Where do you draw the line between whining and git gud? People want to PvP but they don't want to learn the game mechanics. Then they cry about PvP being broken and want the game changed to their lazy skill set.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
PvP... It has long been the natural transition from FPS (Consoles alike) to MMOGs.
For this reason alone, I would say that a graduating class of gamers will leave the console for a more social need found mainly in MMOGs, coming in at a close second. Seasoned MMORPG players are tired of PvP because it is rarely dished-out in fairness to those who don't PvP.
For that reason, I avoid PvP games as a general rule.
AS I seasoned gamer, I could not care less about PvP. I enjoy the content and the loot of any MMOG. I've said this more than once, why are we rewarding PvP and punishing PvE?
Maybe it's time for a PvE focused sandbox more along the lines of Minecraft than Call of Duty.
Originally posted by Sajman01
Its not that I dont like PvP, its that MOBAs do it better. When I want that style of gameplay, I'll play Dota2.
Am I the only one laughing out loud when i read these things ?
No I'm sure there are lots of people who think RNG, stat based gear pvp is better than games that only rely on a players skill to win.
On topic I don' t think a pure pve based sandbox would have anywhere near the appeal a mixed pve/pvp mmo does. People may choose pve on a poll but I think given the choice the largest market in mmos is pve focused with casual pvp mixed in.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
Desperately need more PVP games, really?
DFUW
EVE
ArcheAge
Age Of Wushu
TESO
Wurm Online
Black Gold
GW2
CU
Wild Star
Star Citizen
All of the above games have robust pvp systems which are not just an after though, i could add many more to the lists.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
You want more PvP focused mmo's in general? Ok, sure, that's fine with me. But let's be fair, you've already got a bunch of sandbox PvP mmo's to choose from and us PvE gamers have basically zero. So, in this regard (sandboxes) - we're way overdue for something to play.
The beauty of well-done multiplayer sandbox games is that the "focus" you speak of is molded by the community of said game.
In EVE, for example, if the status quo were to shift to industry, exploration, RP, etc, it would be considered such a game. The developers put in the ground work, the wires, the backdrop, and gave tools. The player forged themselves a PvP focused experience (market pvp, social pvp, political pvp, active pvp etc) --
So, with this in mind, I say to you, if you're playing a sandbox game, and don't want to PvP, then don't. You're not forced to at all.
Originally posted by DamonVile Originally posted by alloinOriginally posted by lizardbones Maybe it's time for a PvE focused sandbox more along the lines of Minecraft than Call of Duty.Originally posted by Sajman01Its not that I dont like PvP, its that MOBAs do it better. When I want that style of gameplay, I'll play Dota2.
Am I the only one laughing out loud when i read these things ?No I'm sure there are lots of people who think RNG, stat based gear pvp is better than games that only rely on a players skill to win.
On topic I don' t think a pure pve based sandbox would have anywhere near the appeal a mixed pve/pvp mmo does. People may choose pve on a poll but I think given the choice the largest market in mmos is pve focused with casual pvp mixed in.
That's actually what the polls say. Pure PvE outranks Pure PvE, but PvE focused with PvP gets the most votes with a 50/50 mix running an extremely close second.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
Desperately need more PVP games, really?
DFUW
EVE
ArcheAge
Age Of Wushu
TESO
Wurm Online
Black Gold
GW2
CU
Wild Star
Star Citizen
All of the above games have robust pvp systems which are not just an after though, i could add many more to the lists.
Seems you want it all
And a few in development as well with The Repopulation, Pathfinder Online. There was one that I think ice-vortex linked too that looked really interesting with open world PvP in it in development. I'll have to check on that again.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others... Currently Playing: GW2
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
not sure if t******* or r******... Market is literally flooded with PvE games. There is not a single high quality sandbox pvp based game out there, bar EvE who has rather unique setting (space and ships).
Originally posted by StarI Originally posted by MargulisThere's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
not sure if t******* or r******... Market is literally flooded with PvE games. There is not a single high quality sandbox pvp based game out there, bar EvE who has rather unique setting (space and ships).
If anything it's about time we f*cking get one.
