Then your missing the whole point, because the definition of sandbox and themepark are at the very heart of this thread.
How can you argue that FFA full loot PvP is or isnt a part of sandbox, if you dont know what the definition of sandbox is?
I think everyone here has agreed on one thing, you dont need FFA full loot PvP, in order to call the game sandbox. No matter what your definition of sandbox is.
But, when players like you who narrowly define sandbox, it gets much tougher to answer the question, get it?
I don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?
And your definition is wrong, as many people here are telling you.
You claimed not to be lumping FFA full loot PvP with sandbox games, but you are, here is a quote from you:
"The current FFA PvP does alienate the general crowd no matter how much you love sandboxes. If you want your genre to recieve the love themeparks get you are going to have to accept some compromises to the way things are done particularly to the PvP side of things. If you don't like that idea then accept that your genre is stuck where it is. It has no appeal other than to the niche crowd as it stands now "
Right there, your saying all sandbox games have FFA full loot PvP, you have no idea what a sandbox is, you back peddle constantly. With your narrow definitions, there is no way the question can be answered without labeling all PvPers as lowlife griefers looking for FFA full loot PvP.
I play games that only have PvP, but I have never liked FFA full loot PvP, and I would say most PvPers are like me. The mindless gankers you keep talking about are a small minority.
That poster did not say that all sandboxes had FFA PvP. The poster said that FFA PvP in general, alienates the sandbox crowd. In fact, the poster didn't even mention 'full loot' in that quoted paragraph.
Then your missing the whole point, because the definition of sandbox and themepark are at the very heart of this thread.
How can you argue that FFA full loot PvP is or isnt a part of sandbox, if you dont know what the definition of sandbox is?
I think everyone here has agreed on one thing, you dont need FFA full loot PvP, in order to call the game sandbox. No matter what your definition of sandbox is.
But, when players like you who narrowly define sandbox, it gets much tougher to answer the question, get it?
I don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?
And your definition is wrong, as many people here are telling you.
You claimed not to be lumping FFA full loot PvP with sandbox games, but you are, here is a quote from you:
"The current FFA PvP does alienate the general crowd no matter how much you love sandboxes. If you want your genre to recieve the love themeparks get you are going to have to accept some compromises to the way things are done particularly to the PvP side of things. If you don't like that idea then accept that your genre is stuck where it is. It has no appeal other than to the niche crowd as it stands now "
Right there, your saying all sandbox games have FFA full loot PvP, you have no idea what a sandbox is, you back peddle constantly. With your narrow definitions, there is no way the question can be answered without labeling all PvPers as lowlife griefers looking for FFA full loot PvP.
I play games that only have PvP, but I have never liked FFA full loot PvP, and I would say most PvPers are like me. The mindless gankers you keep talking about are a small minority.
That poster did not say that all sandboxes had FFA PvP. The poster said that FFA PvP in general, alienates the sandbox crowd. In fact, the poster didn't even mention 'full loot' in that quoted paragraph.
Eeeexactly!
It's not about lumping things together. I never said FFA PvP or even Full loot FFA PvP is a must have in a sandbox. This discussion is about several other things
1. Can full loot FFA PvP function and still attract a large playerbase to the point where investors catch interest
2. will removing FFA PvP or even FFA full loot PvP from sandbox games be what it takes to finally make this popular enough to get a triple A title in the future
3. What would it take to keep FFA PvP/Full loot FFA PvP and be able to make everybody happy
New poster, please try and continue the discussion of how sandboxes can adapt and evolve to become a more popular genre. This discussion isn't about what a sandbox is, or what it isn't. Please talk about features and not your opinion of a definition.
I'll throw this back in there.
Partial loot - Full PvP. All WoW is, is a restricted FFA system that only allows you to attack half, instead of the entire playerbase. That's really not that different. Partial loot meaning inventory loss, not equipped items loss. Add item decay to the mix and you have fuel to drive the player economy. Make items less powerful than WoW, but strong enough to matter in combat. Make the most restrictive murder system to date, because players will still find a way to do it. Limit killing to 3-5 levels below the murderer and make level and skill points a different progression. Level should be tied to combat experience, as this would protect career crafters. Look what I did there guys. I fixed a ton of sandbox flaws by introducing some themepark features and attempting to fuse them together to make a better product.
These are things we should be discussing. Not trying to win an e-peen contest over game definitions.
FFA PvP has been attempted in the past outside of sandbox games. DAoC had FFA PvP servers and they weren't popular bursting with players. EQ had FFA PvP servers and again not a big draw
The question still remains. Has the new generation of MMOs changed the perception of FFA PvP. As you said WoW practically has it. Every new MMO that comes out has PvP in it because it is a major draw.
The more you punish the player for dying by somebody elses hands you are going into niche territory like it or not. The more you protect and diminish the penalty for dying the more popular it will be. It's that simple
The best solution I can come up with is not to allow a situation where a person can't hope to win. That requires level restriction if the game is level progression based. Skill if the game is skill progression based. You can still zerg for easy kills but at least then the victims can organize themselves which is a motivator for more good pvp
Themeparks are already of the assumpion that FFA PvP is a niche mechanic which is why none of the newer themeparks has that server option. Sandboxes on the other hand are not afraid of including it because it's well in line with the "complete freedom" concept. If you want to make PvP restrictions to make it more appealing you are essentially working against the spirit of freedom. That's not the same as saying a sandbox must have FFA PvP without restriction. It has to have restrictions if it's ever going to be popular. I just don't see a successful way of doing it without turning it into something carebear. Then you alienate the hardcore crowd and we are back to WoWifying things
I don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?
