Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Medieval Sandbox MMO from independent team

123457

Comments

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Korn42

    Hi all,

    just to clarify, in the current state of the game, "classical" FFA PvP does not play a major role, largely due to griefing and zerging concerns.

    We have developed a great solution for territory based GvG and structured territory based open PvP that we are quite proud of and of which we think is one of the best innovations of our game.

    However, this is something that we do not want to disclose in a piece by piece manner, but rather at a later stage in a proper dev blog or video.

    -Dominik

    If I understand the explanations in this thread and the copy on the Albion website correctly:

    • - warfare is guild vs guild
    • - guilds can attack adjacent territories
    • - caps will be placed in combat areas to prevent zerging
    • - a guild of 5 or so players can effectively hold and manage a territory
    • - players can build their own villages on their territory

     

    If you can pull that off, you're sitting on a goldmine.

     

     

    It seems like they'd have to use some sort of Battlegrounds system for this.

    It's getting so that I hate to apply terms to things, but this doesn't seem like an open world Sandbox to me. That's not to say that it can't be a fine game, I'm still very curious about the specifics and the game as a whole. It just doesn't sound like the Sandbox game I'd really like to see. But lacking having one of them, a good alternative still might be in play.

    From my perspective, the ideal situation is to make warfare cost a boatload, so that attacking someone is costly and weekens you to other possibilities. While a 5 person guild can use this tactically for defense, but not claim a dominant position on their own. I see that scenario (a mere 5 person guild gaining a dominant power position) as bad, and think that numbers and cooperation and all the player to player interaction is as important in building a social powerhouse as resources are.

    Smart people > Something awful/reddit zerg :P

     

    The game would be far better off served by having balance such that smart people can dominate in smaller groups even facing massive zergs, this is the one point where I kinda dislike EVE-Online... no matter how smart you are if the other guy can zerg you to death it's a lost battle.

    image
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by StarI
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Technically speaking it can be proven right because doing A will always result in B in a themepark (IE raiding will always result in loot, regardless of the type of loot one action leads to one finite, knowable result), 

     

    I dissagree with that, simply because you've made up your own system in which the end result is loot as such. But you can't just remove and ignore a constant pretending it is not there...

    In my (actual) system the end result acknowledges the type of loot as well, meaning the first quote can not be proven right.

    Even if we take your system and say you're right, a simple  "no loot result"( because loot can either drop or not) seems very possible which would make your theory wrong.

    Name one themepark game where you kill something and you get nothing for your effort besides experience.

    image
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    In any event, nothing wrong with making the game you want to make....it just struck me as rather odd how often Developers seem to equate the concept of Sandbox with FFA PvP.


    Might I suggest looking up the term Sandbox before equating it with the Open World genre? They are quite distinct after all.

    I'm not....and one would find neither defined in dictionary or thesaurus, because there is no commonly accepted definition of said term that nearly everyone agrees upon. The terms are very subjective.

    However, AFAIC, "sandbox" simply implies the opportunity for significant player input and creativity in shaping the environment of the game and the narratives that occur within it. That doesn't mean that there are ZERO restrictions imposed upon the players....the "BOX" in "Sandbox"...nor no other forces in the world that could IMPOSE thier will upon the players if they acted in contravention to certain acceptable mores.

    The Haiku and Sonnet are not disqualified from being considered creative works simply because they are constrained to a certain form. Nor would a game, IMO, be disqualified from being considered a "sandbox" by placing some very broad constraints on player behavior.

    Would you expect to play a Klingon armed with a disrupter in a Medieval Fantasy Game? Then why would you not accept that some power greater then your own (a Diety, Society, a Magic Spell) could place some constraint upon the legitimate targets for direct hostility that your character could engage....yet still leave very broad latitude for your characters behavior within those constraints. If you were not living in a state of near anarchy....and you required the support of your own society to be effective....would it not be logical, then, that you would very quickly and permanently be removed from the world (and hence the game) IF you chose to act in such a way that directly contraviened that socities mores? Why would it be fruitfull for the Developers to model something that would inevitably result in the players removal from the game....especialy when they could not mechanicaly achieve such results, given the ability of players to create new accounts?

  • StarIStarI Mount EverestPosts: 926Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    Name one themepark game where you kill something and you get nothing for your effort besides experience.

    I can tell you planty of themeparks who support what I said and give planty of different results on an entirely cloned dungeon run.

    I certainly don't have to give examples for Your theoreticaly placed sytem in which you're proving your own technical rights.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    In any event, nothing wrong with making the game you want to make....it just struck me as rather odd how often Developers seem to equate the concept of Sandbox with FFA PvP.


    Might I suggest looking up the term Sandbox before equating it with the Open World genre? They are quite distinct after all.

    I'm not....and one would find neither defined in dictionary or thesaurus, because there is no commonly accepted definition of said term that nearly everyone agrees upon. The terms are very subjective.

