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.

1161719212228

Comments

  • BenediktBenedikt PraguePosts: 1,406Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by Benedikt
    Originally posted by madazz
    Most sandboxes have no PvP. Probably already been mentioned to the OP. But too many pages.

    you are kidding, right? name me 1 sandbox made in last 10 years that doesnt have PVP.

    more than that - at least name me one which doesnt have open pvp.

    i can name you the oposite:

    xsyon

    MO

    DF

    eve

    age of wulin

    archage (not sure if it is already out in asia or only in beta)

    salem

    and i proly forgot some

    seriously? do we have to go through this again? in 1 thread it was not enough?

    Ryzom

    i am not sure i would call ryzom a sandbox - you cannt affect the world at all

    A tale in the desert

    tale in the desert is completely special kind of game, it doesnt have not only pvp, but also not pve, no combat at all

    The Repopulation ( PVE and PVP servers, will be released late this year or early next)

    not released yet

    Fallen Earth  (has PVP zones but those are for guild warfare stuff, you don't lose anything by not going there if you want to experience all that there is in PVE terms)

    definitelly not a sandbox

    Wurm Online (PVE only servers)

    true, but was originally released as ffa pvp game, and still development gives more features to pvp servers

    Citadel of Sorcery (no mention of OW PVP by what I read)

    not out, and i am not sure if ever will

    Asheron's Call 1

    didnt play AC1, only AC2, which isnt a sandbox, but i specifically asked for games from last 10 years, which AC1 definitelly isnt

    Starport

    never heard of this game, but from what i read on their homepage, it is same case as wurm - game made primarily as open pvp game

    Firefall

    not out yet and it is fps, not an rpg, also not sure if i would call it a sandbox

    Needed only one? There are more out there than these.

     

  • Nhoj1983Nhoj1983 Mount Vernon, WAPosts: 185Member
    Here's my take... you can't make a sandbox without making a nodd to pvp.  That said people should be allowed a choice and I think that any game looking to be more than niche needs to make sure that players can avoid pvp if they wish to do so.  There's the easy ways.. basically make pvp/pve servers... thing is when playing these sorts of games you need all types and I see a lot of games going towards single server options and there's the as of yet unfound perfect balance.  I think the answer is there.. and I don't think it's an all out pve sandbox.  It might be that say you could create a guild focused solely on such and such.  Pretty much marking you as neutrals in the game of thrones being bandied about.  Nowadays any game that releases without pvp is considered unfinished.  Look at SWTOR.. and RIFT both games got more than expected demand for pvp and while pve players out number pvp players... there's a lot of pve players that like to pvp here and there.  I don't have an answer but it hits me as a mistake to go back to the days of pve only games and believe it or not telling me I can go play eve (or an ancient game like ultima online)  when I'd rather play something recent is about as helpfull as me telling pve players to just go play minecraft.   There has to be a happy middle ground somewhere and I think some dev  will find it.
  • BidwoodBidwood Toronto, ONPosts: 554Member
    Originally posted by Nhoj1983
    Here's my take... you can't make a sandbox without making a nodd to pvp.  That said people should be allowed a choice and I think that any game looking to be more than niche needs to make sure that players can avoid pvp if they wish to do so.  There's the easy ways.. basically make pvp/pve servers... thing is when playing these sorts of games you need all types and I see a lot of games going towards single server options and there's the as of yet unfound perfect balance.  I think the answer is there.. and I don't think it's an all out pve sandbox.  It might be that say you could create a guild focused solely on such and such.  Pretty much marking you as neutrals in the game of thrones being bandied about.  Nowadays any game that releases without pvp is considered unfinished.  Look at SWTOR.. and RIFT both games got more than expected demand for pvp and while pve players out number pvp players... there's a lot of pve players that like to pvp here and there.  I don't have an answer but it hits me as a mistake to go back to the days of pve only games and believe it or not telling me I can go play eve (or an ancient game like ultima online)  when I'd rather play something recent is about as helpfull as me telling pve players to just go play minecraft.   There has to be a happy middle ground somewhere and I think some dev  will find it.