And your definition is wrong, as many people here are telling you.
You claimed not to be lumping FFA full loot PvP with sandbox games, but you are, here is a quote from you:
"The current FFA PvP does alienate the general crowd no matter how much you love sandboxes. If you want your genre to recieve the love themeparks get you are going to have to accept some compromises to the way things are done particularly to the PvP side of things. If you don't like that idea then accept that your genre is stuck where it is. It has no appeal other than to the niche crowd as it stands now "
Right there, your saying all sandbox games have FFA full loot PvP, you have no idea what a sandbox is, you back peddle constantly. With your narrow definitions, there is no way the question can be answered without labeling all PvPers as lowlife griefers looking for FFA full loot PvP.
I play games that only have PvP, but I have never liked FFA full loot PvP, and I would say most PvPers are like me. The mindless gankers you keep talking about are a small minority.
Look I'm not interested in having a lengthy back and fourth because you have reading comprehention issues. That is not my fault. You have a tendency to read between the lines and add your own spin.
Not only are you misinterpreting the quote but you are also accusing me of calling FFA PvPers mindless gankers. You are really grasping at straws here.
Furthermore don't use words such as "many has told you" when it's basically just you and 1 other guy. It makes you look silly tbh. And you are both wrong. If you are going to deny that sandboxes are defined by not only where the comparison comes from but also the wide varity of sandbox games both inside and outside the MMO genre then again. We are going to have an even lenthier pointless discussion because you refuse to see logic and reason. If you want to see "sandbox" in all the games you play then who's stopping you? are you obsessed with winning this tug'o'war? You are not going to.
Theres at least 4 others here who are claiming you are wrong in your narrow defenition. Did you even read my post from yesterday where I took the exact defenition for all the terms used to describe sandbox MMO's in particular and games in general. Not only that but I pointed out your fallacy in your defenition claiming Skyrim wasnt a sandbox untill the tooldkit development kit was released which the head man of Bethesda himself called "HIS" game a sandbox world last year at E3. You sire are the one gasping at straws here and as ive stated and others here have stated your narrow definition is wrong and you need to own up to the mistake especially if you continue to promote some false narrative that no one in their right mind who is into sandbox style gameplay will define.
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 don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?
And your definition is wrong, as many people here are telling you.
You claimed not to be lumping FFA full loot PvP with sandbox games, but you are, here is a quote from you:
"The current FFA PvP does alienate the general crowd no matter how much you love sandboxes. If you want your genre to recieve the love themeparks get you are going to have to accept some compromises to the way things are done particularly to the PvP side of things. If you don't like that idea then accept that your genre is stuck where it is. It has no appeal other than to the niche crowd as it stands now "
Right there, your saying all sandbox games have FFA full loot PvP, you have no idea what a sandbox is, you back peddle constantly. With your narrow definitions, there is no way the question can be answered without labeling all PvPers as lowlife griefers looking for FFA full loot PvP.
I play games that only have PvP, but I have never liked FFA full loot PvP, and I would say most PvPers are like me. The mindless gankers you keep talking about are a small minority.
Look I'm not interested in having a lengthy back and fourth because you have reading comprehention issues. That is not my fault. You have a tendency to read between the lines and add your own spin.
Not only are you misinterpreting the quote but you are also accusing me of calling FFA PvPers mindless gankers. You are really grasping at straws here.
Furthermore don't use words such as "many has told you" when it's basically just you and 1 other guy. It makes you look silly tbh. And you are both wrong. If you are going to deny that sandboxes are defined by not only where the comparison comes from but also the wide varity of sandbox games both inside and outside the MMO genre then again. We are going to have an even lenthier pointless discussion because you refuse to see logic and reason. If you want to see "sandbox" in all the games you play then who's stopping you? are you obsessed with winning this tug'o'war? You are not going to.
Theres at least 4 others here who are claiming you are wrong in your narrow defenition. Did you even read my post from yesterday where I took the exact defenition for all the terms used to describe sandbox MMO's in particular and games in general. Not only that but I pointed out your fallacy in your defenition claiming Skyrim wasnt a sandbox untill the tooldkit development kit was released which the head man of Bethesda himself called "HIS" game a sandbox world last year at E3. You sire are the one gasping at straws here and as ive stated and others here have stated your narrow definition is wrong and you need to own up to the mistake especially if you continue to promote some false narrative that no one in their right mind who is into sandbox style gameplay will define.
I can pee on your leg and tell you that it is raining. It doesn't make it a fact. I consider Skyrim to be a Sandpark. Sandbox (to me) means that you can interact with the world. Not just be free to roam.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
I don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?
And your definition is wrong, as many people here are telling you.
You claimed not to be lumping FFA full loot PvP with sandbox games, but you are, here is a quote from you:
"The current FFA PvP does alienate the general crowd no matter how much you love sandboxes. If you want your genre to recieve the love themeparks get you are going to have to accept some compromises to the way things are done particularly to the PvP side of things. If you don't like that idea then accept that your genre is stuck where it is. It has no appeal other than to the niche crowd as it stands now "
Right there, your saying all sandbox games have FFA full loot PvP, you have no idea what a sandbox is, you back peddle constantly. With your narrow definitions, there is no way the question can be answered without labeling all PvPers as lowlife griefers looking for FFA full loot PvP.
I play games that only have PvP, but I have never liked FFA full loot PvP, and I would say most PvPers are like me. The mindless gankers you keep talking about are a small minority.