    However, AFAIC, "sandbox" simply implies the opportunity for significant player input and creativity in shaping the environment of the game and the narratives that occur within it. That doesn't mean that there are ZERO restrictions imposed upon the players....the "BOX" in "Sandbox"...nor no other forces in the world that could IMPOSE thier will upon the players if they acted in contravention to certain acceptable mores.

    The Haiku and Sonnet are not disqualified from being considered creative works simply because they are constrained to a certain form. Nor would a game, IMO, be disqualified from being considered a "sandbox" by placing some very broad constraints on player behavior.

    Would you expect to play a Klingon armed with a disrupter in a Medieval Fantasy Game? Then why would you not accept that some power greater then your own (a Diety, Society, a Magic Spell) could place some constraint upon the legitimate targets for direct hostility that your character could engage....yet still leave very broad latitude for your characters behavior within those constraints. If you were not living in a state of near anarchy....and you required the support of your own society to be effective....would it not be logical, then, that you would very quickly and permanently be removed from the world (and hence the game) IF you chose to act in such a way that directly contraviened that socities mores? Why would it be fruitfull for the Developers to model something that would inevitably result in the players removal from the game....especialy when they could not mechanicaly achieve such results, given the ability of players to create new accounts?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world very easy and if you actually google "definition of a sandbox game" you get:

    http://www.techopedia.com/definition/3952/sandbox

    http://mmogamersauce.wordpress.com/category/defining-sandbox-series/

    http://www.wordnik.com/words/sandbox%20game

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/02/29/the-daily-grind-how-would-you-define-a-sandbox-mmo/

    And so on and so on.

    Open World MMOs = Single player Sandboxes for the very simple reason that you're lacking almost a half of the pallet of human emotions by denying players the choice of killing each other, in single player games such as Skyrim there are never other players around and you can kill anything in-game (excluding children for some completely arbitrary reason) ergo it is a sandbox.

    Sandbox MMOs allow all forms of interactions from the hostile to the downright overly attached variety between their players, you're mistaking mechanics and aesthetics linked constraints with arbitrary ones (no pvp vs full pvp), true a full sandbox MMO could allow you to be a klingon in a tutu banging the british queen in front of crowd of adoring anthromorphs but such games are impossible to make because they'd require thousands of years of work just to cover the possible variations of ideas just one individual could have ergo in the interest of sanity and budget the developers constrain a sandbox's choices such that it is fair for all gamers and possible to even make but make no mistake once you constrain the player to player interactions on a arbitrary basis, read: not because it would ease the production of the game by several thousands of years, then you move from a sandbox where one player can choose to build a castle and the other one to shit on that guy's castle because of x reason to a open world game, do not get me wrong open world games are fun in and of themselves but they are not sandboxes, they are games with arbitrary restrictions on gameplay catered towards a specific crowd of people.

     

    To explain more simply: The universe which is made up of mechanics and aesthetics + lore is your box, the sand are your choices, if you take away the conflict and strife possible with FFA open world full loot PVP then you move from a sandbox to a box filled with molten adamantium where whatever you build is eternal (that is to say no one can take it away from you) which to put it bluntly isn't a sandbox anymore now is it? This is what makes or breaks a Sandbox MMO, no strife possible between the players with consequences possibly stretching months or years down the line (ex: Take a look at the history of war between Goonswarm and Band of Brothers in EVE-Online) then your game is a open world game where the best you can ever get is guild drama and speaking as someone who rather dislikes not being able to order a hit on a particularly... special individual for his/her part in a shitstorm of epic proportions I'd rather get ganked and lose all my crap than not be able to go "Say hello to my little friend" to particularly douchy players.

    Originally posted by StarI
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    Name one themepark game where you kill something and you get nothing for your effort besides experience.

    I can tell you planty of themeparks who support what I said and give planty of different results on an entirely cloned dungeon run.

    I certainly don't have to give examples for Your theoreticaly placed sytem in which you're proving your own technical rights.

    So you have examples but somehow do not want to state them? That in my world is called: Bullshit.

    image
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon

    Sandbox has nothing to do with pvp, they are 2 distinct systems.  Sandbox is just about player derived content, the players essentially making content (not solely but they can derive and influence it)

    Pvp is one way to do this, probably the most common but definately not the only one.  Atitd is a sandbox, there is no pvp.  Istaria is a sandbox there is no pvp.  Swg was a sandbox, you could play without pvp if you wanted to.

     

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • StarIStarI Mount EverestPosts: 926Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    So you have examples but somehow do not want to state them? That in my world is called: Bullshit.

    Yes you are full of it atm. I pointed out  at a failed logical step you did and now you're cruching on this? You actually got butthurt over it, haha please. 

    Where did YOU answer me how your system where a droped axe equals droped sword is actually a valid system than can support your statement about said technicalities? 

    I'll be sportsman tho and answer your question. ANY mmorpg in existance can have a boss with a no drop result on loot table as one of results. A simple bug can be the couse and our mathmatical system that suposedly our human ancestor have invented will prove me right and if you're mathematician you can calculate and see that statisticaly if you do enaugh tries a bug like that will come into existance and couse the said no loot result.