    Some would argue that for a sandbox to be done right, it has to have PVP as an integral pillar of the design of the game that ties into all the other systems like the economy. Having PVP and PVE servers is a sure sign that the PVP is not a pillar, and that turns off a lot of sandbox fans.

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member
    Originally posted by Bidwood
    Originally posted by Nhoj1983
    Here's my take... you can't make a sandbox without making a nodd to pvp.  That said people should be allowed a choice and I think that any game looking to be more than niche needs to make sure that players can avoid pvp if they wish to do so.  There's the easy ways.. basically make pvp/pve servers... thing is when playing these sorts of games you need all types and I see a lot of games going towards single server options and there's the as of yet unfound perfect balance.  I think the answer is there.. and I don't think it's an all out pve sandbox.  It might be that say you could create a guild focused solely on such and such.  Pretty much marking you as neutrals in the game of thrones being bandied about.  Nowadays any game that releases without pvp is considered unfinished.  Look at SWTOR.. and RIFT both games got more than expected demand for pvp and while pve players out number pvp players... there's a lot of pve players that like to pvp here and there.  I don't have an answer but it hits me as a mistake to go back to the days of pve only games and believe it or not telling me I can go play eve (or an ancient game like ultima online)  when I'd rather play something recent is about as helpfull as me telling pve players to just go play minecraft.   There has to be a happy middle ground somewhere and I think some dev  will find it.

    Some would argue that for a sandbox to be done right, it has to have PVP as an integral pillar of the design of the game that ties into all the other systems like the economy. Having PVP and PVE servers is a sure sign that the PVP is not a pillar, and that turns off a lot of sandbox fans.

     

    That's exactly right, its a major turn off.

    Not that I am a ganker/griefer, but a game without PvP is like a cake without the frosting.

    To have a truly sandbox MMO they must have all elements. Lots of PvP, PvE and other professions,  like shop owners, professional crafters, horse trainers, builders, fisherman....ect...ect

    image
  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,757Member Uncommon

    I take the OP's point, but there are nearly always too many MMO's of every type coming out all the time. Sandbox is this years buzz word and you have to stick it in even if the implementation will be minimal at best. PvP, well that's another good one to get in, but I would remind you that having mini games which do not effect anything in the game proper can give a server the PvP label.

    Also the OP mentioned a lot of MMO's coming out, who knows if they will be any good? There is room for one MMO to really do a PvP sandbox well and I don't see it out yet. Not counting EvE, I am talking playing a person here, not a spaceship. But without zoned PvP the long term issues will always be there, you need to separate PvE and PvP but by zones, not by mini games.

  • thegreatestagainthegreatestagain gump city, ALPosts: 35Member
    asherons call (still the HW champion of MMOs. WoW can be the money mayweather)  had PVE servers, but players there could swear allegiance to Bhael Zharon and become player killers, able to fight each other to the death.  there was also a FFA, all-pk server.  around 6 or 7 npk servers.
  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    What's with this idea that a game has to appeal to both pvp and non-pvp people? If you have pvp and non-pvp servers, the game is probably bad, if you have designated pvp zones, the game is probably bad, if you have and opt out pvp system, the game is probably bad, if you have instanced pvp, the game is probably bad. And all of this is coming from somebody who wants a good SANDBOX game, so that's what I mean by bad, bad for me.

    In other words, I don't think you can please everybody. By definition they want something I don't want. Their deal breakers are my deal makers.

    There's simply no way that the idea of ffa pvp in a game with good pve, nation building, deep crafting system etc is so niche that there aren't enough people to support it. Look at how many people in this thread prefer open world pvp?
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
    What's with this idea that a game has to appeal to both pvp and non-pvp people? If you have pvp and non-pvp servers, the game is probably bad, if you have designated pvp zones, the game is probably bad, if you have and opt out pvp system, the game is probably bad, if you have instanced pvp, the game is probably bad. And all of this is coming from somebody who wants a good SANDBOX game, so that's what I mean by bad, bad for me.In other words, I don't think you can please everybody. By definition they want something I don't want. Their deal breakers are my deal makers.There's simply no way that the idea of ffa pvp in a game with good pve, nation building, deep crafting system etc is so niche that there aren't enough people to support it. Look at how many people in this thread prefer open world pvp?