Look I'm not interested in having a lengthy back and fourth because you have reading comprehention issues. That is not my fault. You have a tendency to read between the lines and add your own spin.
Not only are you misinterpreting the quote but you are also accusing me of calling FFA PvPers mindless gankers. You are really grasping at straws here.
Furthermore don't use words such as "many has told you" when it's basically just you and 1 other guy. It makes you look silly tbh. And you are both wrong. If you are going to deny that sandboxes are defined by not only where the comparison comes from but also the wide varity of sandbox games both inside and outside the MMO genre then again. We are going to have an even lenthier pointless discussion because you refuse to see logic and reason. If you want to see "sandbox" in all the games you play then who's stopping you? are you obsessed with winning this tug'o'war? You are not going to.
Theres at least 4 others here who are claiming you are wrong in your narrow defenition. Did you even read my post from yesterday where I took the exact defenition for all the terms used to describe sandbox MMO's in particular and games in general. Not only that but I pointed out your fallacy in your defenition claiming Skyrim wasnt a sandbox untill the tooldkit development kit was released which the head man of Bethesda himself called "HIS" game a sandbox world last year at E3. You sire are the one gasping at straws here and as ive stated and others here have stated your narrow definition is wrong and you need to own up to the mistake especially if you continue to promote some false narrative that no one in their right mind who is into sandbox style gameplay will define.
What exactly is it I'm saying you disagree with. That building and creating is a defining feature? I guess we should just ignore the myriad of sandbox games that does not have skill progression, does not have free roam seamless exploration, does not have pvp at all, etc etc yet those are still called sandbox games. Why do you think that is
This game has none of the features you equate with sandbox No free roam exploration there either. Again the developers themselves has called it a sandbox because you have the freedom to build and create. Infact any sandbox ever made has that in common. They do not all share the same common features when it comes to YOUR defintion. Ergo those are not defining features.. Logic.
The Sims games are all sandboxes. If you took the creation tool away It would not be one. Are you starting to get it now?
If you want to define sandbox to "freedom to do whatever you want" then Skyrim still fails. Without the toolset you can't build your own house. You can't change things in the game outside of moving objects. In fact it doesn't have anything a themepark doesn't have, except the ability to move objects in the game. If that's a defining feature then Half Life 2 is a sandbox too. Give me a feature from skyrim you feel is sandboxy and I'll name at least 1 100% non sandbox game that does the same thing.
full loot pvp is fully ok in huge pvp zones like the EVE 0.0 space. open persistent territorial pvp rueld by players and with player build and owned structures is one of the best endgames you can have in a MMO.
but EVE also has a huge safe zone called Empire. its easy to avoid any pvp in this huge area. some people play EVE since years and never made PvP.
but in other indie games, you walk out of the starter city and you get ganked. this does not work. such games did all fail. you need to implement a co-existence of pvp and pve, so that non-consensual pvp is nearly impossible in most areas. if darkfall would have 2 continents of its size, one for pvp and one pve-only. i would play it. well, at least if they would fix their bot-friendly skillsystem.
EVE does not have a "Huge Safe Zone called Empire". You can kill anyone, anywhere in EVE and take all their stuff. In Empire this is done through war declaration and suicide ganking. Putting in a system where you actually can't attack someone due to a game mechanic preventing you from doing this is a whole nuther animal.
FFA PVP setup works best for sandbox games. It lets guilds control politics of the game and with the full loot mechanic these wars have some teeth. It also lets some guilds destroy what others have created. If all you do is create, how fun would a sandbox really be? You would eventually just have too much stuff created with no one able to tear it down. The gameworld would become the equivilent of a massive city and things would never really change.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
full loot pvp is fully ok in huge pvp zones like the EVE 0.0 space. open persistent territorial pvp rueld by players and with player build and owned structures is one of the best endgames you can have in a MMO.
but EVE also has a huge safe zone called Empire. its easy to avoid any pvp in this huge area. some people play EVE since years and never made PvP.
but in other indie games, you walk out of the starter city and you get ganked. this does not work. such games did all fail. you need to implement a co-existence of pvp and pve, so that non-consensual pvp is nearly impossible in most areas. if darkfall would have 2 continents of its size, one for pvp and one pve-only. i would play it. well, at least if they would fix their bot-friendly skillsystem.
EVE does not have a "Huge Safe Zone called Empire". You can kill anyone, anywhere in EVE and take all their stuff. In Empire this is done through war declaration and suicide ganking. Putting in a system where you actually can't attack someone due to a game mechanic preventing you from doing this is a whole nuther animal.
FFA PVP setup works best for sandbox games. It lets guilds control politics of the game and with the full loot mechanic these wars have some teeth. It also lets some guilds destroy what others have created. If all you do is create, how fun would a sandbox really be? You would eventually just have too much stuff created with no one able to tear it down. The gameworld would become the equivilent of a massive city and things would never really change.
You are wrong there, Empire is pretty much a safe zone, especially if you know what you are doing. War decs only work on corporations, not individuals and a suicide gank requires requires coordination of multiple accounts and is only done against high margin targets. Hence the only people who lose ships in high sec are the inexperienced.
I have never lost a transport to a suicide gank even though I regularly carry high margin cargoes. You don't need FFA PVP to have a great sandbox game, SWG proves that.
Oh and Skyrim is not even close to being a sandbox, it fails on mulitple accounts.
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.
I would agree with you about SWG.
But I beg to disagree about UO, Trammel affect it in a negative way in my opinion.