    Unless you want to clame all mmorpgs, themeparks namely if you wish, are absolutely perfect without any bug what so ever.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by StarI
    Originally posted by Dihoru

    So you have examples but somehow do not want to state them? That in my world is called: Bullshit.

    Yes you are full of it atm. I pointed out  at a failed logical step you did and now you're cruching on this? You actually got butthurt over it, haha please. 

    Where did YOU answer me how your system where a droped axe equals droped sword is actually a valid system than can support your statement about said technicalities? 

    I'll be sportsman tho and answer your question. ANY mmorpg in existance can have a boss with a no drop result on loot table as one of results. A simple bug can be the couse and our mathmatical system that suposedly our human ancestor have invented will prove me right and if you're mathematician you can calculate and see that statisticaly if you do enaugh tries a bug like that will come into existance and couse the said no loot result.

    Unless you want to clame all mmorpgs, themeparks namely if you wish, are absolutely perfect without any bug what so ever.

    First off learn to spell.

    Second off: Can have does not mean will have and I have yet to hear examples of MMORPGs where you kill something and you get nothing for your troubles and this not being a bug beyond your own opinion which if we'd start admitting as true we'd have to do for everyone around the forums (I can't name one and I've played allot of em including the rather unique case of Entropia Universe which actually would have a reason to give you nothing and yet still does).

    image
  • StarIStarI Mount EverestPosts: 926Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    First off learn to spell.

    Second off: Can have does not mean will have and I have yet to hear examples of MMORPGs where you kill something and you get nothing for your troubles and this not being a bug beyond your own opinion which if we'd start admitting as true we'd have to do for everyone around the forums (I can't name one and I've played allot of em including the rather unique case of Entropia Universe which actually would have a reason to give you nothing and yet still does).

     

    That's so weak. And now nothing but a waste of time since you seem unable to do any real logical connections in the conversation and instead keep dragging it down to irrelevant personal level. I will leave you with wiki so you can learn more quotes and pretend you're actually smart.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by StarI
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    First off learn to spell.

    Second off: Can have does not mean will have and I have yet to hear examples of MMORPGs where you kill something and you get nothing for your troubles and this not being a bug beyond your own opinion which if we'd start admitting as true we'd have to do for everyone around the forums (I can't name one and I've played allot of em including the rather unique case of Entropia Universe which actually would have a reason to give you nothing and yet still does).

     

    That's so weak. And now nothing but a waste of time since you seem unable to do any real logical connections in the conversation and instead keep dragging it down to irrelevant personal level. I will leave you with wiki so you can learn more quotes and pretend you're actually smart.

    Good, you found spell check at least, shame the phrasing still needs allot of work. Have fun and btw I used examples from other places not just wiki (and the quotes you find there can also be found in many other places) which is allot more than you've done, nice troll attempt if that's what it was if not, sad.

    image
  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,430Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Korn42

    Hi all,

    just to clarify, in the current state of the game, "classical" FFA PvP does not play a major role, largely due to griefing and zerging concerns.

    We have developed a great solution for territory based GvG and structured territory based open PvP that we are quite proud of and of which we think is one of the best innovations of our game.

    However, this is something that we do not want to disclose in a piece by piece manner, but rather at a later stage in a proper dev blog or video.

    -Dominik

    If I understand the explanations in this thread and the copy on the Albion website correctly:

    • - warfare is guild vs guild
    • - guilds can attack adjacent territories
    • - caps will be placed in combat areas to prevent zerging
    • - a guild of 5 or so players can effectively hold and manage a territory
    • - players can build their own villages on their territory

     

    If you can pull that off, you're sitting on a goldmine.

     

     

    It seems like they'd have to use some sort of Battlegrounds system for this.

    It's getting so that I hate to apply terms to things, but this doesn't seem like an open world Sandbox to me. That's not to say that it can't be a fine game, I'm still very curious about the specifics and the game as a whole. It just doesn't sound like the Sandbox game I'd really like to see. But lacking having one of them, a good alternative still might be in play.

    From my perspective, the ideal situation is to make warfare cost a boatload, so that attacking someone is costly and weekens you to other possibilities. While a 5 person guild can use this tactically for defense, but not claim a dominant position on their own. I see that scenario (a mere 5 person guild gaining a dominant power position) as bad, and think that numbers and cooperation and all the player to player interaction is as important in building a social powerhouse as resources are.

    Smart people > Something awful/reddit zerg :P

     

    The game would be far better off served by having balance such that smart people can dominate in smaller groups even facing massive zergs, this is the one point where I kinda dislike EVE-Online... no matter how smart you are if the other guy can zerg you to death it's a lost battle.

    How "smart" is it for a few people to take on an army? "Smart" isn't what you are looking for, "guarantees regardless" is.

    A doctored game. Insurance against losing. Fairness no matter.

    Once upon a time....

