Essentially you are saying certain players/guilds need to be nerfed for trying too hard and choosing to not be so casual.
Good point, however I was responding to a post that was saying that the problem comes in the LONG TERM risk being negligable.
Over the long time, the risks of being a PK ganker/griefer are nearly completely mitigated by the game systems - built by the devs.
It is the long term structure, both social and in terms of access to resources/skills etc. in the game that is punishing for anyone who joins the party late.
But shouldn't players be rewarded for long term play? Of course they should... but how do you make it so the long term players still have the risks associated with these kinds of behaviors?
That is the big question.
This is, in part, why many people like expansions in themepark games - it hits the reset button on progress so people who join late can be there for the big start over. But obviously many others hate it because their efforts/gains before the reset are made meaningless.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Take UO for example - you are a Red PK and you have a house full of spare equipment and regents, and your skills are all 7x GM and you also have a full bank in Bucs Den and know where all the Red Healers are.
What risk is there to you to be a PK? An army of blues who are Anti-PKs can kill you a dozen times and it still won't matter, at all.
But if you are a new player without a ton of extra gear, a PK kills you once - that's everything you own. Gone.
So again, how do you reward long term play, while still giving veteran players the same RISK that new players face in a FFA PvP environment?
Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.
I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy.
Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.
I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy.
Skyrim doesn't have any building or destroying and it isn't even multiplayer...
Yet it's widely regarded as an excellent sandbox RPG.
So what makes Skyrim a sandbox?
Freedom.
Freedom to make your character how you want to make them - no restrictions on "this race can't use that skill or be this class"
Freedom to level the skills you want to level instead of being pigeon holed into a specific class.
Freedom to follow the dev crafted story, or simply wander the world doing whatever the hell you want.
GW2 is best described, I think, not as a sandbox or a sandpark but as a Themebox.
It's a themepark, but it is not on rails - you have a lot more freedom than many/any other Themepark games, and as such, has elements that are certainly sandboxy.
Open world "full on" 24/7 PvP is a sure fire way to not get me into a game. In the end it doesn't matter how many awesome sandbox features that it has. Now I'm not saying PvP can't be in a game or anything like that, but I want to have a choice in the matter. I'm fine with a game that has some kind of pvp toggle or pvp zones so that people can play that way if the choose. but when a game like Darkfall comes around my only real choice becomes get the game or don't.
I think it is really unfortunate that so the trend has become that sandbox and open Pvp have somehow become linked. PvP is a playstyle, and while a vocal one, it does not represent entire MMO market (even if some would love to think so). But going even farther than that, not all PvP players like open, 24/7 world PvP. If they did, games like Darkfall would dominate the market. When you make your game have open world PvP you are excluding a large number of potential subscribers right off the bat. And that's cool if that is what you want to do. I respect Darkfall and the design they have because they specifically said that there would not be a "soft" version of darkfall and that it was what it was. That's cool, I would expect them to change that stance if they believe in it, however I also would never play it.
I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.
Comments
FFA PvP is not a sandbox requirement.
My theme song.
Eve Online has free for all PVP, and it is one of the only MMOs that is still growing at a steady pace after 9 years of development. CCP did it right by allowing players to PVP anywhere - however they do this by punishing those that PVP in safe and busy zones.
More like boxpark since the game has zero sand in it to build with. That's kind of what the "sand" part lends to. The fact you can mold and build something
Those that like FFA PvP is going to stick to their guns. They also have to concede their genre will never get the love it deserves in the same breath. No amount of tweaking to the FFA PvP system is going to make it popular
FFA PvP lovers: Accept you are a niche group with all the negative it brings with it, of poor investor support and little to no interest from the common crowd
GW2 offers the player more freedom to operate in the themepark created by the developers than the common wow-clone, however it does not give the players tools to manipulate the enviroment created the developers (digging sand in sandbox). GW2 is 100% Themepark, however it is a very large themepark offering different ways to approach each ride.
In order for any type of FFA full loot pvp game to work you need one in which gear has very little overall value (UO is an example of this I was more upset losing my herbs to cast spells than armor or weapons) and relative power between characters needs to be very small. You simply can not allow for 100% I win because of gear or player level. if you do not meet these conditions I really do not see a FFA full loot pvp model working for todays generation of gamers.
This is the audience games are made for like it or not companies are not going to spend 20-50 million dollars making a AAA game aimed at one of the smallest audiences. We can not even get a decent pve sandbox game made and you want one that has full loot open pvp on top of it? LOL.... You can get a FFA sandbox player to go over to themepark once in awhile (DAOC) but you are never going to get sheep over to a FFA full loot game.
