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!

We don't need anymore PvP focused sandbox mmos right now.

1356728

Comments

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member
    Originally posted by Waterlily

    If they promote this game as a PVP game, it's dead out of the gate.

    PVE players outnumber PVP players tenfold.

    Some players like both, what category do they fall into? Good job at making up statistics though.

  • nerovipus32nerovipus32 dublinPosts: 2,735Member
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    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.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nerovipus32
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard 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.


    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.

  • ZarriyaZarriya Long Island, NYPosts: 288Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nerovipus32
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    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.

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Adalwulff
    Funny, I was just reading that thread.

     

    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.



    In a theme park, ya, that gets old quick. But we're talking about sandboxes. Sandboxes can encompass a lot of other game play that has nothing to do with PvP, and nothing to do with theme park staples, and is rewarding in itself.

    The PvP thing has been tried and done to death. Maybe it's time for a PvE focused sandbox more along the lines of Minecraft than Call of Duty.

     

     Or Cubeworld, look at what this little 2 man game has done in the space of a few weeks.  The MMO world is ready for a PvE focused sandbox game so give me your tired and huddled masses.

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • azzamasinazzamasin Butler, OHPosts: 3,058Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nerovipus32
    Originally posted by Waterlily

    If they promote this game as a PVP game, it's dead out of the gate.

    PVE players outnumber PVP players tenfold.

    Some players like both, what category do they fall into? Good job at making up statistics though.

     He was being kind, its more like a thousand fold.  And this isn't make believe numbers.  There's no rationale human who can look at the MMO landscape and believe that PvP players outnumber PvE players.  Sure there are both but the genre is the, will always be the, loved by the: PvE crowd

    Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!

    Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!

    Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!

    image

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nerovipus32

    A soldier faces no consequences when he kills an enemy soldier.

    Any soldier on the field right now would laugh if he was reading this sentence. Including people who've been in the military, like me.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by Raven322
    Originally posted by Adalwulff

    Funny, I was just reading that thread.

    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 need more PvP games like EVE or DF?

    Wait why aren't you playing DF or EVE then? Why do you need a third one?

    My hyphotesis:

    - EVE is a space mmo, where you are a ship.

    -DF is a indie product, full of defects and without many sandbox tools.

     

    I think he is after a AAA sandbox with a fantasy theme or near it.

     

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    If it is a VR MMO then it can be PVE sandbox, until then no, it needs to have both pvp and pve.

    image
  • DAS1337DAS1337 Parma, OHPosts: 2,404Member

    It's funny.  I remember all of the debates over how we don't need sandboxes, because every single one fails.  It's a dying niche in MMO's, it has poor systems, a bad community, blah blah blah.  Now it seems that more and more, people are warming up to the idea of the sandbox genre, praising some of their systems, talking about how great the RP community can be, blah blah.

     

    It just goes to show you that what they say is true.  The vast majority of gamers have no clue as to what they want.  

     

    I've been preaching it from the day that I registered on this website.  A PvE focused sandbox, with the ability to progress without combat.  A strict PvP system that severely punishes people who abuse it, making it possible, but at times, incredibly difficult.  Complete player crafted items, no phat epic loot from boss mobs.  Open world, open dungeons, no instances and very limited fast travel by appropriately skilled casters.  Open housing, limited to certain sections of the world as to not have complete open placement, limiting abuse and latency issues.  Oceans that you can explore, not just sail a boat on.  Deep player customization and a focus on development to create systems that work with each other and keep the innocent players as safe as possible.

     

    And what have we gotten?  PvP focused games with phat loot.  Crap housing, if it's even in the game.  Weak customization, or way over the top customization like Mortal Online's generation and breeding system.  Games that force you to level up to craft better items, and you can only level up by fighting.  A sever lack of protection to innocent players, as if they could care less.  Instanced dungeons, no housing or extremely limited housing and zero focus on systems that work well with each other.  It's true, it makes you wonder, how many times developers are going to go into sandbox projects with the idea that all gamers, or even most gamers are mindless drones that want to pew pew pew without any thought.  And actually think that it's a successful development model.  

     

    Yet, game after game, that same model fails to attract what it should attract if they just pulled their heads out of their asses. You're right, it really doesn't make sense.  It just goes to show you, these developers may have experience in their field and they may have knowledge and skills on how to create games, but they are no more intelligent than any of us.  Their ability to make good decisions is no more advanced than any of us.  