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Korn42

    Hi all,

    just to clarify, in the current state of the game, "classical" FFA PvP does not play a major role, largely due to griefing and zerging concerns.

    We have developed a great solution for territory based GvG and structured territory based open PvP that we are quite proud of and of which we think is one of the best innovations of our game.

    However, this is something that we do not want to disclose in a piece by piece manner, but rather at a later stage in a proper dev blog or video.

    -Dominik

    If I understand the explanations in this thread and the copy on the Albion website correctly:

    • - warfare is guild vs guild
    • - guilds can attack adjacent territories
    • - caps will be placed in combat areas to prevent zerging
    • - a guild of 5 or so players can effectively hold and manage a territory
    • - players can build their own villages on their territory

     

    If you can pull that off, you're sitting on a goldmine.

     

     

    It seems like they'd have to use some sort of Battlegrounds system for this.

    It's getting so that I hate to apply terms to things, but this doesn't seem like an open world Sandbox to me. That's not to say that it can't be a fine game, I'm still very curious about the specifics and the game as a whole. It just doesn't sound like the Sandbox game I'd really like to see. But lacking having one of them, a good alternative still might be in play.

    From my perspective, the ideal situation is to make warfare cost a boatload, so that attacking someone is costly and weekens you to other possibilities. While a 5 person guild can use this tactically for defense, but not claim a dominant position on their own. I see that scenario (a mere 5 person guild gaining a dominant power position) as bad, and think that numbers and cooperation and all the player to player interaction is as important in building a social powerhouse as resources are.

    Smart people > Something awful/reddit zerg :P

     

    The game would be far better off served by having balance such that smart people can dominate in smaller groups even facing massive zergs, this is the one point where I kinda dislike EVE-Online... no matter how smart you are if the other guy can zerg you to death it's a lost battle.

    How "smart" is it for a few people to take on an army? "Smart" isn't what you are looking for, "guarantees regardless" is.

    A doctored game. Insurance against losing. Fairness no matter.

     

    But seriously it should be a game balanced on the notion that if you're a small group of people going up against a zerg guild through careful battle doctrine you could whittle away their numbers through morale draining raids and hit and run attacks. That's what I mean, not all out and out battles but applying your resources in such a way that you can win against a oponent who does not apply his in equal if not better way regardless if numbers are on either side. That's what I'd like to see in this game and not the derpfest EVE has become since most 0.0 alliances/blocks can now just drop supercaps on any small group they feel like it, before titans and supercarriers the battles were more interesting the wars were more battles of morale attrition, nowadays it's just who's got more titans and isn't in a persistant vegetative coma.

    image
  • AmarantharAmaranthar OhioPosts: 2,430Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Amaranthar
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Korn42

    Hi all,

    just to clarify, in the current state of the game, "classical" FFA PvP does not play a major role, largely due to griefing and zerging concerns.

    We have developed a great solution for territory based GvG and structured territory based open PvP that we are quite proud of and of which we think is one of the best innovations of our game.

    However, this is something that we do not want to disclose in a piece by piece manner, but rather at a later stage in a proper dev blog or video.

    -Dominik

    If I understand the explanations in this thread and the copy on the Albion website correctly:

    • - warfare is guild vs guild
    • - guilds can attack adjacent territories
    • - caps will be placed in combat areas to prevent zerging
    • - a guild of 5 or so players can effectively hold and manage a territory
    • - players can build their own villages on their territory

     

    If you can pull that off, you're sitting on a goldmine.

     

     

    It seems like they'd have to use some sort of Battlegrounds system for this.

    It's getting so that I hate to apply terms to things, but this doesn't seem like an open world Sandbox to me. That's not to say that it can't be a fine game, I'm still very curious about the specifics and the game as a whole. It just doesn't sound like the Sandbox game I'd really like to see. But lacking having one of them, a good alternative still might be in play.

    From my perspective, the ideal situation is to make warfare cost a boatload, so that attacking someone is costly and weekens you to other possibilities. While a 5 person guild can use this tactically for defense, but not claim a dominant position on their own. I see that scenario (a mere 5 person guild gaining a dominant power position) as bad, and think that numbers and cooperation and all the player to player interaction is as important in building a social powerhouse as resources are.

    Smart people > Something awful/reddit zerg :P

     

    The game would be far better off served by having balance such that smart people can dominate in smaller groups even facing massive zergs, this is the one point where I kinda dislike EVE-Online... no matter how smart you are if the other guy can zerg you to death it's a lost battle.

    How "smart" is it for a few people to take on an army? "Smart" isn't what you are looking for, "guarantees regardless" is.

    A doctored game. Insurance against losing. Fairness no matter.