What you need to understand is this
When you say "in order for FFA full loot PvP to work" you are only going to make it work for those that likes FFA PvP. Those that is only interested in the sandbox part is not going to be taken back by an awesome FFA PvP system because it holds no interest no matter how you tweak it.
The only thing left to discuss is if you can make FFA PvP mainstream. I don't personally believe you can
Starpower writes:
More like boxpark since the game has zero sand in it to build with. That's kind of what the "sand" part lends to. The fact you can mold and build something
Those that like FFA PvP is going to stick to their guns. They also have to concede their genre will never get the love it deserves in the same breath. No amount of tweaking to the FFA PvP system is going to make it popular
FFA PvP lovers: Accept you are a niche group with all the negative it brings with it, of poor investor support and little to no interest from the common crowd
---------------------;;
-----------------------------------------------------
I disagree, while GW2 is more themepark than sandbox, the skills sets is more what I was refering to, there will be so many combinations, that no two warriors will be alike.
When you add the effects you get from other players skills, like fireing an arrow thru someones elses firewall, gives you a fire arrow. The possibilities are endless.
There is your "sand"
But I dont see how you could say I like FFA PvP when my post doesnt say that? I hate it, because it always brings griefers who kill the community. Literally.
God forbid we make anything that doesn't appeal to the mainstream.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Then don't complain your beloved FFA full loot PvP won't attract investors and you are stuck with sub par games.
You have accepted you are not part of the mainstream. Then don't complain you don't get the love the mainstream gets. It kind of goes hand in hand here.
And that is why FFA PvP & FL fail. And will never be developed. So quit whinging.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
As has been pointed out above, the reality of Internet anonymity is that a substantial population of players will take advantage of FFA/Full loot freedom to drive off the rest of the players. They openly admit and boast of this and will not change.
My own opinion is that you could address some of the biggest problems by a rework of game mechanics, to wit:
- Allow anyone to attack anyone else, but to do so means announcing this and giving the intended victim 30 seconds to react; they could try to run but if they don't move they get options to surrender or pay a portion of loot in ransom if they don't want to fight, thus buying temporary immunity from future attacks of that player; the attacker could refuse your offer but then would not be able to loot you or get credit from the kill. You could toggle off this effect if you wanted others to attack you at will and vice versa. You could also disable it where guilds were in consensual wars with other guilds. This would set up a matrix of interactions between players between simply KOS and taking everything. Someone who is crafting or mining would have the option of paying off the robber and continuing their pursuits. The robber/attacker would have an incentive to leave his/her victim alive since it would allow them to be periodically sheared of wealth. Credit for a kill would only occur if the victim decided to fight or run, or the PVP was consensual (unflagged) to begin with, either as an individual preference or due to guild v guild warring. If you kill someone and full loot them, that disables your ability to full loot that person again for 1 day, e.g., although you can continue to kill them if you wish.
- in towns or secure areas, an option would be added to demand that the attacker be arrested by the local police. This would in turn create an option for the robber to either fight the police (represented by a random spawn that appears in ten seconds) or abandon their attempt and escape in safety. The attacker could full loot/kill the victim only if he/she had defeated the police spawn in combat. The chances of success for non-combat evasion or escape could be made into a mini-game dependent on thief skills, making certain classes more useful for urban crime and emphasizing that such crime can be non-violent in nature. There are ways to make this a fun game of chance and guessing. When police appear, for example, the attacker/criminal can choose to surrender and pay a fine or be incacerated for a period of time (which need not reflect being in a jail, but simply being teleported somewhere out of the way where they have to trudge back to civilization from if they pay a small fine).
Anyway, these are just ideas. But the point is to replace the stark kill or be killed nature of the interactions with a richer matrix of player choices. The choice matrix is a flag you set or unset. If set, the victim can choose to run or fight, either because they think they can get away or because they can win the fight, but in either case take the full risk of being killed and/or full looted. Or, the victim can choose to "pay the piper" by giving up a portion of their loot in exchange for temporary, e.g. thirty minutes, immunity from being attacked by that player and their guild. In cities, a richer matrix of "crime and anticrime" options would appear involving police.
I think this is doable. It would put players in the position of constantly making choices and add a rich layer of roleplay. The key of course is designing such a system so the chances of manipulating/exploiting it are minimal.
