What galls me about sandbox developers is that the notion of PvP *ALWAYS* means combat. There could be all kinds of PvP content that doesn't involve WTFBBQPWNing someone. Religion or Civil systems that expand influence based on building and upgrading structures, where only the largest/most advanced "controls" a region. Build the largest temple and keep the "faith points" at the highest level and your faction or guild or whatever receives the bonus.
Want to make a region free-for-all anarchy, then build a shrine to the god of chaos and keep whatever point system is in place above all the others and the region "falls" into anararchy. If you want a carebear crafter paradise then build and upkeep structures that give those protections and bonuses, etc. etc.
Even in games where the primary form of PvP is fighting, there can still be content that non-PvPers can take part in and support their guild/faction/whatever. Weapon crafters could make and sacrifice weapons to the god of war and give attack/damage/armor bonuses to their fighters.
Instead of these sorts of systems, though, what we usually get is inordinate amounts of time spent on PvP balancing when someone gets butthurt because they got rolled by Plat3dud3 and his BS OP halberd or something.
I spy an old school UOer.
I like your ideas. I am hoping some of the mechanics of Civ 5's Gods & Kings expansion rub off on MMO game devs. There are plenty of ways to create competitive gameplay and allow for meaningful player interaction with the game world/participants outside of unregulated homocide.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Instead of these sorts of systems, though, what we usually get is inordinate amounts of time spent on PvP balancing when someone gets butthurt because they got rolled by Plat3dud3 and his BS OP halberd or something.
This last bit made me chuckle, awesome.
I snipped for brevety, but I think your previous statements could bame for more interesting non combat based PvP.
Granted though, more for folks that don't feel the need to be Plat3dud3. But you know, he's probably covered.
Sandbox is about freedom to interact with and transform the enviroment and influences others. PVP artificial restrictions is a themepark thing that damages the ingame politics, diplomacy, social and even the economic enviroment. As the players interaction represents a huge proportion of the game, so a sandbox cant have such themepark thing in so much proportion. Even more, sandboxes have a huge amount of disputable itens in the open world, and the players disputing these itens represents about 50% of the fun "content" from the game (90% in the "endgame").
For all this, my answer to the thread is "no". Sandboxes cant have artificial pvp restrictions.
Sandbox is about freedom to interact with and transform the enviroment and influences others. PVP artificial restrictions is a themepark thing that damages the ingame politics, diplomacy, social and even the economic enviroment. As the players interaction represents a huge proportion of the game, so a sandbox cant have such themepark thing in so much proportion. Even more, sandboxes have a huge amount of disputable itens in the open world, and the players disputing these itens represents about 50% of the fun "content" from the game (90% in the "endgame").
For all this, my answer to the thread is "no". Sandboxes cant have artificial pvp restrictions.
Again, there are more ways to have player vs player conflict than just hacking at each other with weapons.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Sandbox is about freedom to interact with and transform the enviroment and influences others. PVP artificial restrictions is a themepark thing that damages the ingame politics, diplomacy, social and even the economic enviroment. As the players interaction represents a huge proportion of the game, so a sandbox cant have such themepark thing in so much proportion. Even more, sandboxes have a huge amount of disputable itens in the open world, and the players disputing these itens represents about 50% of the fun "content" from the game (90% in the "endgame").
For all this, my answer to the thread is "no". Sandboxes cant have artificial pvp restrictions.
Is there no other way to have political, diplomatic, social and economic interaction than by killing another player?
Why does a sandbox need to have disputable items? I don't think it does. I don't think that is even the draw.
edit - I will say the penultimate sandbox has pvp, because it is about freedom. Howver being able to do whatever you want, whenver you want is not a game. Games by definition have rules.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's not the PvP that's the problem, it's the griefing. Unwanted PvP is just a tool that a griefer uses. The more verbs you include in a sandbox, the more tools a griefer can find to kick the sand in peoples' faces.
If you look at UO for example, the differences between Fel and Trammel are not limited to just the ability to hit another player with a sword - it also has various other tweaks like whether you can block people's movement with improvised barricades or not. If you look at a game with as much freedom as Minecraft, there's simply no effective way to prevent the landscape from being terraformed into deathtraps, so instead the game gives player-admins sweeping powers to moderate who can connect to their server.