A way to put it is as if you touk a bunch of people in a time machine from their Medieval Existance and transported them in to a Modern Develloped Society.
Yes, as modern societies it may have flourished, and people were able to concentrate in endeavors such as embelishing their houses and pockets and just enjoying the fruits of their labors.
But at the same time the game itself lost its Spirit and Atmosphere which originally appealed to so many.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Ok, FFA PVP doesnt work anymore because death is banalized. In the good old days we did respect the other players (or fear the consequences), nowdays de anonimity protect us and we lost the ´fear´ of dying. To have a sandbox with FFA PVP the death from a PvP should be something fearfull... Permadeath is out of question, for comercial reasons. However we can have a semi-permadeath, you know... A game wherer you can create only 1 char, when you die on PvP (and you are gray or red) you should stay somewhat of 2 hours without being able to ress with this char. If you die twice on a week, with the same char in the same conditions, you will get a hook of 3 days without ressing... 3 times on a week gives you a week out of the flesh...
Also a good system, to avoid expoilers (for instance puting itself in front of a mob to be hit and make the other guy gray). You can be ´acused´, by some kind of ´trial´ and be suspense by using the system as a way to exploit.
The only way to make FFA PVP work with sandbox is making the life of PKs misereable. Wanna be red? then you will have to be GOOD at it.... No naked ganking for you pal...
I would play a sandbox that isn't hardcore PVP. I would play a sandbox that is hardcore PVP if the gap between newb and strong was very very small. Drop me into a sandbox as a newb where strong players are 600 times more powerful and can gank me on a whim... no thanks. I'm not sufficiently masochistic to find it enjoyable.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Yeah - the future is behind the balanced mix of theme-park experience and old-school MMO features: housing, meaningful and useful crafting, socialising, adventuring - ect.
It's not fun being ganked over and over again while you try to mine with your non-combat character. What might be funny - some zones with special rewards (e.g. veins with special resources, required for the guilds only - not worthy for individual players) where the player killing is not prohibited, so there would be organised mining raids with guards and all to fight for guild resourses... maybe even putting some quick to build fortifications around the mining site to avoid being overrun by the enemy raid quickly. The possibilities are limitless and this won't harm the new players or those who like to wander alone...
Yeah - the future is behind the balanced mix of theme-park experience and old-school MMO features: housing, meaningful and useful crafting, socialising, adventuring - ect.
It's not fun being ganked over and over again while you try to mine with your non-combat character. What might be funny - some zones with special rewards (e.g. veins with special resources, required for the guilds only - not worthy for individual players) where the player killing is not prohibited, so there would be organised mining raids with guards and all to fight for guild resourses... maybe even putting some quick to build fortifications around the mining site to avoid being overrun by the enemy raid quickly. The possibilities are limitless and this won't harm the new players or those who like to wander alone...
I think that while mining/gathering you should receive some sort of buff. It would help you shake off that first hit and really pure crafters who aren't in armor shoudl be able to outrun anyone wearing battle gear.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Anyone know that awkward moment when you've totally crushed your opponent, and you and your friends are sitting on their corpses simultaneously realzing that everything is about to become really dull?
Anyone know that awkward moment when you've totally crushed your opponent, and you and your friends are sitting on their corpses simultaneously realzing that everything is about to become really dull?
Yes, it lasts but a moment before you and your friends go look for more opponents while being completely smug.
The way I see it, sandbox games are mostly about freedom of choice and realism within the established virtual world.
If you're out on a hunting expedition and some peasant comes by and starts insulting you for no good reason, or tries to steal your game, the sandbox ruleset should allow you to deal with that person as you would most probably want to were you a ruthless medieval warrior or a blood thirsty Uruk Hai in Middle Earth, ie by thrusting your 5 foot, 2 handed axe in his face and then stripping him of all his belongings. Realism.
People generally believe that FFA PvP attracts the worste kind of people. I believe the exact opposite to be true. Environments where people are allowed to behave in the worste possible way without fear of any repercussion whatsoever is where the bad people go.
If everyone in the world has the power to dish out his own justice, then trust me, people think twice before behaving like jerks.
Of course this goes both ways. If someone has an advantage over you and is more powerful than you, he might very well be tempted to abuse that power and make your "virtual" life miserable. This obviously happens alot in these types of games BUT you can always organize, call for help, and retribute!
There's the beauty of the sandbox game.
In my opinion, but it's just that, FFA PvP is the key element in a sandbox game without which the game no longer makes any sense.
It's not fun being ganked over and over again while you try to mine with your non-combat character
Of course not. What is fun, however, is finding a way to make sure it doesn't happen again. Ask guild mates to escort you (opportunity to socialize), go find a safer spot to mine (opportunity to explore), give up mining for the time being, whip out your combat toon and stalk your aggressor until you're in a favorable enough position to dish out some vengeance (opportunity to PvP).
FFA PvP creates obstacles, obstacles that need to be surpassed. Figuring out how to beat those obstacles is where the fun is, to some of us at least. The great thing, unlike in themeparks, is that these obstacles are totally unpredictable because they're generated by other players.
Most of you see gankers as a nuisance, I see them as an event
I remember being so excited for the development of Darkfall online then all of a sudden I kept hearing this phrase from some other fans "FFA PVP" at the time I wasn't sure what people were talking about. After a few weeks of back and forth about what should be in and what shouldn't I learned from the attitude of fans of the idea what it meant and that was all I needed to learn that regardless of all the other cool things that seemed to be a part of the games plan this was going to be something that kept me away from playing the game.