Say it with me
"Sand" is building
Firing arrows that change to fire arrows mid-air is not "sand". If that's the requirement to call things sandbox then you can call anything sandboxy
Well I never played SWG as I am not a Sci-Fi fan in gaming nor Do I think that RP'ing a Moisture Farmer or a Cantina Dancer is akin to great gameplay. I love sandboxes that focus on combat and exploration first and foremost so that is why I played Asherons Call and to me its the besxt sandbox ever made and in that game their was only 1 PvP server (with FFA Loot) but like 8 servers that were PvE only and the population on the PvE was always higher then the PvP.
PvE will always and forever enjoy the higher population esp when it comes to a full on loot structure.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
You can't have a sandbox without FFA PVP and full loot with item destruction. Sandboxes are about creation but creation losing any sort of meaning without destruction. EVE is the only mmorpg with a real economy because people actually lose the stuff they have. Which means they need to replace it. Which means crafting isn't useless like it is in mmorpg's where people all get the same best gear and never lose it. PVP fuels crafting and keeps the game world from becoming too cluttered with people's creations. You cannot avoid pvp in EVE regardless of what any above posters say. You can kill anyone in the "safe" zones of space through either a suicide gank or a corporation war declaration. Any style than FFA pvp with full loot will be a failure of a sandbox. The more freedom the better.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Themepark = on rails quest driven, being hand held from creation to level cap.
Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.
That is the only 2 defenitions of the 2 sub classes in the genre. Where did this notion that their "had" to be player content for Sandboxs or FFA PvP loot? Its not true at all no matter how you want it to be. Can you do player made content? Sure, but its not a requirement. Doesnt matter what anyone says but GW2 features some aspects of a sandbox but its still mosttly a themepark.
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid
And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not
Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature
Why Darkfall became a free for all pvp sandbox games is becouse Claus lead designer of Darkfall he was the one who came up with name in end of 90s played back then first muds, later with his other norwegian friends started playing in games like UO and AC. iN 2001 they started with ideas of making there own game and project Darkfall was born.
So Darkfall was from start a game that will give freedom and hardcore PVP that they experience in specially Asheron's call-Darktide.
2003 they started from scratch in greece as aventurine, first name of company was razorwax back in norway.
P.S Oh and GW2 is not even close to be called sandbox or close to be called free for all pvp like Darkfall even EVE is a rather tame carebear sandbox.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
The only problem with this argument is that the risk is mitigated by good organization of players. He can make back that 500million isk because his organization secures a nice piece of space to make money in. Its not low risk free because the devs made it that way for them, its low risk because they put in the effort to organize together and minimize the risk.
Essentially you are saying certain players/guilds need to be nerfed for trying too hard and choosing to not be so casual.
I think if people are really honest with themselves, there is a case to be made for both sides. Here is some (hopefully relevant) copypasta from a post I made over at archeagesource.com where people were debating the need for a "death penalty" of some kind when players die as a result of PvP combat:
This is a long-standing debate that has been going on for decades. Some interesting thoughts on both sides of the matter can be found HERE and HERE (the top half).
Personally, I am all for open PvP FFA (with perhaps a few safe zones such as npc cities). I feel meaningful risk forces blues to band together and enhances the community of the game, reinforcing the interdependence between players and alliances of guilds, ultimately spawning emergent play. A bit more about this is included in the second half of THIS INSIGHTFUL ESSAY from Koster's blog and THIS decent write up about the appeal of UO pre-trammel (though that author botches a couple of facts/details).
Even though I support PvP FFA and feel that PK's bring something important to a game, I understand how "PvP'ing" often turns into needless griefing and can destroy the community and game world/experience. It's a very delicate balance, quite similar to ecology and predator-prey models, but what is unfortunate is that many reds are simply *NOT* smart hunters and they don't understand that you have to let your prey survive and proliferate to guarantee a continual hunt. Griefing and tormenting people to the point that the prey/carebears/noob's ragequit can turn the game into a ghost town and ultimately limits the chances for profitable and fun PvP/PK'ing...
So, to address the actual topic of the OP, there should be penalties for dying beyond the debuff and the timesink of having to walk back to the spot of the battle (or a new hunting ground). I think, at the very least, AA should embrace something like what GW2 is supposedly going to do: after X number of deaths, armor/weapons degrade and require repair. Not only would this provide a costly consequence for repeated deaths, but it would reinforce the economy-side of the game. I can still remember how in UO the very act of fighting (even PvE) would reduce the effectiveness and condition of armor/weapons (potentially resulting in them breaking, if I remember correctly). It made access to a PC blacksmith a necessity and you got to know your local smithies (and many of them would get skill gains for repairing your gear). I used to like to tip them for their service, as well, even though they normally gave me my money back.