     

    But seriously it should be a game balanced on the notion that if you're a small group of people going up against a zerg guild through careful battle doctrine you could whittle away their numbers through morale draining raids and hit and run attacks. That's what I mean, not all out and out battles but applying your resources in such a way that you can win against a oponent who does not apply his in equal if not better way regardless if numbers are on either side. That's what I'd like to see in this game and not the derpfest EVE has become since most 0.0 alliances/blocks can now just drop supercaps on any small group they feel like it, before titans and supercarriers the battles were more interesting the wars were more battles of morale attrition, nowadays it's just who's got more titans and isn't in a persistant vegetative coma.

    Ah, well, yes. I can agree with that. I just think that numbers should be important. But I also think that zergs need the challenge of maintenance. As I stated above, it should cost just for the act of going to war.

    Basically, I want a more realistic game. Imagine your comment here if there are supply lines that your small guild can break, harassment, etc., and playing a waiting game while the attacker weakens themselves and a third party decides it's a darn good time to take some other holdings, and forcing your attacker to pull out. Or alliances, "you attack them there, and if you do I have another guild who's ready to attack them over there, and we'll beat the crap out of that zerg."

    Imagine true player mercenary armies for hire.

     

    Once upon a time....

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by Dibdabs
    Originally posted by Bercilak

    I know what you mean. However we added a lot of game design elements to prevent "Zerging" or "griefing of lower tier players". It will not be profitable for a high tier player to gank noobs. 

    That's never stopped the griefers, and never will.  Their reward is the satisfaction of spoiling someone else's game.

    I agree. Griefers feel empowered when they can ruin someone else's fun. That is why you rarely see griefing in ThemePark MMOs with no death penalty. I played on the WAR PvP servers, at launch, and even though it was possible for higher levels to gank noobs it rarely happened because you lost almost nothing when dying.

    However, in games like Eve, where you lose so much. Getting ganked in low security zone is a guarantee, even if you fly a crap ship, not worth anything, because they know that killing and podding you still hurts. You have to get a new clone, get a new ship, new modules etc etc.

    I believe a happy balance is the best. Allow for FFA PvP but make the death penalty moderate, such that you "lose" maybe 10 minutes of your time. That way death wont be meaningless but also not so bad that griefers will get a kick out of griefing you.

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Dibdabs
    Originally posted by Bercilak

    I know what you mean. However we added a lot of game design elements to prevent "Zerging" or "griefing of lower tier players". It will not be profitable for a high tier player to gank noobs. 

    That's never stopped the griefers, and never will.  Their reward is the satisfaction of spoiling someone else's game.

    I agree. Griefers feel empowered when they can ruin someone else's fun. That is why you rarely see griefing in ThemePark MMOs with no death penalty. I played on the WAR PvP servers, at launch, and even though it was possible for higher levels to gank noobs it rarely happened because you lost almost nothing when dying.

    However, in games like Eve, where you lose so much. Getting ganked in low security zone is a guarantee, even if you fly a crap ship, not worth anything, because they know that killing and podding you still hurts. You have to get a new clone, get a new ship, new modules etc etc.

    I believe a happy balance is the best. Allow for FFA PvP but make the death penalty moderate, such that you "lose" maybe 10 minutes of your time. That way death wont be meaningless but also not so bad that griefers will get a kick out of griefing you.

    You're complaining that you autopiloted through low sec or didn't plan accordingly for the trip and got ganked? Are you seriously gonna bring that argument to the table? Because I got a few choice words to definitively counter it: electronics level 5, cloaking level 4, covert ops level 4 + your choice of faction frigate to level 5 and you'll be laughing at any gate camps you run into including the bubble camps in 0.0/wormhole space ( I still have my original anathema complete with the original set of scanning rigs I put into it, which defaulted into large rigs when they rigs got split into small/medium/large types and the ship is almost 7 years old and has been through major fleet battles in over 3 wars in 3 different regions).

     

    Also your "happy" balance will just feed griefers and bring in the griefertards from WoW and WoW-clones who grief people just cause they ran across them (think I am joking? try grinding mobs in northrend to gain a level on a pvp server and see how long it takes for a level capped blood elf pally with full pvp gear to drop on your ass and 2 shot you because you're at least 10 levels below him and in pve gear of the non-raid variety), because with no consequence beyond "10 minutes" people won't care about them as a collective and the griefers will just go about their jobs ruining your gameplay experience at which point you'll moan going "FFA PVP SUXOR THE DEVS ARE FAIL!".

     

    If you can't be bothered to think your moves in a game, think what you need with you, what you can afford to lose and what you need to put in the bank then this is most definately not your game as you'll be crying you just lost everything when anyone with even the least bit of tactical knowledge knows "never bring anything you cannot afford to lose" (that's the best piece of advice you'll ever hear in a real sandbox game and while you'll no doubt continue thinking this is unfair and a game is supposed to be "fun" , your fun is not my fun and I like a game where I can jump into it, find a band of like minded individuals and get on with doing whatever (hunting creatures, hunting other players or just plain old bashing numbers together thinking of which way to optimize production quotas, yeah I got a few good friends in EVE with whom I do just that and while the latter might bore you and the hunting players part might horrify you it is all in good fun and we sometimes are the ones who end up dead, in which case we all pm the guys who beat us and congratulate them on a good fight)).

    image
  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member
    Originally posted by Korn42

    Hi all,

    just to clarify, in the current state of the game, "classical" FFA PvP does not play a major role, largely due to griefing and zerging concerns.