From there the conversation was never again about anything remotely sandbox it was strictly about FFA PVP and it's hard to blame the devs for taking up those peoples cause because they were such the vocal group of people.
Let me end by saying this those who advocate and fight for FFA PVP are rarey if ever the people who praise other features of sandbox gameplay. My experience is those who want FFA PVP don't care about anything other than FFA PVP they don['t care aboout community involvment (unless we are talking about guilld runs of ganking/war) they don't care about crafting,building, or community relations for that matter.
To me FFA PVP is a feature unto itself that has little to nothing to do with actual sandbox gameplay.
This^ I'd love to see a good sandbox MMO, but not enough to put up with forced PvP.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
It's not fun being ganked over and over again while you try to mine with your non-combat character
Of course not. What is fun, however, is finding a way to make sure it doesn't happen again. Ask guild mates to escort you (opportunity to socialize), go find a safer spot to mine (opportunity to explore), give up mining for the time being, whip out your combat toon and stalk your aggressor until you're in a favorable enough position to dish out some vengeance (opportunity to PvP).
FFA PvP creates obstacles, obstacles that need to be surpassed. Figuring out how to beat those obstacles is where the fun is, to some of us at least. The great thing, unlike in themeparks, is that these obstacles are totally unpredictable because they're generated by other players.
Most of you see gankers as a nuisance, I see them as an event
I've played Ultima - actually what you would like to do when ganked is - switch to a combat character, level the combat skills up and even then you can't really protect yourself, cause gankers usually travel in groups and have lots of experience killing players like you, as they have spent all the time you crafted doing combat. So... the only way is to group up with others ... The whole thing really limits the versatility of the gameplay. The reason why many people want to play the sandbox games is because they don't want to limit their experience to the PvE and PvP combat, they want to travel, to craft, to build houses... but as soon as there is unlimited FFA PvP - the game quickly transforms into the fighting/ganking grounds... it also sets up the hierarchy in which combat is better than crafting as a good fighter can kill the crafter and steal his resources, but not the vice versa... furthermore - game devs looked at this and decided that it is because players really WANT to fight more than to craft - so games like WoW made everything except combat and raiding something little extra ... but the truth is - the gankers were the reason everybody else HAD TO get involved in combat... instead of regulating zones like I described above - most modern MMOs decide there should be only combat left... Really really sad.
The way I see it, sandbox games are mostly about freedom of choice and realism within the established virtual world.
If you're out on a hunting expedition and some peasant comes by and starts insulting you for no good reason, or tries to steal your game, the sandbox ruleset should allow you to deal with that person as you would most probably want to were you a ruthless medieval warrior or a blood thirsty Uruk Hai in Middle Earth, ie by thrusting your 5 foot, 2 handed axe in his face and then stripping him of all his belongings. Realism.
People generally believe that FFA PvP attracts the worste kind of people. I believe the exact opposite to be true. Environments where people are allowed to behave in the worste possible way without fear of any repercussion whatsoever is where the bad people go.
If everyone in the world has the power to dish out his own justice, then trust me, people think twice before behaving like jerks.
Of course this goes both ways. If someone has an advantage over you and is more powerful than you, he might very well be tempted to abuse that power and make your "virtual" life miserable. This obviously happens alot in these types of games BUT you can always organize, call for help, and retribute!
There's the beauty of the sandbox game.
In my opinion, but it's just that, FFA PvP is the key element in a sandbox game without which the game no longer makes any sense.
"If you're out on a hunting expedition and some peasant comes by and starts insulting you for no good reason, or tries to steal your game, the sandbox ruleset should allow you to deal with that person as you would most probably want to were you a ruthless medieval warrior or a blood thirsty Uruk Hai in Middle Earth, ie by thrusting your 5 foot, 2 handed axe in his face and then stripping him of all his belongings. Realism."
yup, i am all for realism. therefore after you did this, peasants "superiors" will come and either permakill you or throw you in jail for years of RL time.
"People generally believe that FFA PvP attracts the worste kind of people. I believe the exact opposite to be true. Environments where people are allowed to behave in the worste possible way without fear of any repercussion whatsoever is where the bad people go.
If everyone in the world has the power to dish out his own justice, then trust me, people think twice before behaving like jerks."
yeah, thats one of the usual FFA PVP fans "arguments", but is completely false.
reason is simple - more or less no game (with maybe exception of haven & hearth) has serious enough consequences for being a jerk. because if it would have, most of the people would not play such game ("why should i "play" a game where i do spend most of time in jail?). those same ffa pvp fans would cry how the game is ruined by punishment for their crimes.
that you can always get "revenge" by killing and looting them? yeah right - thats really revenge, when as someone who would prefer building/crafting/harvesting/pve you can "punish" pvp fan by pvping him.
The major mistake that most developers make when implementing FFA PvP into a sandbox is lack of consequences. A Sandbox as the article stated is a world created for the players to populate and evolve. In order for this to be a success it must by definition mirror the real world in some aspects, and in the real world there are real consequences if you just walk up to a helpless kid and smash him across the head with a baseball bat ( in the virtual space of course this equates to griefing, noob killing or whatever you wish to call it ). CCP went partway with Eve towards adding the consequences, with Concorde showing up to blow the crap out of you if you grief in high-sec space without good reason ( kill rights or war ) but they didn't take it far enough and that is why we see so much griefing going on in high-sec. I just used Eve as an example but the concept is valid in any sandbox setting.