There are zero PvE based sandbox MMORPG out there, and more people are interested in PvE. Seems like the odds are more in favor of a PvE sandbox with PvP elements rather than the other way around.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by MargulisThere's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
not sure if t******* or r******... Market is literally flooded with PvE games. There is not a single high quality sandbox pvp based game out there, bar EvE who has rather unique setting (space and ships).
If anything it's about time we f*cking get one.
There are zero PvE based sandbox MMORPG out there, and more people are interested in PvE. Seems like the odds are more in favor of a PvE sandbox with PvP elements rather than the other way around.
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.
Even though I would have chosen a different approach/attitude when presenting this view, in general, I agree with you.
The term "PVE-SANDBOX" is kind of strange, considering what makes a sandbox first and foremost, regardless of who you ask, is FREEDOM of choice. FREEDOM to choose how you play, and typically the tools available to make that choice substantiate.
I think people that want a "PVE-SANDBOX" really should step back a second and maybe ask themselves if perhaps what they want is other people that are playing in the sandbox with them to stop choosing to PvP. No actual sandbox game forces anyone to fight anyone else. When people are given the freedom to choose "killing someone else" or "ruining someone else's attempt at X", they choose it. It's not dev fault for not locking out PvP in their sandboxes. It's humanity's fault for being destructive, competitive, cruel beings.
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.
Before WoW became the standard there were actually PvE sandbox-ish games, EQ, AC for example. WoW were inspired by these games, but slowly turned towards, defined and refined the Themepark genre. It is possible to have real open worlds with consequences and sandbox elements without it beeing pvp, worlds where You are not getting your hand held and not story driven, it has been done before and it can be done again.
Originally posted by Mr_Mechanical
Even though I would have chosen a different approach/attitude when presenting this view, in general, I agree with you.
The term "PVE-SANDBOX" is kind of strange, considering what makes a sandbox first and foremost, regardless of who you ask, is FREEDOM of choice. FREEDOM to choose how you play, and typically the tools available to make that choice substantiate.
I think people that want a "PVE-SANDBOX" really should step back a second and maybe ask themselves if perhaps what they want is other people that are playing in the sandbox with them to stop choosing to PvP. No actual sandbox game forces anyone to fight anyone else. When people are given the freedom to choose "killing someone else" or "ruining someone else's attempt at X", they choose it. It's not dev fault for not locking out PvP in their sandboxes. It's humanity's fault for being destructive, competitive, cruel beings.
You seem to be thinking pvp is freedom to choose. There are as many rules in a pvp game as in a pve game, the rules are just different and while in some areas there is more freedom, it also blocks for other kinds of freedom and gameplay. A very typical example of this is balancing the rules towards pvp equality, while pve mechanics go dull as a result.
Originally posted by Mr_Mechanical Originally posted by StarIOriginally posted by lizardbones*snip*
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.Even though I would have chosen a different approach/attitude when presenting this view, in general, I agree with you.
The term "PVE-SANDBOX" is kind of strange, considering what makes a sandbox first and foremost, regardless of who you ask, is FREEDOM of choice. FREEDOM to choose how you play, and typically the tools available to make that choice substantiate.
I think people that want a "PVE-SANDBOX" really should step back a second and maybe ask themselves if perhaps what they want is other people that are playing in the sandbox with them to stop choosing to PvP. No actual sandbox game forces anyone to fight anyone else. When people are given the freedom to choose "killing someone else" or "ruining someone else's attempt at X", they choose it. It's not dev fault for not locking out PvP in their sandboxes. It's humanity's fault for being destructive, competitive, cruel beings.
No, I'm pretty sure when I think "PvE Sandbox", I'm think of a game similar to SWG with the ability to flag for PvP. In other words, the FREEDOM to choose.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
It's probably because the devs nowadays have a concern about the retention of players after the "endgame" (the famous "themepark trap"). If there is not a good meaningful PVP system, the players will start quiting the mmo after they reach the "endgame", except if the devs produce tons of PVE "content" at a very high speed (bigger than WoW's). But that route is more expensive and hard, while a good and meaningful PVP system as a endgame retainer is much more cheaper and of proven success (see L2 and EVE, as examples i can remember now).