    We have developed a great solution for territory based GvG and structured territory based open PvP that we are quite proud of and of which we think is one of the best innovations of our game.

    However, this is something that we do not want to disclose in a piece by piece manner, but rather at a later stage in a proper dev blog or video.

    -Dominik

     

    Ah fair enough. Assume you'll post updates on your website 1st and foremost (blog?)?

  • BercilakBercilak Albion Online BerlinPosts: 108Member
    Originally posted by MumboJumbo
    Originally posted by Korn42

    Hi all,

    just to clarify, in the current state of the game, "classical" FFA PvP does not play a major role, largely due to griefing and zerging concerns.

    We have developed a great solution for territory based GvG and structured territory based open PvP that we are quite proud of and of which we think is one of the best innovations of our game.

    However, this is something that we do not want to disclose in a piece by piece manner, but rather at a later stage in a proper dev blog or video.

    -Dominik

     

    Ah fair enough. Assume you'll post updates on your website 1st and foremost (blog?)?

    Yes of course. We try to be as transparent as possibles about our decisions and why we make them. But currently we are doing a lot of testing and do not want to raise wrong expectations by saying we are doing A, only to find out later that we are doing B.

     

    Kind regards

    Bercilak

  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Edmonton, ABPosts: 379Member
    Originally posted by Kezzadrix
    Originally posted by Kaneth
    Originally posted by Crunchy222
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    Why always have to have full loot FFA PvP?

    when will a sandbox developer do something original with the PvP for once. 

     

    Anyway, its a interesting concept. I will check it out.

     

    Full loot adds so much to a game imo. 

     

    I know a lot of people cant look past it, and envision a world where high level players are ganking them non stop for their loot.

     

    Its sad really, considering full loot does wonders for a games economy and makes crafting vital.

     

    In the end, full loot games always make gear very easy to obtain and stockpile.  Trade off for potentially losing stuff is pvp that has risk, which is good...pve that has some excitement...crafting made a key component of the game rather than a side dish.

     

     

    People need to get over the fear of losing pixles.  Your never losing that putple raid set that took 3 months to get....and only those who refuse to adapt get griefed.  It does take some getting use to...learning when to bank, learning to perhaps scout an area first, learning to stay by freindlies or clan member, and learning to accept loss of improve.

     

    Its exactly this crowd of people who begs for something different yet refuses to play games that dont follow the same old trend.  Its different and risk is involved...which imo, give the game a layer of depth that no themepark can match.

     

    Game looks good btw.

    It has nothing to do with the fear of losing pixels for me. It's the fact that full loot pvp games tend to cater to the lowest common denominator. The act of not being able to leave a certain area because someone is camping the hell out of it, is frustrating at best, and bordering on harrassment at worst. I understand that the concept can be appealing, but full loot pvp only ensures that a game will only be niche.

    PvE Sandbox games can exist, with systems to ensure that gear will need to be replaced, and have new and interesting concepts to ensure that the game is different than a themepark. However, no developer out there has really had the foresight and intelligence to attempt to create such a game. Some games have come close, like Asheron's Call, but they are still lacking many typical sandbox elements.

    The very first MMO I played was Ultima Online in 1997 and it was full loot pvp.  Sure, I experienced moments of being ganked and losing my things, especially while my character skills were low.   When that happened, I got myself re-equiped and went back to doing what I wanted to do, even if i had to go to another area to avoid danger.  Keep in mind that these kinds of games are not meant to be played solo.

    I must have missed that memo :P

    I did plenty of solo play in UO.  Did a fair bit of group stuff as well, but one (of many) things I liked about UO was that I didn't feel like the game itself was punishing me for going one way or the other.  There was reason to group, but it never felt forced. 

    The people who tend to not like this style of game are the kind that prefer to play solo all the time or with only a small group.  Stricty PvE games are probably better for that play style.

    Meh, no.  Strictly PvE games are all about the endgame raiding these days, and that's not really solo or even small-group material either.  The grind-to-endgame might be perfectly viable as a solo endeavor, maybe even more efficient, but once you're through that part there's SFA to do on your own. 

     

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    @Dihoru,

    Sorry, but Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source because of the manner of it's editing. If you find the term in Websters, let me know. More importantly even the Wikipedia entry that you reference does NOT agree with your own definition of sandbox... "In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play".  That definition does not include PvP at all, let alone FFA PvP. Nor does it say that said tools are exhaustive and no limitations within who's form the player must work within thier creativity. It simply implies that the player has tools to modify the world and express creativity in how they play. I again point to the sonnet and the haiku as devices which impose some broad form upon a writer but who few would consider do not allow for individual creativity.

    You can look to something like, A Tale in the Desert, as an example of a game which allows for sandbox style play but doesn't feature combat at all.