    I would think it's because most people aren't just PvP or just PvE MMORPG players. The people who are only interested in PvP will play PvP games, like League of Legends, DOTA2 or Team Fortress 2. Those games have a pure PvP experience. Even Planetside 2 is a pure PvP experience, but set in a more persistent world. Everyone else wants something different.

    You can look at the number of people in this thread but that don't amount to a hill of beans out in the world. We have two hundred people or less posting on these forums every day. There are millions of people playing MMORPG. This one thread doesn't represent anything.

    Keep watching ArcheAge as it waters itself down in order to appeal to enough people to survive. They only spent twenty five million dollars. If they don't appeal to the people who want a PvE focused game, or a game that somehow balances PvE and PvP elements, they are going to spiral down the drain just like all the other games that think there's millions to be made in a niche market.

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

  • OziiusOziius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,388Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    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.

    My god.. I nearly shit myself when I read this post before you commented Jean... I agree completely with your comment. I was Security Forces in the Air Force for 8 years. All United States soldiers face severe scrutiny and investigation following engagments with enemy forces. The UCMJ is very clear on rules of engagement. The fact that this statement was made tells me he or she has never been in the U.S Military. I can't comment on other countries military procedures, but there is also the Law of Armed Conflict which deals with both international law and treaties. 

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
    What's with this idea that a game has to appeal to both pvp and non-pvp people? If you have pvp and non-pvp servers, the game is probably bad, if you have designated pvp zones, the game is probably bad, if you have and opt out pvp system, the game is probably bad, if you have instanced pvp, the game is probably bad. And all of this is coming from somebody who wants a good SANDBOX game, so that's what I mean by bad, bad for me.In other words, I don't think you can please everybody. By definition they want something I don't want. Their deal breakers are my deal makers.There's simply no way that the idea of ffa pvp in a game with good pve, nation building, deep crafting system etc is so niche that there aren't enough people to support it. Look at how many people in this thread prefer open world pvp?

    I would think it's because most people aren't just PvP or just PvE MMORPG players. The people who are only interested in PvP will play PvP games, like League of Legends, DOTA2 or Team Fortress 2. Those games have a pure PvP experience. Even Planetside 2 is a pure PvP experience, but set in a more persistent world. Everyone else wants something different.

    You can look at the number of people in this thread but that don't amount to a hill of beans out in the world. We have two hundred people or less posting on these forums every day. There are millions of people playing MMORPG. This one thread doesn't represent anything.

    Keep watching ArcheAge as it waters itself down in order to appeal to enough people to survive. They only spent twenty five million dollars. If they don't appeal to the people who want a PvE focused game, or a game that somehow balances PvE and PvP elements, they are going to spiral down the drain just like all the other games that think there's millions to be made in a niche market.

     


    Wrong on basically all accounts.


    People who want "pvp games" want mmoRPGs with pvp in them because we want a sense of risk and reward. We want to care about what we're doing. Competitive games like sc2, quake, tf2 are literally the opposite of what we want. We want there to be consequences to our actions.


    Just because there are only hundreds of people posting here compared to the millions playing doesnt mean anything. This is a sample of people, it doesnt have to be as big as the population. I would argue that there is a large representation of sandbox fans on these forums compared to the overall market because sandbox fans are more passionate about the subject, which would indicate more player retention of a game done right.