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.
seriously? how many children did you see killed in RL sandboxes?
how many of them kick the sandcastles of other children again and again before they are banished forever?
where did you get the notion that real sandbox have to be about competition?
for me PvE sandbox is a world which progress both based on player actions and inactions, and by that i mean players as a whole, not "you are the greatest hero of this world (and so is every other player playing this game)" crap
Originally posted by Mr_Mechanical
Originally posted by StarI
Originally posted by lizardbones
*snip*
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.
Even though I would have chosen a different approach/attitude when presenting this view, in general, I agree with you.
The term "PVE-SANDBOX" is kind of strange, considering what makes a sandbox first and foremost, regardless of who you ask, is FREEDOM of choice. FREEDOM to choose how you play, and typically the tools available to make that choice substantiate.
I think people that want a "PVE-SANDBOX" really should step back a second and maybe ask themselves if perhaps what they want is other people that are playing in the sandbox with them to stop choosing to PvP. No actual sandbox game forces anyone to fight anyone else. When people are given the freedom to choose "killing someone else" or "ruining someone else's attempt at X", they choose it. It's not dev fault for not locking out PvP in their sandboxes. It's humanity's fault for being destructive, competitive, cruel beings.
FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all
you can never have real freedom of choice in multiplayer game, because besides the limitations given by the hardware and software (dev choices), your choices are always affected and limited by choices of others and vice versa.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
Please don't use the word "we"... You are clearly only speaking for yourself, as I certainly would welcome another pvp focused sandbox right now.
People don't kill each other in the streets usually in "real life", or the consequences are very, very harsh, prison and sometimes death penalty (with perma-death of course...).
What the flawed PvP games forget is one important thing:
People are anonymous in the Internet, and therefore a good part of them will act like assholes if given the opportunity. PvP games are the perfect places for those sociopaths to hurt others without risk of repercussions. Games are virtual, there are no direct consequences for bad behavior like in "real life", when you die you can just press "play again" or even just resurrect and resume being an ass.
Additionally, they also forget players will exploit if they can, and while it usually has minimal consequences in PvE, in PvP it can ruin the game for other players.
Good PvP should have a purpose. War between guilds, factions. Having a game world full of psychopaths isn't good PvP, it's a gank fest. And that kind of badly designed PvP hurts the game for the players more than for those who don't play it, since less players means less funds, less funds means less updates, less content, less bug fixes, lesser quality.
And as I already said, there's actually not a single valid reason for not giving a PvE (with optional PvP) server set along with a PvP server set.
While I don't agree with anything else you said (you're over-analyzing the LIVING SHIT out of people)... I am in agreement of PvP and PvE servers. This way, I don't have to hear people complain about being killed. Of course.. I'm not sure if my opinion counts as I am a "asshole" "sociopath".
There is 2 other possible reasons to the most "sandboxy" mmos almost always come with big pvp participation in the gameplay:
1- Devs mindset => The devs with more inclination towards sandbox mmos have a same way of think things that makes they pursuit the maximum of "mechanical realism" in their works. So pvp with artificial and unjustified "invulnerabilities" passes little through their heads. Their focus to prevent abuse is more in creating punishments (trying to imitate the reality) instead of that way.
2- Paradoxes in sandbox => Is weird a mmo provides a player with the ability to interact and change virtually everything visible in the environmet while at the same time they cant even touch in others players (but can touch in npcs). Some abilitys can even pass unnoticed by some players, but the inability to attack some characters surely will not.
PvP... It has long been the natural transition from FPS (Consoles alike) to MMOGs.
For this reason alone, I would say that a graduating class of gamers will leave the console for a more social need found mainly in MMOGs, coming in at a close second. Seasoned MMORPG players are tired of PvP because it is rarely dished-out in fairness to those who don't PvP.
For that reason, I avoid PvP games as a general rule.
AS I seasoned gamer, I could not care less about PvP. I enjoy the content and the loot of any MMOG. I've said this more than once, why are we rewarding PvP and punishing PvE?