    I believe you are simply attempting to impose your own narrow preferences upon the definition of a very broad term. Like saying if a hotdog doesn't have mustard and relish, it's not a hotdog. Meaningfull human interaction takes many different forms, and simply because there may be some very broad effective constraints upon said interaction does not mean the interaction does not exist. The idea that the only way to express meaningfull human interaction, emotion, competition, even conflict is the hacking of each other is rather myopic (IMO)....as is that there can be no external constraint imposed on who is allowed to hack who down and still allowed the freedom to operate within a given environment.

    In fact, one of the strongest experesions of a "sandbox" style experience that I've heard many players mention is PnP Role-Playing....and that is a place where the GM would generaly permanently remove characters from play if they attempted to engage in direct violence against the rest of the party on a regular basis.

    In terms of the durability of what one creates, why would you assume that the ONLY force in existance capable of destroying something would be another player? That certainly isn't even true in real life where peoples "sandcastles" are often destroyed by forces beyond any humans control. In a game environment, you not only have such forces availble but a whole plethora of non-player antagonists availble to use for such a mechanism if desired.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    RE: Greifing

    To be fair, in any game where one player can interact with another player in any fashion, the potential for greifing exists. I do see that FFA full loot games TEND to attract more greifers then other types of games. I think this is simply due to that sort of interaction putting more tools in the greifers tool-kit to use....and not giving the greifers most favored targets, new players, any built in support base that they can use to help deflect such attacks. Therefore, there is probably a degree of self-selection that turns into an ugly spiral in many such games. I don't think it is the design intent of most such games to support or encourage such activity. I do wish the Developers of Albion much success in thier efforts to curb such activity in thier own game. I do think both specific design mechanisms and degree of intent of the designers can make a big difference here. It's just an unfortunate tendency that many such games have fallen victem to this problem so far.

    I'll keep a carefull eye on how this MMO progresses and hope the Developers here are able to solve what seems to be a fairly pernicious problem with this category of game. At least they seem well aware of the potential problem.

     

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    @Dihoru,

    Sorry, but Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source because of the manner of it's editing. If you find the term in Websters, let me know. More importantly even the Wikipedia entry that you reference does NOT agree with your own definition of sandbox... "In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play".  That definition does not include PvP at all, let alone FFA PvP. Nor does it say that said tools are exhaustive and no limitations within who's form the player must work within thier creativity. It simply implies that the player has tools to modify the world and express creativity in how they play. I again point to the sonnet and the haiku as devices which impose some broad form upon a writer but who few would consider do not allow for individual creativity.

    You can look to something like, A Tale in the Desert, as an example of a game which allows for sandbox style play but doesn't feature combat at all.

    I believe you are simply attempting to impose your own narrow preferences upon the definition of a very broad term. Like saying if a hotdog doesn't have mustard and relish, it's not a hotdog. Meaningfull human interaction takes many different forms, and simply because there may be some very broad effective constraints upon said interaction does not mean the interaction does not exist. The idea that the only way to express meaningfull human interaction, emotion, competition, even conflict is the hacking of each other is rather myopic (IMO)....as is that there can be no external constraint imposed on who is allowed to hack who down and still allowed the freedom to operate within a given environment.

    In fact, one of the strongest experesions of a "sandbox" style experience that I've heard many players mention is PnP Role-Playing....and that is a place where the GM would generaly permanently remove characters from play if they attempted to engage in direct violence against the rest of the party on a regular basis.

    In terms of the durability of what one creates, why would you assume that the ONLY force in existance capable of destroying something would be another player? That certainly isn't even true in real life where peoples "sandcastles" are often destroyed by forces beyond any humans control. In a game environment, you not only have such forces availble but a whole plethora of non-player antagonists availble to use for such a mechanism if desired.

    1. I'd say it's a better measure of a definition than most dictionaries which sometimes take years to include technical terms due to the flux said terms could be in.

    2. And modification of the world does include (not exclude) reduction of the number of individuals within said world. If said individuals are also player controlled then elimination of another player by you, as a player, is basically PVP. A Tale in the Desert also allows PVP just that is the non-combat sort (I assume player trade is in that game and a wider player controlled market, if not then you really have no basis to call it even a open world MMO) and it is quite redundant to name it a sandbox.

    3. My "narrow minded preferences" are in fact broader than yours which I find rather amusing.

    4. By that definition Neverwinter Online is a sandbox.

    5. Do you even know how difficult natural disasters are the model in a game? (hint: look up fluid dynamics and the math going into it to have a good idea the kind of models a game with credible natural disasters would require to emulate and be able to run on your local hardware).

     

     

    image
  • KaosProphetKaosProphet Edmonton, ABPosts: 379Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    In fact, one of the strongest experesions of a "sandbox" style experience that I've heard many players mention is PnP Role-Playing....and that is a place where the GM would generaly permanently remove characters from play if they attempted to engage in direct violence against the rest of the party on a regular basis.