The hard part of this is in deciding just how severe those consequences are; not severe enough and they do not act as the intended detterent, too severe and you lose players as the perp now sees himself as the victim and rage-quits. Without these consequences in place though you end up with a low pop sandbox struggling to survive ( Darkfall ) where 90% of the sandbox elements are ignored in favour of the FFA bloodbath and grieffest.
The way I see it, sandbox games are mostly about freedom of choice and realism within the established virtual world.
If you're out on a hunting expedition and some peasant comes by and starts insulting you for no good reason, or tries to steal your game, the sandbox ruleset should allow you to deal with that person as you would most probably want to were you a ruthless medieval warrior or a blood thirsty Uruk Hai in Middle Earth, ie by thrusting your 5 foot, 2 handed axe in his face and then stripping him of all his belongings. Realism.
People generally believe that FFA PvP attracts the worste kind of people. I believe the exact opposite to be true. Environments where people are allowed to behave in the worste possible way without fear of any repercussion whatsoever is where the bad people go.
If everyone in the world has the power to dish out his own justice, then trust me, people think twice before behaving like jerks.
Of course this goes both ways. If someone has an advantage over you and is more powerful than you, he might very well be tempted to abuse that power and make your "virtual" life miserable. This obviously happens alot in these types of games BUT you can always organize, call for help, and retribute!
There's the beauty of the sandbox game.
In my opinion, but it's just that, FFA PvP is the key element in a sandbox game without which the game no longer makes any sense.
Actually, the medievil times was the same as the cowboys days in america, and both were BLOODY!
Sure, the avg person could defend themselves against bad guys, but, this is not hollywood, the bad guys usually ran in packs. That means the avg person didnt stand a chance.
Thats when you got stuff like, knights and the possey, because the only way to really defeat the bad guys was to group up and hunt them down. You cant always do this in a MMO.
I've doing this for years now, and the only time I seen a griefer out alone, is if he was a high level toon in a low level area, ganking lowbies. Otherwise there were always more than one, working together to grief people. In EVE you saw it all the time.
There is only one way of dealing with FFA full loot PvP, and that is not to have it, because it brings out the worst in people, everytime!!
Comments
That poster did not say that all sandboxes had FFA PvP. The poster said that FFA PvP in general, alienates the sandbox crowd. In fact, the poster didn't even mention 'full loot' in that quoted paragraph.
Eeeexactly!
It's not about lumping things together. I never said FFA PvP or even Full loot FFA PvP is a must have in a sandbox. This discussion is about several other things
1. Can full loot FFA PvP function and still attract a large playerbase to the point where investors catch interest
2. will removing FFA PvP or even FFA full loot PvP from sandbox games be what it takes to finally make this popular enough to get a triple A title in the future
3. What would it take to keep FFA PvP/Full loot FFA PvP and be able to make everybody happy
You guys are getting off-target again.
New poster, please try and continue the discussion of how sandboxes can adapt and evolve to become a more popular genre. This discussion isn't about what a sandbox is, or what it isn't. Please talk about features and not your opinion of a definition.
I'll throw this back in there.
Partial loot - Full PvP. All WoW is, is a restricted FFA system that only allows you to attack half, instead of the entire playerbase. That's really not that different. Partial loot meaning inventory loss, not equipped items loss. Add item decay to the mix and you have fuel to drive the player economy. Make items less powerful than WoW, but strong enough to matter in combat. Make the most restrictive murder system to date, because players will still find a way to do it. Limit killing to 3-5 levels below the murderer and make level and skill points a different progression. Level should be tied to combat experience, as this would protect career crafters. Look what I did there guys. I fixed a ton of sandbox flaws by introducing some themepark features and attempting to fuse them together to make a better product.
These are things we should be discussing. Not trying to win an e-peen contest over game definitions.
There needs to be another factional PVP system similar to star wars. The Temporary Enemy Flag system was great.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
FFA PvP has been attempted in the past outside of sandbox games. DAoC had FFA PvP servers and they weren't popular bursting with players. EQ had FFA PvP servers and again not a big draw
The question still remains. Has the new generation of MMOs changed the perception of FFA PvP. As you said WoW practically has it. Every new MMO that comes out has PvP in it because it is a major draw.
The more you punish the player for dying by somebody elses hands you are going into niche territory like it or not. The more you protect and diminish the penalty for dying the more popular it will be. It's that simple
The best solution I can come up with is not to allow a situation where a person can't hope to win. That requires level restriction if the game is level progression based. Skill if the game is skill progression based. You can still zerg for easy kills but at least then the victims can organize themselves which is a motivator for more good pvp
Themeparks are already of the assumpion that FFA PvP is a niche mechanic which is why none of the newer themeparks has that server option. Sandboxes on the other hand are not afraid of including it because it's well in line with the "complete freedom" concept. If you want to make PvP restrictions to make it more appealing you are essentially working against the spirit of freedom. That's not the same as saying a sandbox must have FFA PvP without restriction. It has to have restrictions if it's ever going to be popular. I just don't see a successful way of doing it without turning it into something carebear. Then you alienate the hardcore crowd and we are back to WoWifying things
oyy I've had too much coffee
Theres at least 4 others here who are claiming you are wrong in your narrow defenition. Did you even read my post from yesterday where I took the exact defenition for all the terms used to describe sandbox MMO's in particular and games in general. Not only that but I pointed out your fallacy in your defenition claiming Skyrim wasnt a sandbox untill the tooldkit development kit was released which the head man of Bethesda himself called "HIS" game a sandbox world last year at E3. You sire are the one gasping at straws here and as ive stated and others here have stated your narrow definition is wrong and you need to own up to the mistake especially if you continue to promote some false narrative that no one in their right mind who is into sandbox style gameplay will define.