    Lastly, you mention archeage "balancing pvp and pve elements". That's exactly what we want. We don't want to just pvp all day for no reason. We want a game that has everything. It seems like you guys just aren't listening when we say things. You just assert your waited view of us in your minds as guys who just want to fight all day.
  • BenediktBenedikt PraguePosts: 1,406Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
    Wrong on basically all accounts. People who want "pvp games" want mmoRPGs with pvp in them because we want a sense of risk and reward. We want to care about what we're doing. Competitive games like sc2, quake, tf2 are literally the opposite of what we want. We want there to be consequences to our actions. Just because there are only hundreds of people posting here compared to the millions playing doesnt mean anything. This is a sample of people, it doesnt have to be as big as the population. I would argue that there is a large representation of sandbox fans on these forums compared to the overall market because sandbox fans are more passionate about the subject, which would indicate more player retention of a game done right. Lastly, you mention archeage "balancing pvp and pve elements". That's exactly what we want. We don't want to just pvp all day for no reason. We want a game that has everything. It seems like you guys just aren't listening when we say things. You just assert your waited view of us in your minds as guys who just want to fight all day.

    yeah, and the sample here on forum clearly shown what they think about pvp only :)

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/389730/page/1

     

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer

    Originally posted by lizardbones


    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
    What's with this idea that a game has to appeal to both pvp and non-pvp people? If you have pvp and non-pvp servers, the game is probably bad, if you have designated pvp zones, the game is probably bad, if you have and opt out pvp system, the game is probably bad, if you have instanced pvp, the game is probably bad. And all of this is coming from somebody who wants a good SANDBOX game, so that's what I mean by bad, bad for me.In other words, I don't think you can please everybody. By definition they want something I don't want. Their deal breakers are my deal makers.There's simply no way that the idea of ffa pvp in a game with good pve, nation building, deep crafting system etc is so niche that there aren't enough people to support it. Look at how many people in this thread prefer open world pvp?

    I would think it's because most people aren't just PvP or just PvE MMORPG players. The people who are only interested in PvP will play PvP games, like League of Legends, DOTA2 or Team Fortress 2. Those games have a pure PvP experience. Even Planetside 2 is a pure PvP experience, but set in a more persistent world. Everyone else wants something different.

    You can look at the number of people in this thread but that don't amount to a hill of beans out in the world. We have two hundred people or less posting on these forums every day. There are millions of people playing MMORPG. This one thread doesn't represent anything.

    Keep watching ArcheAge as it waters itself down in order to appeal to enough people to survive. They only spent twenty five million dollars. If they don't appeal to the people who want a PvE focused game, or a game that somehow balances PvE and PvP elements, they are going to spiral down the drain just like all the other games that think there's millions to be made in a niche market.

     


    Wrong on basically all accounts.


    People who want "pvp games" want mmoRPGs with pvp in them because we want a sense of risk and reward. We want to care about what we're doing. Competitive games like sc2, quake, tf2 are literally the opposite of what we want. We want there to be consequences to our actions.

    Just because there are only hundreds of people posting here compared to the millions playing doesnt mean anything. This is a sample of people, it doesnt have to be as big as the population. I would argue that there is a large representation of sandbox fans on these forums compared to the overall market because sandbox fans are more passionate about the subject, which would indicate more player retention of a game done right.

    Lastly, you mention archeage "balancing pvp and pve elements". That's exactly what we want. We don't want to just pvp all day for no reason. We want a game that has everything. It seems like you guys just aren't listening when we say things. You just assert your waited view of us in your minds as guys who just want to fight all day.



    First, punctuation is your friend, and the friend of anyone trying to read your posts. You don't even have to use periods, just hit the enter key every once in awhile.

    Second, I can understand wanting some form of risk versus reward. That makes perfect sense. You don't seem to be capable of entertaining the idea of having risks and rewards without the use of PvP. For that matter, I would guess you aren't capable of entertaining the idea of risks and rewards using FFA PvP.

    Third, you are assuming that "Sandbox Fans" and "FFA PvP Fans" are the same group of people. They are not. There is certainly some overlap there, but it's entirely possible to not be a fan of FFA PvP, but also be a fan of sandbox style game play.

    Fourth, I'm not sure you understood what I said about ArcheAge, and some research (which I did) would have told you what I was talking about. You could have come back with a very good retort about how ArcheAge isn't really watering the crafting down, but rather shifting the risk of crafting from the customers to the crafters. You could have even pointed out how what I was talking about had nothing to do with PvP at all. Instead you went off on whatever that tangent was you went off on about "We" and "You guys". It's kind of annoying coming up with better retorts against my posts than the people who seem to disagree with them.