    Feh.  Even the PnP environment has it's 'sandbox' versus 'themepark' debate, just under different terms: "railroad" versus "free-form" are the ones I'm familiar with.

    As to how much in-party fighting was allowed... well, actually I'd compare that more to in-guild fighting than to the ffa concepts.

     

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    1) We can disagree on the authoritative status of Wikipedia, but again...Wikipedia, which YOU consider an authoritative source does NOT conform to your definition of the term....it's definition is MUCH broader, and would include things you do not consider "sandbox".

    2)  Modification of the world CAN include reduction of the number of players in the world but does not NECCESSITATE such. Huge difference there. Nor does it dictate the conditions under which said reduction MIGHT.  Note, the idea of reduction of players in the world is something which NO FFA PvP game currently supports anyway...since none of them support perma-death, let alone closing of the players account upon death.  Conflict can indeed take many forms, as I have already pointed out. FFA PvP is a very narrow expression of one of those forms. Furthermore, Wikipedia's definition, which you consider authoritative, doesn't even reference conflict. It references creativity. Conflict is merely one narrow expression of creativity.

    4) Yes, the FOUNDRY aspect of Neverwinter Online would be a VERY STRONG expression of a "sanbox". Nearly the definition of it, since it quite literaly allows the players to create a portion of the world and how they might play within it. The degree by which that gameplay aspect is divorced from the rest of the gameplay experience of the game MAY certainly open the door for debate on the overall classification of the game....but I would absolutely maintain that the FOUNDRY itself is an expression of sandbox gameplay.

    5) So are truely accurate real-world physics that physical combat might be based upon. A game system does  NOT have to have accurate real-world modeling in it's systems in order represent something in game-play. Virtualy all game-play mechanisms in all games (including all your FFA PvP games) are merely abstractions of something. Heck...the Sim-City single-player computer games back in the 90's had representation of natural disasters as part of thier game-play. This point is not salient to the discussion at hand.

     

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    1) We can disagree on the authoritative status of Wikipedia, but again...Wikipedia, which YOU consider an authoritative source does NOT conform to your definition of the term....it's definition is MUCH broader, and would include things you do not consider "sandbox".

    2)  Modification of the world CAN include reduction of the number of players in the world but does not NECCESSITATE such. Huge difference there. Nor does it dictate the conditions under which said reduction MIGHT.  Note, the idea of reduction of players in the world is something which NO FFA PvP game currently supports anyway...since none of them support perma-death, let alone closing of the players account upon death.  Conflict can indeed take many forms, as I have already pointed out. FFA PvP is a very narrow expression of one of those forms. Furthermore, Wikipedia's definition, which you consider authoritative, doesn't even reference conflict. It references creativity. Conflict is merely one narrow expression of creativity.

    4) Yes, the FOUNDRY aspect of Neverwinter Online would be a VERY STRONG expression of a "sanbox". Nearly the definition of it, since it quite literaly allows the players to create a portion of the world and how they might play within it. The degree by which that gameplay aspect is divorced from the rest of the gameplay experience of the game MAY certainly open the door for debate on the overall classification of the game....but I would absolutely maintain that the FOUNDRY itself is an expression of sandbox gameplay.

    5) So are truely accurate real-world physics that physical combat might be based upon. A game system does  NOT have to have accurate real-world modeling in it's systems in order represent something in game-play. Virtualy all game-play mechanisms in all games (including all your FFA PvP games) are merely abstractions of something. Heck...the Sim-City single-player computer games back in the 90's had representation of natural disasters as part of thier game-play. This point is not salient to the discussion at hand.

    -facepalms- Just remove yourself from the discussion, it's obvious you're ill suited for rational and calm discourse even if you had any idea of the topic and if anyone had any doubt of that 5) pretty much nailed that coffin shut. Comparing classical mechanics,which are used to represent physical combat in most MMOs as currently know of no game where combat happens at relativistic speeds, to fluid dynamics is like me comparing you to a fern and no stylizing natural disasters like they used to do it in 2D, isometric and 3D management games won't work in a 3D sandbox game where players can spot, due to their ground level point of view, the glaring, immersion breaking,flaws in any simplified version of modeling a natural disaster when said disaster is tearing shit apart and even if you could get it to look good enough while avoiding the immersion pitfall and not spend a few years coding each disaster in part you're still then faced with a very real issue of "how the fuck are people gonna even see this without their rigs bursting into flames?" because I donno how much you know but modeling a fluid on the PC in rudimentary graphics isn't fun for the PC and when I say rudimentary I mean WoW looks like da shit in comparison level graphics.

    image
  • MmOrPgSuCkSbAlLsMmOrPgSuCkSbAlLs Newport News, VAPosts: 4Member
    Dear OP, you sure picked the wrong forums / website to ask for constructive feedback of any relevant value. I will head on over to your site , poke around a bit and leave some thoughts and opinions for you.

    Nope, still not tired of making accounts.

This discussion has been closed.