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 can pee on your leg and tell you that it is raining. It doesn't make it a fact. I consider Skyrim to be a Sandpark. Sandbox (to me) means that you can interact with the world. Not just be free to roam.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
What exactly is it I'm saying you disagree with. That building and creating is a defining feature? I guess we should just ignore the myriad of sandbox games that does not have skill progression, does not have free roam seamless exploration, does not have pvp at all, etc etc yet those are still called sandbox games. Why do you think that is
This game has none of the features you equate with sandbox No free roam exploration there either. Again the developers themselves has called it a sandbox because you have the freedom to build and create. Infact any sandbox ever made has that in common. They do not all share the same common features when it comes to YOUR defintion. Ergo those are not defining features.. Logic.
The Sims games are all sandboxes. If you took the creation tool away It would not be one. Are you starting to get it now?
If you want to define sandbox to "freedom to do whatever you want" then Skyrim still fails. Without the toolset you can't build your own house. You can't change things in the game outside of moving objects. In fact it doesn't have anything a themepark doesn't have, except the ability to move objects in the game. If that's a defining feature then Half Life 2 is a sandbox too. Give me a feature from skyrim you feel is sandboxy and I'll name at least 1 100% non sandbox game that does the same thing.
EVE does not have a "Huge Safe Zone called Empire". You can kill anyone, anywhere in EVE and take all their stuff. In Empire this is done through war declaration and suicide ganking. Putting in a system where you actually can't attack someone due to a game mechanic preventing you from doing this is a whole nuther animal.
FFA PVP setup works best for sandbox games. It lets guilds control politics of the game and with the full loot mechanic these wars have some teeth. It also lets some guilds destroy what others have created. If all you do is create, how fun would a sandbox really be? You would eventually just have too much stuff created with no one able to tear it down. The gameworld would become the equivilent of a massive city and things would never really change.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
FFA PvP is a waste of processor time. Look where it got MO and Darkfail....
You are wrong there, Empire is pretty much a safe zone, especially if you know what you are doing. War decs only work on corporations, not individuals and a suicide gank requires requires coordination of multiple accounts and is only done against high margin targets. Hence the only people who lose ships in high sec are the inexperienced.
I have never lost a transport to a suicide gank even though I regularly carry high margin cargoes. You don't need FFA PVP to have a great sandbox game, SWG proves that.
Oh and Skyrim is not even close to being a sandbox, it fails on mulitple accounts.
I would agree with you about SWG.
But I beg to disagree about UO, Trammel affect it in a negative way in my opinion.
A way to put it is as if you touk a bunch of people in a time machine from their Medieval Existance and transported them in to a Modern Develloped Society.
Yes, as modern societies it may have flourished, and people were able to concentrate in endeavors such as embelishing their houses and pockets and just enjoying the fruits of their labors.
But at the same time the game itself lost its Spirit and Atmosphere which originally appealed to so many.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
Wonderful discussion, good article.
Ok, FFA PVP doesnt work anymore because death is banalized. In the good old days we did respect the other players (or fear the consequences), nowdays de anonimity protect us and we lost the ´fear´ of dying. To have a sandbox with FFA PVP the death from a PvP should be something fearfull... Permadeath is out of question, for comercial reasons. However we can have a semi-permadeath, you know... A game wherer you can create only 1 char, when you die on PvP (and you are gray or red) you should stay somewhat of 2 hours without being able to ress with this char. If you die twice on a week, with the same char in the same conditions, you will get a hook of 3 days without ressing... 3 times on a week gives you a week out of the flesh...
Also a good system, to avoid expoilers (for instance puting itself in front of a mob to be hit and make the other guy gray). You can be ´acused´, by some kind of ´trial´ and be suspense by using the system as a way to exploit.
The only way to make FFA PVP work with sandbox is making the life of PKs misereable. Wanna be red? then you will have to be GOOD at it.... No naked ganking for you pal...
I would play a sandbox that isn't hardcore PVP. I would play a sandbox that is hardcore PVP if the gap between newb and strong was very very small. Drop me into a sandbox as a newb where strong players are 600 times more powerful and can gank me on a whim... no thanks. I'm not sufficiently masochistic to find it enjoyable.
Yeah - the future is behind the balanced mix of theme-park experience and old-school MMO features: housing, meaningful and useful crafting, socialising, adventuring - ect.
It's not fun being ganked over and over again while you try to mine with your non-combat character. What might be funny - some zones with special rewards (e.g. veins with special resources, required for the guilds only - not worthy for individual players) where the player killing is not prohibited, so there would be organised mining raids with guards and all to fight for guild resourses... maybe even putting some quick to build fortifications around the mining site to avoid being overrun by the enemy raid quickly. The possibilities are limitless and this won't harm the new players or those who like to wander alone...
I think that while mining/gathering you should receive some sort of buff. It would help you shake off that first hit and really pure crafters who aren't in armor shoudl be able to outrun anyone wearing battle gear.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Anyone know that awkward moment when you've totally crushed your opponent, and you and your friends are sitting on their corpses simultaneously realzing that everything is about to become really dull?
Yes, it lasts but a moment before you and your friends go look for more opponents while being completely smug.
The way I see it, sandbox games are mostly about freedom of choice and realism within the established virtual world.
If you're out on a hunting expedition and some peasant comes by and starts insulting you for no good reason, or tries to steal your game, the sandbox ruleset should allow you to deal with that person as you would most probably want to were you a ruthless medieval warrior or a blood thirsty Uruk Hai in Middle Earth, ie by thrusting your 5 foot, 2 handed axe in his face and then stripping him of all his belongings. Realism.