Also, I think it would be reasonable for the PK to get some percentage of the money that their prey was carrying when they died (10%? 50%? 100%?), with a very low chance of looting an actual peace of gear or random inventory item from the dead player's body.... That said, I did like the earlier suggestion (can't remember by whom) that higher level players who kill lowbies would not be able to get any loot from their "victory."
IMO, the pro-"real death penalty" camp are correct that a meaningful consequence is needed if only because risk yields rewards. It's just a matter of balancing between the two camps and having some kind of mechanism in place to check griefing (which is very hard to do, admittedly). UO struggled with it (and their "solution" of a reputation system didn't work, and the eventual creation of Trammel essentially destroyed the game). Still, the Dundee write up on Raph's blog points to the reality that there are other solutions to this problem than what we are typically used to seeing. What's more, these solutions could work if the game's dev are willing to work at the problem (and not just try to find an easy one-size-fits-all solution that are commonplace in today's MMORPG's). I, for one, still remember the great thrill of helping other blues take out one of those murderous reds (but I don't forget the hard knocks and lack of fun that is the result of being continually griefed by players who view the game as little more than a hunting ground for ganking up-and-comers).
I'm not sure if this was a useful post, but I hope it contributes something to the discussion =/
Starpower writes:
Say it with me
"Sand" is building
Firing arrows that change to fire arrows mid-air is not "sand". If that's the requirement to call things sandbox then you can call anything sandboxy
------------------------------------------------
If you think sandox means "building", then you are as clueless as the players saying sandbox is "FFA full loot", then you got Zylaxx who thinks he has the definitions, but he is wrong too.
EVE has its limitations, but its considered to be the highlight of sandbox games. The main reason is because your characters can develop in many different ways, just like GW2, the other reason is low sec space where you can build, but you cant build in high sec, so there are limitaions.
You will NEVER have a completly sandbox game, so the strict definitions just make it worse.
Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.
Good point, however I was responding to a post that was saying that the problem comes in the LONG TERM risk being negligable.
Over the long time, the risks of being a PK ganker/griefer are nearly completely mitigated by the game systems - built by the devs.
It is the long term structure, both social and in terms of access to resources/skills etc. in the game that is punishing for anyone who joins the party late.
But shouldn't players be rewarded for long term play? Of course they should... but how do you make it so the long term players still have the risks associated with these kinds of behaviors?
That is the big question.
This is, in part, why many people like expansions in themepark games - it hits the reset button on progress so people who join late can be there for the big start over. But obviously many others hate it because their efforts/gains before the reset are made meaningless.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Take UO for example - you are a Red PK and you have a house full of spare equipment and regents, and your skills are all 7x GM and you also have a full bank in Bucs Den and know where all the Red Healers are.
What risk is there to you to be a PK? An army of blues who are Anti-PKs can kill you a dozen times and it still won't matter, at all.
But if you are a new player without a ton of extra gear, a PK kills you once - that's everything you own. Gone.
So again, how do you reward long term play, while still giving veteran players the same RISK that new players face in a FFA PvP environment?
I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy.
Skyrim doesn't have any building or destroying and it isn't even multiplayer...
Yet it's widely regarded as an excellent sandbox RPG.
So what makes Skyrim a sandbox?
Freedom.
Freedom to make your character how you want to make them - no restrictions on "this race can't use that skill or be this class"
Freedom to level the skills you want to level instead of being pigeon holed into a specific class.
Freedom to follow the dev crafted story, or simply wander the world doing whatever the hell you want.
GW2 is best described, I think, not as a sandbox or a sandpark but as a Themebox.
It's a themepark, but it is not on rails - you have a lot more freedom than many/any other Themepark games, and as such, has elements that are certainly sandboxy.
Open world "full on" 24/7 PvP is a sure fire way to not get me into a game. In the end it doesn't matter how many awesome sandbox features that it has. Now I'm not saying PvP can't be in a game or anything like that, but I want to have a choice in the matter. I'm fine with a game that has some kind of pvp toggle or pvp zones so that people can play that way if the choose. but when a game like Darkfall comes around my only real choice becomes get the game or don't.
I think it is really unfortunate that so the trend has become that sandbox and open Pvp have somehow become linked. PvP is a playstyle, and while a vocal one, it does not represent entire MMO market (even if some would love to think so). But going even farther than that, not all PvP players like open, 24/7 world PvP. If they did, games like Darkfall would dominate the market. When you make your game have open world PvP you are excluding a large number of potential subscribers right off the bat. And that's cool if that is what you want to do. I respect Darkfall and the design they have because they specifically said that there would not be a "soft" version of darkfall and that it was what it was. That's cool, I would expect them to change that stance if they believe in it, however I also would never play it.
I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.