Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

MMO Devs listen up - OPT-IN Open World PvP



  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 511Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Open World PVP is a "inevitable" and mandatory feature in sandbox mmos, since these mmos try to simulate a "realistic" competion between humans for political/geopolitical domains, ownerships, resources and etc. Without OWPvP, that competion and its social consequences (necessity of in-game alliances, friendships, political intrigues, tactics for self-defense, etc) ceases to exist.

    Actualy I'm going to disagree with this, because it assumes that the players are the ONLY powers that exist in a sandbox game. That simply does not need to be true. "Sandbox" simply implies that the players have a significant creative role in shaping the game narrative/environment.  It does not imply that there are NO other powers in the game world that the players must deal with....or even that the players are by any stretch of the imagination the most powerfull entities in the game world. "Sandbox" certainly leaves room for other entities/powers to exist in the world that the players must deal with....including ones that the players may recognize as vastly more powerfull then themselves.

    There are plenty of examples in real world history (and even greater room for them to exist in fiction) where individuals/groups/factions even nations had to abide by rules of engagement for where they could and could not conduct hostilities. Even if you would really like to cut down someone of an opposing faction, you simply aren't going to do so if it means violating the neutrality of a power that could crush you like a bug. Since most games don't have perma-death (and no creation of a new account if you are killed), one effective way to simulate this effect is "safe zones".

    Having such a mechanic does not prevent the game from being a "sandbox"....even real world "sandboxes" have some basic boundaries and rules that control thier use.


    I agree with 95% that you said. My only disageement is: these "extern forces" that imposes laws occurs where are organized states or empires. The majority of the sandboxes mmos try to simulate precisely the situations of anarchy, where there is no established powers and the players are these powers in struggle for political domain.

    And more: the forces os law CAN'T block the players from commiting crimes, but only punish them AFTER the crime happens. Therefore, a sandbox mmo aspiring to be "realistic" cant block pvp, only establish punishments to who engages in them.



  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDPosts: 3,493Member Rare
    but players have already given up realism in the fact that they can not be perma-killed for committing crimes or for those opposed to capital punishment having their character locked away for life.
  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 511Member Uncommon

    Well... IMHO, themepark mmos are in nothing different from the single-player games, since that even these lasts, nowadays, can be played in multiplayer mode. Thus, to play a pure themepark mmo or a modern single-player is not so differente in concept. However, the "pve" content of the single-player games are a lot more complex, dinamic, rich and tangled with the story than the themepark mmos (more space and freedon to cmplex dinamics and events). Therefore, single-player games are better than themepark mmo if what you seek is only the story and "pve" content.



  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Horusra
    but players have already given up realism in the fact that they can not be perma-killed for committing crimes or for those opposed to capital punishment having their character locked away for life.


    The logical extension of a character that jeopordized a significant power blocks status by bringing down the ire of a major power on them would be that they would be ruthlessly hunted down and locked in a box for the rest of enternity or perma-killed. A game can't accurately simulate this by punishment, since the player could simply create a new account. The most "realistic" way to simulate that would actualy be to prevent the characters ability to engage in hostile actions in the first place.

    Although I'm not completely adverse to situations where a "safe zone" is implimented simply by having NPC forces come and kill/arrest the offending character and remove them from gameplay/or forcibly eject them from the zone...and then establish Kill On Sight orders for that character from that point forward whenever they tried to enter that zone.


    P.S. I wasn't really aware that situations of  anarchy were a requirement for "sandbox's" or even a scenario that most sandboxs sought to protray. I do agree though, in a situation where there was a complete breakdown of social order (e.g. "Lord of the Flies") there wouldn't be much in the way of "safe zones", at least not ones that owed thier existance to social institutions rather then supernatural forces.


  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    I should note that I'm not ENTIRELY opposed to the idea of the entire game-world being a  "free fire zone" but I think it creates 3 rather significant problems:

    1) It tends to make the game rather unwelcoming/unfreindly to newer players. Players that are brand new to the game (possibly even brand new to MMO's) generaly tend to NEED/WANT some space to LEARN the basics of how to play the game....possibly even such basic things as moving/communicating... exposing them to PvP at this point actualy PREVENTS them from learning how to play the game. This is especialy true since such areas will tend to draw gankers who stalk these areas looking for "easy kills".  This properly isn't PvP, it's Player vs Victem....if a player doesn't even know how to move or ready a weapon yet, they have ZERO chance to fight an attacker. If you allow this, the ONLY thing most of your new players are likely to learn is to NOT LOGIN TO YOUR GAME.  Despite the fact that many of them might have enjoyed the game if they had been given sufficient opportunity to learn the ropes a bit before being exposed to combat.  End result you'll end up having very few new players joining your game.

    2) If PvP is allowed everywhere, it tends to trump all other activities....because it only takes on idiot to draw a gun to start the bullets flying. So you can pretty much forget about the RP-ers as they won't have any space/room to RP in. Again ALOT of these people (myself included in this) would actualy play a game that was heavly PvP focused... IF they knew they also had some space to RP in where they knew such activity wouldn't be interrupted.

    3) You lose the people who actualy may actualy enjoy significant PvP but occasionaly want something else which is a bit less tense to do.

    So, you are actualy cutting out (unneccesarly) pretty large swaths of players who actualy WOULD engage in the type of gameplay and game you enjoy playing if you just carved out a bit of space where they didn't have to deal with that if they didn't want to at that time. We aren't talking about creating a game that was mostly PVE with some ghetto'd (mostly instanced/battelground) PvP tacked on.... you could probably get away with only 10-20 percent of the game area being SAFE zones and easly avoid turning off those people.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 6,230Member Epic

    "Flags" and open world PvP should never, ever mix.


    Make your PvP optional by  restricting it to certain areas (DAoC) if you must, but as soon as you allow "flags" into the equation it has failed.  



    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member Common

    What about servers? Those who want Open World PvP could all go to a specific server(s) set up for them. EQ1 did that. What is wrong with that solution? Does that not work very well? (I don't know. I never rolled on a PvP server.)

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.

  • TofkeTofke GeelPosts: 266Member Uncommon

    I'm what people would call a carebear... I play on pve and don't give much about pvp.

    Yet I did pvp in the games I played, and wasn't crap at it either... Just did it for fun and not for ego (like most being obsessed about it :p).

    But so far there hasn't been any game where I pvp'd as much as SWG. They did it right, the game lends itself wonderfull for pvp and most of all they didn't force me, who knew that made me more pvp enabled than in any other game out there :p

    And like the OP I have wondered quite a lot of times why there aren't more developers going that way.

    But in all honesty I wonder why they didn't copy and modernize quite some mechanics from SWG. Harvesting, crafting, housing and city building, mounts,... Them awsome Teras Kasi animations! xD No mather how many flaws it had, that game had massive potential. (and it was frustrating like hell to see what SOE did with it :p)

Sign In or Register to comment.