People don't kill each other in the streets usually in "real life", or the consequences are very, very harsh, prison and sometimes death penalty (with perma-death of course...).
What the flawed PvP games forget is one important thing:
People are anonymous in the Internet, and therefore a good part of them will act like assholes if given the opportunity. PvP games are the perfect places for those sociopaths to hurt others without risk of repercussions. Games are virtual, there are no direct consequences for bad behavior like in "real life", when you die you can just press "play again" or even just resurrect and resume being an ass.
Additionally, they also forget players will exploit if they can, and while it usually has minimal consequences in PvE, in PvP it can ruin the game for other players.
Good PvP should have a purpose. War between guilds, factions. Having a game world full of psychopaths isn't good PvP, it's a gank fest. And that kind of badly designed PvP hurts the game for the players more than for those who don't play it, since less players means less funds, less funds means less updates, less content, less bug fixes, lesser quality.
And as I already said, there's actually not a single valid reason for not giving a PvE (with optional PvP) server set along with a PvP server set.
And yet there is eternal war on this planet. Maybe you should use that as a measuring stick instead of murder on the streets. A soldier faces no consequences when he kills an enemy soldier.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 Originally posted by Jean-Luc_PicardPeople don't kill each other in the streets usually in "real life", or the consequences are very, very harsh, prison and sometimes death penalty (with perma-death of course...).What the flawed PvP games forget is one important thing:People are anonymous in the Internet, and therefore a good part of them will act like assholes if given the opportunity. PvP games are the perfect places for those sociopaths to hurt others without risk of repercussions. Games are virtual, there are no direct consequences for bad behavior like in "real life", when you die you can just press "play again" or even just resurrect and resume being an ass.Additionally, they also forget players will exploit if they can, and while it usually has minimal consequences in PvE, in PvP it can ruin the game for other players.Good PvP should have a purpose. War between guilds, factions. Having a game world full of psychopaths isn't good PvP, it's a gank fest. And that kind of badly designed PvP hurts the game for the players more than for those who don't play it, since less players means less funds, less funds means less updates, less content, less bug fixes, lesser quality.And as I already said, there's actually not a single valid reason for not giving a PvE (with optional PvP) server set along with a PvP server set.
And yet there is eternal war on this planet. Maybe you should use that as a measuring stick instead of murder on the streets. A soldier faces no consequences when he kills an enemy soldier.
Does that mean you're an advocate of Faction Based Battlegrounds Style PvP? That's not very sandboxy of you.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
People don't kill each other in the streets usually in "real life", or the consequences are very, very harsh, prison and sometimes death penalty (with perma-death of course...).
What the flawed PvP games forget is one important thing:
People are anonymous in the Internet, and therefore a good part of them will act like assholes if given the opportunity. PvP games are the perfect places for those sociopaths to hurt others without risk of repercussions. Games are virtual, there are no direct consequences for bad behavior like in "real life", when you die you can just press "play again" or even just resurrect and resume being an ass.
Additionally, they also forget players will exploit if they can, and while it usually has minimal consequences in PvE, in PvP it can ruin the game for other players.
Good PvP should have a purpose. War between guilds, factions. Having a game world full of psychopaths isn't good PvP, it's a gank fest. And that kind of badly designed PvP hurts the game for the players more than for those who don't play it, since less players means less funds, less funds means less updates, less content, less bug fixes, lesser quality.
And as I already said, there's actually not a single valid reason for not giving a PvE (with optional PvP) server set along with a PvP server set.
And yet there is eternal war on this planet. Maybe you should use that as a measuring stick instead of murder on the streets. A soldier faces no consequences when he kills an enemy soldier.
well then that would equate to warzones/battlefields in real life, and that could be incorporated into a game. I live int he US in a cushy suburb. I am fortunate to not have to deal with the violence that are in other parts of the world. So it could be played out in a game that way.
Comments
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
PvP... It has long been the natural transition from FPS (Consoles alike) to MMOGs.
For this reason alone, I would say that a graduating class of gamers will leave the console for a more social need found mainly in MMOGs, coming in at a close second. Seasoned MMORPG players are tired of PvP because it is rarely dished-out in fairness to those who don't PvP.