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by azzamasin
    Originally posted by nerovipus32 Originally posted by Waterlily If they promote this game as a PVP game, it's dead out of the gate. PVE players outnumber PVP players tenfold.
    Some players like both, what category do they fall into? Good job at making up statistics though.
     He was being kind, its more like a thousand fold.  And this isn't make believe numbers.  There's no rationale human who can look at the MMO landscape and believe that PvP players outnumber PvE players.  Sure there are both but the genre is the, will always be the, loved by the: PvE crowd


    It's hardly official, but at least for people on this site, it breaks down like so:

    http://www.mmorpg.com/features.cfm/view/polls
    Which is more important in an MMO, PvE or PvP?
    Opened: 02/19/2009
    Respondents: 15,484
    Status: Open

    PvP - 5.7%
    PvE - 14.8%
    PvP focus with a little PvE - 10.5%
    PvE focus with a little PvP - 34.8%
    Equal Parts PvE and PvP - 34.2%


    So the "pure" PvE people are nearly triple the numbers of the purely PvP people. The PvE focused people and the equal parts PvP/PvE peole dwarf everyone else though.

    I would be interested in a new poll on this same subject.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

    I love PvP. I hate being forced into it before I'm ready. A soldier isn't sent on the battlefield before he gets some serious training either.

    There is NO valid reason to force PvP on everyone (...)

    A soldier isn't send to battle without training, nevertheless that soldier can be attacked in his street, house or barracks. :(

     

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by DAS1337

    It's funny.  I remember all of the debates over how we don't need sandboxes, because every single one fails.  It's a dying niche in MMO's, it has poor systems, a bad community, blah blah blah.  Now it seems that more and more, people are warming up to the idea of the sandbox genre, praising some of their systems, talking about how great the RP community can be, blah blah.

    Is that in your imagination, or you have evidence for that statement?

    Some posts here do not count. What is the big sandbox success? And don't say minecraft, because it is a buidling game, not so much a RPG.

  • TrykenTryken Ultima Online Correspondent Orlando, FLPosts: 63Member

    I'll actually agree with you on this. I don't think there needs to be anymore PvP focused sandbox MMOs. With that said, I think good sandbox MMOs should have PvP. Does that make sense? The mark of a good sandbox is that it favors all types of exploration, whether it be to the crafter, the community organizer, the solo player, the group-focused player, the PvE player, and the PvP player.

    That's where Ultima shines. You don't feel like a certain aspect of the game is shoved down your throat. In a lot of the newer, PvP-centric games, PvP feels like this very dominating part of the gameplay. And although I'm going to get hate for this, I think both EVE Online and Felucca/Trammel solve these issues.

    "Felucca/Trammel!? You're mad!" Well, hold on there. There are many good reasons to go to Felucca. Some of the best mining and loot possible is only found in that PvP-open zone. So it's a high-risk high-reward area. Even as a relatively PvE player in UO, I still traveled to Felucca often (and fought there often with other players) because of the rewards. It led to some great, tense gameplay. Lastly, I think insurance fixes the problem, too. Ultima and EVE both contain insurance on items. Ultima's insurance allows for you to respawn with your insured item, while EVE simply has a pay-out (ala realistic insurance). So that's my second solution to a sandbox with open PvP: Some kind of insurance.

    My wife will not play a game where she can die and lose everything because some jerk wanted to troll her, and everywhere is fair game for them to kill her. I'm not a fan of that, either. I don't think every time she walks out of town she should have to think she's going to get stabbed and have everything taken off her body, and neither does she. At the same time, I do want there to be open PvP, especially in certain areas that contain high rewards.

    It's a tricky business, but I don't think we need anymore of the hardcore, PvP-centered sandbox games. I'm not saying it shouldn't be part of new sandbox games, I just don't want it completely shoved down my throat constantly.

  • TampownzTampownz DresdenPosts: 3Member

    Years ago MMORPG's in general were a niche Market....look at us now Bro B)

     

    As a pvp player myself, I don't mind...considering most of those games actually aren't that good in terms of keeping people interested in the long run which is a major flaw for an mmo

  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

     

    I think you guys have a weird interpretation of the word "freedom".

     

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Tryken

     

    That's where Ultima shines. You don't feel like a certain aspect of the game is shoved down your throat. In a lot of the newer, PvP-centric games, PvP feels like this very dominating part of the gameplay. And although I'm going to get hate for this, I think both EVE Online and Felucca/Trammel solve these issues.