    Finally, who is this group you've labeled, "We"? Who is this group you've labeled, "You guys"?

    **

    You should look at that link just above my post. That will show you what kind of people are posting here on these forums. Which of those groups is the "We" and which of those groups is the "You guys".

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

  • MukeMuke BredaPosts: 2,168Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Margulis

    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, Age of Wushu 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........ 

    Apparently marketing research shows you wrong otherwise noone would play those games.

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon


    First, punctuation is your friend, and the friend of anyone trying to read your posts. You don't even have to use periods, just hit the enter key every once in awhile.


    I think I got my point across, despite the fact that I was posting it from my phone at work. Besides wtf it's just 3 moderately sized paragraphs. I don't think anybody would read that post and think there's anything overtly wrong with it irrespective of the content.
     


    Second, I can understand wanting some form of risk versus reward. That makes perfect sense. You don't seem to be capable of entertaining the idea of having risks and rewards without the use of PvP. For that matter, I would guess you aren't capable of entertaining the idea of risks and rewards using FFA PvP.


    Why do you assume I'm not capable of understanding that you can have risk/reward without pvp? I never indicated that. When I say we want risk vs. reward, that's me telling you how ridiculous it is to tell us that we should play LoL or tf2 etc. It's not that we want to fight all of the time. FFA PvP just happens to be the most natural way to have that. It's much more organic than any item loss or degradation system I've seen. It also adds an element of competition. If you want to suggest a system that offers the same benefits, I'm all ears.



    Third, you are assuming that "Sandbox Fans" and "FFA PvP Fans" are the same group of people. They are not. There is certainly some overlap there, but it's entirely possible to not be a fan of FFA PvP, but also be a fan of sandbox style game play.


    What is it with people on the internet always arguing over semantics? Sandbox fans will in general prefer open world pvp compared to non-sandbox fans. open world pvp is an innately sandbox feature. Technically everybody here is a sandbox fan in some ways and not a sandbox fan in others. In the context of this debate it's clear who I'm talking about: Sandbox fans = the people in this discussion that are arguing for open world pvp in a sandbox game.



    Fourth, I'm not sure you understood what I said about ArcheAge, and some research (which I did) would have told you what I was talking about. You could have come back with a very good retort about how ArcheAge isn't really watering the crafting down, but rather shifting the risk of crafting from the customers to the crafters. You could have even pointed out how what I was talking about had nothing to do with PvP at all. Instead you went off on whatever that tangent was you went off on about "We" and "You guys". It's kind of annoying coming up with better retorts against my posts than the people who seem to disagree with them.


    How am I misunderstanding the point? You're saying that ArcheAge started off as more of a sandbox game, but will continue to water itself down to appeal to more people because you're saying people don't forced pvp... or something to that effect. One of the things you mentioned that they could do to help mitigate this is to have a balance between pvp and pve. I'm pointing out that there's no difference between that and what we want. So you're saying "if they don't do X, they'll spiral down the drain like all of the other games that think there's millions to be made in a niche market." I'm telling you that X is what we're looking for.


    You can't seem to grasp the idea that we aren't looking for a game that just has pvp. We're looking for a game that has both. The people here who are arguing against open world pvp are arguing for a game that has just pve. They (you?) don't want a balance of pvp and pve, they want to have their pve game and either have a separate pvp server or pvp zones or pvp flagging. That's not a balance of pvp and pve.


    But I guess thanks for also arguing with yourself on top of the things I said?



    Finally, who is this group you've labeled, "We"? Who is this group you've labeled, "You guys"?


    We = people advocating for open world pvp. You guys = people who are arguing against it. Did you actually have trouble with that? Or are you just so desperate for valid points to make that you're throwing this out there just like the punctuation remark?



    ** You should look at that link just above my post. That will show you what kind of people are posting here on these forums. Which of those groups is the "We" and which of those groups is the "You guys".