People generally believe that FFA PvP attracts the worste kind of people. I believe the exact opposite to be true. Environments where people are allowed to behave in the worste possible way without fear of any repercussion whatsoever is where the bad people go.
If everyone in the world has the power to dish out his own justice, then trust me, people think twice before behaving like jerks.
Of course this goes both ways. If someone has an advantage over you and is more powerful than you, he might very well be tempted to abuse that power and make your "virtual" life miserable. This obviously happens alot in these types of games BUT you can always organize, call for help, and retribute!
There's the beauty of the sandbox game.
In my opinion, but it's just that, FFA PvP is the key element in a sandbox game without which the game no longer makes any sense.
Of course not. What is fun, however, is finding a way to make sure it doesn't happen again. Ask guild mates to escort you (opportunity to socialize), go find a safer spot to mine (opportunity to explore), give up mining for the time being, whip out your combat toon and stalk your aggressor until you're in a favorable enough position to dish out some vengeance (opportunity to PvP).
FFA PvP creates obstacles, obstacles that need to be surpassed. Figuring out how to beat those obstacles is where the fun is, to some of us at least. The great thing, unlike in themeparks, is that these obstacles are totally unpredictable because they're generated by other players.
Most of you see gankers as a nuisance, I see them as an event
This^ I'd love to see a good sandbox MMO, but not enough to put up with forced PvP.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I've played Ultima - actually what you would like to do when ganked is - switch to a combat character, level the combat skills up and even then you can't really protect yourself, cause gankers usually travel in groups and have lots of experience killing players like you, as they have spent all the time you crafted doing combat. So... the only way is to group up with others ... The whole thing really limits the versatility of the gameplay. The reason why many people want to play the sandbox games is because they don't want to limit their experience to the PvE and PvP combat, they want to travel, to craft, to build houses... but as soon as there is unlimited FFA PvP - the game quickly transforms into the fighting/ganking grounds... it also sets up the hierarchy in which combat is better than crafting as a good fighter can kill the crafter and steal his resources, but not the vice versa... furthermore - game devs looked at this and decided that it is because players really WANT to fight more than to craft - so games like WoW made everything except combat and raiding something little extra ... but the truth is - the gankers were the reason everybody else HAD TO get involved in combat... instead of regulating zones like I described above - most modern MMOs decide there should be only combat left... Really really sad.
"If you're out on a hunting expedition and some peasant comes by and starts insulting you for no good reason, or tries to steal your game, the sandbox ruleset should allow you to deal with that person as you would most probably want to were you a ruthless medieval warrior or a blood thirsty Uruk Hai in Middle Earth, ie by thrusting your 5 foot, 2 handed axe in his face and then stripping him of all his belongings. Realism."
yup, i am all for realism. therefore after you did this, peasants "superiors" will come and either permakill you or throw you in jail for years of RL time.
"People generally believe that FFA PvP attracts the worste kind of people. I believe the exact opposite to be true. Environments where people are allowed to behave in the worste possible way without fear of any repercussion whatsoever is where the bad people go.
If everyone in the world has the power to dish out his own justice, then trust me, people think twice before behaving like jerks."
yeah, thats one of the usual FFA PVP fans "arguments", but is completely false.
reason is simple - more or less no game (with maybe exception of haven & hearth) has serious enough consequences for being a jerk. because if it would have, most of the people would not play such game ("why should i "play" a game where i do spend most of time in jail?). those same ffa pvp fans would cry how the game is ruined by punishment for their crimes.
that you can always get "revenge" by killing and looting them? yeah right - thats really revenge, when as someone who would prefer building/crafting/harvesting/pve you can "punish" pvp fan by pvping him.
The major mistake that most developers make when implementing FFA PvP into a sandbox is lack of consequences. A Sandbox as the article stated is a world created for the players to populate and evolve. In order for this to be a success it must by definition mirror the real world in some aspects, and in the real world there are real consequences if you just walk up to a helpless kid and smash him across the head with a baseball bat ( in the virtual space of course this equates to griefing, noob killing or whatever you wish to call it ). CCP went partway with Eve towards adding the consequences, with Concorde showing up to blow the crap out of you if you grief in high-sec space without good reason ( kill rights or war ) but they didn't take it far enough and that is why we see so much griefing going on in high-sec. I just used Eve as an example but the concept is valid in any sandbox setting.
The hard part of this is in deciding just how severe those consequences are; not severe enough and they do not act as the intended detterent, too severe and you lose players as the perp now sees himself as the victim and rage-quits. Without these consequences in place though you end up with a low pop sandbox struggling to survive ( Darkfall ) where 90% of the sandbox elements are ignored in favour of the FFA bloodbath and grieffest.
Actually, the medievil times was the same as the cowboys days in america, and both were BLOODY!
Sure, the avg person could defend themselves against bad guys, but, this is not hollywood, the bad guys usually ran in packs. That means the avg person didnt stand a chance.
Thats when you got stuff like, knights and the possey, because the only way to really defeat the bad guys was to group up and hunt them down. You cant always do this in a MMO.
I've doing this for years now, and the only time I seen a griefer out alone, is if he was a high level toon in a low level area, ganking lowbies. Otherwise there were always more than one, working together to grief people. In EVE you saw it all the time.
There is only one way of dealing with FFA full loot PvP, and that is not to have it, because it brings out the worst in people, everytime!!