Sandbox is about freedom to interact with and transform the enviroment and influences others. PVP artificial restrictions is a themepark thing that damages the ingame politics, diplomacy, social and even the economic enviroment. As the players interaction represents a huge proportion of the game, so a sandbox cant have such themepark thing in so much proportion. Even more, sandboxes have a huge amount of disputable itens in the open world, and the players disputing these itens represents about 50% of the fun "content" from the game (90% in the "endgame").
For all this, my answer to the thread is "no". Sandboxes cant have artificial pvp restrictions.
I have always found open world FFA PvP very restrictive for player interaction. In an FFA PvP world a player is afraid of his playmates....if he is out fishing and sees someone running toward him he gets ready to fight or runs away. Won't stand still and greet the other one friendly. He won't even chat on local chat so that he could avoid random PKers hitting on him. So we get a lonely, quiet player out in the woods.
Same about politics and diplomatic. ATITD has a great politics system with player elected semi-pharaos and player voted in-game laws ( the devs code a law if it gets enough votes). This doesn't happen in a game where you can solve your problems by punching the other player in his face. Try to convince him when there is no way to kill him...that is what I call diplomatics. Otherwise its just brute force. Use your mind, your wit, your charm , your friendlyness to convince someone, that's much more interesting and challenging than simply using your sword.
Minecraft PVE server = sandbox co-op non pvp. it can be done, there are many servers as example, too many big ones to name them all. Some with over 400 people on at the same time. That is more than some MMOs listed on this site
Comments
I spy an old school UOer.
I like your ideas. I am hoping some of the mechanics of Civ 5's Gods & Kings expansion rub off on MMO game devs. There are plenty of ways to create competitive gameplay and allow for meaningful player interaction with the game world/participants outside of unregulated homocide.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This last bit made me chuckle, awesome.
I snipped for brevety, but I think your previous statements could bame for more interesting non combat based PvP.
Granted though, more for folks that don't feel the need to be Plat3dud3. But you know, he's probably covered.
Sandbox is about freedom to interact with and transform the enviroment and influences others. PVP artificial restrictions is a themepark thing that damages the ingame politics, diplomacy, social and even the economic enviroment. As the players interaction represents a huge proportion of the game, so a sandbox cant have such themepark thing in so much proportion. Even more, sandboxes have a huge amount of disputable itens in the open world, and the players disputing these itens represents about 50% of the fun "content" from the game (90% in the "endgame").
For all this, my answer to the thread is "no". Sandboxes cant have artificial pvp restrictions.
Again, there are more ways to have player vs player conflict than just hacking at each other with weapons.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Is there no other way to have political, diplomatic, social and economic interaction than by killing another player?
Why does a sandbox need to have disputable items? I don't think it does. I don't think that is even the draw.
edit - I will say the penultimate sandbox has pvp, because it is about freedom. Howver being able to do whatever you want, whenver you want is not a game. Games by definition have rules.
It's not the PvP that's the problem, it's the griefing. Unwanted PvP is just a tool that a griefer uses. The more verbs you include in a sandbox, the more tools a griefer can find to kick the sand in peoples' faces.
If you look at UO for example, the differences between Fel and Trammel are not limited to just the ability to hit another player with a sword - it also has various other tweaks like whether you can block people's movement with improvised barricades or not. If you look at a game with as much freedom as Minecraft, there's simply no effective way to prevent the landscape from being terraformed into deathtraps, so instead the game gives player-admins sweeping powers to moderate who can connect to their server.
I have always found open world FFA PvP very restrictive for player interaction. In an FFA PvP world a player is afraid of his playmates....if he is out fishing and sees someone running toward him he gets ready to fight or runs away. Won't stand still and greet the other one friendly. He won't even chat on local chat so that he could avoid random PKers hitting on him. So we get a lonely, quiet player out in the woods.
Same about politics and diplomatic. ATITD has a great politics system with player elected semi-pharaos and player voted in-game laws ( the devs code a law if it gets enough votes). This doesn't happen in a game where you can solve your problems by punching the other player in his face. Try to convince him when there is no way to kill him...that is what I call diplomatics. Otherwise its just brute force. Use your mind, your wit, your charm , your friendlyness to convince someone, that's much more interesting and challenging than simply using your sword.