For that reason, I avoid PvP games as a general rule.
AS I seasoned gamer, I could not care less about PvP. I enjoy the content and the loot of any MMOG. I've said this more than once, why are we rewarding PvP and punishing PvE?
I get enough PvP in real life.
Spot on.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
No I'm sure there are lots of people who think RNG, stat based gear pvp is better than games that only rely on a players skill to win.
On topic I don' t think a pure pve based sandbox would have anywhere near the appeal a mixed pve/pvp mmo does. People may choose pve on a poll but I think given the choice the largest market in mmos is pve focused with casual pvp mixed in.
Desperately need more PVP games, really?
DFUW
EVE
ArcheAge
Age Of Wushu
TESO
Wurm Online
Black Gold
GW2
CU
Wild Star
Star Citizen
All of the above games have robust pvp systems which are not just an after though, i could add many more to the lists.
Seems you want it all
The beauty of well-done multiplayer sandbox games is that the "focus" you speak of is molded by the community of said game.
In EVE, for example, if the status quo were to shift to industry, exploration, RP, etc, it would be considered such a game. The developers put in the ground work, the wires, the backdrop, and gave tools. The player forged themselves a PvP focused experience (market pvp, social pvp, political pvp, active pvp etc) --
So, with this in mind, I say to you, if you're playing a sandbox game, and don't want to PvP, then don't. You're not forced to at all.
No I'm sure there are lots of people who think RNG, stat based gear pvp is better than games that only rely on a players skill to win.
On topic I don' t think a pure pve based sandbox would have anywhere near the appeal a mixed pve/pvp mmo does. People may choose pve on a poll but I think given the choice the largest market in mmos is pve focused with casual pvp mixed in.
That's actually what the polls say. Pure PvE outranks Pure PvE, but PvE focused with PvP gets the most votes with a 50/50 mix running an extremely close second.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And a few in development as well with The Repopulation, Pathfinder Online. There was one that I think ice-vortex linked too that looked really interesting with open world PvP in it in development. I'll have to check on that again.
Played: EQ1 (10 Years), Guild Wars, Rift, TERA
Tried: EQ2, Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, Runes of Magic and countless others...
Currently Playing: GW2
Nytlok Sylas
80 Sylvari Ranger
not sure if t******* or r******... Market is literally flooded with PvE games. There is not a single high quality sandbox pvp based game out there, bar EvE who has rather unique setting (space and ships).
If anything it's about time we fucking get one.
not sure if t******* or r******... Market is literally flooded with PvE games. There is not a single high quality sandbox pvp based game out there, bar EvE who has rather unique setting (space and ships).
If anything it's about time we f*cking get one.
There are zero PvE based sandbox MMORPG out there, and more people are interested in PvE. Seems like the odds are more in favor of a PvE sandbox with PvP elements rather than the other way around.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Honestly, for me there's no such thing as PvE sandbox. What you guys call PvE sandbox for me = a themepark game with gazillion of fluff. One of the defining traits for a real sandbox is an open world where you are not baby-sitted by developers and a number of social restrictions, but instead have to live in a world where social interaction actually has consequences which go beyond raging in a chat, denieing somone a dungeon run or pressing an ignore button.
Even though I would have chosen a different approach/attitude when presenting this view, in general, I agree with you.
The term "PVE-SANDBOX" is kind of strange, considering what makes a sandbox first and foremost, regardless of who you ask, is FREEDOM of choice. FREEDOM to choose how you play, and typically the tools available to make that choice substantiate.
I think people that want a "PVE-SANDBOX" really should step back a second and maybe ask themselves if perhaps what they want is other people that are playing in the sandbox with them to stop choosing to PvP. No actual sandbox game forces anyone to fight anyone else. When people are given the freedom to choose "killing someone else" or "ruining someone else's attempt at X", they choose it. It's not dev fault for not locking out PvP in their sandboxes. It's humanity's fault for being destructive, competitive, cruel beings.