    Tell that to the newbies who got ganked the second they logged onto the game.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

    The freedom of not pvp at all is a lot cheaper to provide than what you want .. and a free market almost guarantee that demand will be filled.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by DAS1337 It's funny.  I remember all of the debates over how we don't need sandboxes, because every single one fails.  It's a dying niche in MMO's, it has poor systems, a bad community, blah blah blah.  Now it seems that more and more, people are warming up to the idea of the sandbox genre, praising some of their systems, talking about how great the RP community can be, blah blah.
    Is that in your imagination, or you have evidence for that statement?

    Some posts here do not count. What is the big sandbox success? And don't say minecraft, because it is a buidling game, not so much a RPG.




    I don't think anyone was ever really cold on the idea of sandboxes in general. I think mostly people just didn't like the available quality, and were turned off by the reliance on FFA PvP for the games to make things happen.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • TorikTorik London, ONPosts: 2,343Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

     

    I think you guys have a weird interpretation of the word "freedom".

     

     

     

    There must be hundreds of games where you are not harmed by car crashes and/or you can float at will.  The "not be shot by robbers" part is harder to find examples for since this is one thing most games tend to model more or less realistically if it is part of the game.   Once you realize that you are coding a game, it is easy to put in plenty of "freedoms" that are not available in RL.

  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

    The freedom of not pvp at all is a lot cheaper to provide than what you want .. and a free market almost guarantee that demand will be filled.

    It's because sandboxes dont usually comes with less amount of realistic mechanics, but with more. And these cuts aren't usually called "freedom", but restrictions/limitations.

    A pure semantic question here. 

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

     

    I think you guys have a weird interpretation of the word "freedom".

     

     

     

    There must be hundreds of games where you are not harmed by car crashes and/or you can float at will.  The "not be shot by robbers" part is harder to find examples for since this is one thing most games tend to model more or less realistically if it is part of the game.   Once you realize that you are coding a game, it is easy to put in plenty of "freedoms" that are not available in RL.

    These games aren't real or intended "sandboxes". I was talking only about sandboxes mmos.

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

     

    I think you guys have a weird interpretation of the word "freedom".

     

     

     

    There must be hundreds of games where you are not harmed by car crashes and/or you can float at will.  The "not be shot by robbers" part is harder to find examples for since this is one thing most games tend to model more or less realistically if it is part of the game.   Once you realize that you are coding a game, it is easy to put in plenty of "freedoms" that are not available in RL.

    These games aren't real or intended "sandboxes". I was talking only about sandboxes mmos.

     

     

    In that case, you are saying sandbox MMOs take freedom away from players. Why is that a good thing?

  • maccarthur2004maccarthur2004 SPosts: 510Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

     

    I think you guys have a weird interpretation of the word "freedom".

     

     

     

    There must be hundreds of games where you are not harmed by car crashes and/or you can float at will.  The "not be shot by robbers" part is harder to find examples for since this is one thing most games tend to model more or less realistically if it is part of the game.   Once you realize that you are coding a game, it is easy to put in plenty of "freedoms" that are not available in RL.

    These games aren't real or intended "sandboxes". I was talking only about sandboxes mmos.

     

     

    In that case, you are saying sandbox MMOs take freedom away from players. Why is that a good thing?

    These things aren't "freedom".

     

     

    "What we are aiming in ArcheAge is to let the players feel the true fun of MMORPG by forming a community like real life by interacting with other players, whether it be conflict or cooperation." (Jake Song)

    image
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Torik
    Originally posted by maccarthur2004
    Originally posted by Benedikt

    FREEDOM of choice = having a choice to not PVP at all

    i would like to have the "freedom" to dont be shooted by robbers, dont be harmed by car crashes and to float at will...

     

     

    I think you guys have a weird interpretation of the word "freedom".

     

     

     

    There must be hundreds of games where you are not harmed by car crashes and/or you can float at will.  The "not be shot by robbers" part is harder to find examples for since this is one thing most games tend to model more or less realistically if it is part of the game.   Once you realize that you are coding a game, it is easy to put in plenty of "freedoms" that are not available in RL.

    These games aren't real or intended "sandboxes". I was talking only about sandboxes mmos.

     

     

    In that case, you are saying sandbox MMOs take freedom away from players. Why is that a good thing?

    These things aren't "freedom".

     

     

    Wasn't there a MMO already with the freedom to be against reality ? like CoH.

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.