Before WoW became the standard there were actually PvE sandbox-ish games, EQ, AC for example. WoW were inspired by these games, but slowly turned towards, defined and refined the Themepark genre. It is possible to have real open worlds with consequences and sandbox elements without it beeing pvp, worlds where You are not getting your hand held and not story driven, it has been done before and it can be done again.
You seem to be thinking pvp is freedom to choose. There are as many rules in a pvp game as in a pve game, the rules are just different and while in some areas there is more freedom, it also blocks for other kinds of freedom and gameplay. A very typical example of this is balancing the rules towards pvp equality, while pve mechanics go dull as a result.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
Even though I would have chosen a different approach/attitude when presenting this view, in general, I agree with you.
The term "PVE-SANDBOX" is kind of strange, considering what makes a sandbox first and foremost, regardless of who you ask, is FREEDOM of choice. FREEDOM to choose how you play, and typically the tools available to make that choice substantiate.
I think people that want a "PVE-SANDBOX" really should step back a second and maybe ask themselves if perhaps what they want is other people that are playing in the sandbox with them to stop choosing to PvP. No actual sandbox game forces anyone to fight anyone else. When people are given the freedom to choose "killing someone else" or "ruining someone else's attempt at X", they choose it. It's not dev fault for not locking out PvP in their sandboxes. It's humanity's fault for being destructive, competitive, cruel beings.
No, I'm pretty sure when I think "PvE Sandbox", I'm think of a game similar to SWG with the ability to flag for PvP. In other words, the FREEDOM to choose.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Like Everquest?
It's probably because the devs nowadays have a concern about the retention of players after the "endgame" (the famous "themepark trap"). If there is not a good meaningful PVP system, the players will start quiting the mmo after they reach the "endgame", except if the devs produce tons of PVE "content" at a very high speed (bigger than WoW's). But that route is more expensive and hard, while a good and meaningful PVP system as a endgame retainer is much more cheaper and of proven success (see L2 and EVE, as examples i can remember now).
seriously? how many children did you see killed in RL sandboxes?
how many of them kick the sandcastles of other children again and again before they are banished forever?
where did you get the notion that real sandbox have to be about competition?
for me PvE sandbox is a world which progress both based on player actions and inactions, and by that i mean players as a whole, not "you are the greatest hero of this world (and so is every other player playing this game)" crap
FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all
you can never have real freedom of choice in multiplayer game, because besides the limitations given by the hardware and software (dev choices), your choices are always affected and limited by choices of others and vice versa.
Please don't use the word "we"... You are clearly only speaking for yourself, as I certainly would welcome another pvp focused sandbox right now.
Thanks,
While I don't agree with anything else you said (you're over-analyzing the LIVING SHIT out of people)... I am in agreement of PvP and PvE servers. This way, I don't have to hear people complain about being killed. Of course.. I'm not sure if my opinion counts as I am a "asshole" "sociopath".
There is 2 other possible reasons to the most "sandboxy" mmos almost always come with big pvp participation in the gameplay:
1- Devs mindset => The devs with more inclination towards sandbox mmos have a same way of think things that makes they pursuit the maximum of "mechanical realism" in their works. So pvp with artificial and unjustified "invulnerabilities" passes little through their heads. Their focus to prevent abuse is more in creating punishments (trying to imitate the reality) instead of that way.
2- Paradoxes in sandbox => Is weird a mmo provides a player with the ability to interact and change virtually everything visible in the environmet while at the same time they cant even touch in others players (but can touch in npcs). Some abilitys can even pass unnoticed by some players, but the inability to attack some characters surely will not.
lol well said!
Some players like both, what category do they fall into? Good job at making up statistics though.
And yet there is eternal war on this planet. Maybe you should use that as a measuring stick instead of murder on the streets. A soldier faces no consequences when he kills an enemy soldier.
Does that mean you're an advocate of Faction Based Battlegrounds Style PvP? That's not very sandboxy of you.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
well then that would equate to warzones/battlefields in real life, and that could be incorporated into a game. I live int he US in a cushy suburb. I am fortunate to not have to deal with the violence that are in other parts of the world. So it could be played out in a game that way.