    We = Sandbox Both


    You guys = Sandbox PvE

  • GreezGreez Wickie Watchie, FLPosts: 103Member
    I think we could always use more high quality games in all areas...
  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member
    I am gonna go out here on a ledge and say sandboxes with pure PVE are less popular than sandboxes with both pvp and pve on the same shard blended in a smart way. I mean people who said "sandbox pvp" would jump ship almost immediately to a well balanced well built omni sandbox whereas PVE purists seem intent on having PVP and PVE servers not a mix (which just to be clear is not "both" , it is either PVP or PVE and it is both an asinine and immature view of things and showcases the mentality which led to... well the rise of themeparks and in time also the rise of F2P, kinda funny how two wrongs made a right as well).

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

     

    Wrong on basically all accounts. People who want "pvp games" want mmoRPGs with pvp in them because we want a sense of risk and reward. We want to care about what we're doing. Competitive games like sc2, quake, tf2 are literally the opposite of what we want. We want there to be consequences to our actions. Just because there are only hundreds of people posting here compared to the millions playing doesnt mean anything. This is a sample of people, it doesnt have to be as big as the population. I would argue that there is a large representation of sandbox fans on these forums compared to the overall market because sandbox fans are more passionate about the subject, which would indicate more player retention of a game done right. Lastly, you mention archeage "balancing pvp and pve elements". That's exactly what we want. We don't want to just pvp all day for no reason. We want a game that has everything. It seems like you guys just aren't listening when we say things. You just assert your waited view of us in your minds as guys who just want to fight all day.

    Nah i hear what you want.

    But a) i don't want the same thing and b) it is a fair game to point out how few of you are out there.

    And you think you are the only one who "care about what you are doing"? Tell that to paragon and all the progressive themepark guild. Don't tell me they don't care. They just don't care about the same thing as you do.

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
     

     

    Wrong on basically all accounts. People who want "pvp games" want mmoRPGs with pvp in them because we want a sense of risk and reward. We want to care about what we're doing. Competitive games like sc2, quake, tf2 are literally the opposite of what we want. We want there to be consequences to our actions. Just because there are only hundreds of people posting here compared to the millions playing doesnt mean anything. This is a sample of people, it doesnt have to be as big as the population. I would argue that there is a large representation of sandbox fans on these forums compared to the overall market because sandbox fans are more passionate about the subject, which would indicate more player retention of a game done right. Lastly, you mention archeage "balancing pvp and pve elements". That's exactly what we want. We don't want to just pvp all day for no reason. We want a game that has everything. It seems like you guys just aren't listening when we say things. You just assert your waited view of us in your minds as guys who just want to fight all day.

    Nah i hear what you want.

    But a) i don't want the same thing and b) it is a fair game to point out how few of you are out there.

    And you think you are the only one who "care about what you are doing"? Tell that to paragon and all the progressive themepark guild. Don't tell me they don't care. They just don't care about the same thing as you do.

     

    NO. Holy shit guys, learn to read IN CONTEXT. I'm saying a lot of people assume that us sandbox pvp guys just want pvp. That we just want to fight guys. It's why people accuse us of being griefers/pk's and it's why so many people suggest we go play LoL or have "pvp zones" because some of you are too obtuse to realize that we want is an integrated system, a world where there's a threat of pvp because we feel it enriches the game. That's what I mean when I say you're not listening. And you're just strengthening my argument with this crap.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
    First, punctuation is your friend, and the friend of anyone trying to read your posts. You don't even have to use periods, just hit the enter key every once in awhile.
    I think I got my point across, despite the fact that I was posting it from my phone at work. Besides wtf it's just 3 moderately sized paragraphs. I don't think anybody would read that post and think there's anything overtly wrong with it irrespective of the content.
     Second, I can understand wanting some form of risk versus reward. That makes perfect sense. You don't seem to be capable of entertaining the idea of having risks and rewards without the use of PvP. For that matter, I would guess you aren't capable of entertaining the idea of risks and rewards using FFA PvP.
    Why do you assume I'm not capable of understanding that you can have risk/reward without pvp? I never indicated that. When I say we want risk vs. reward, that's me telling you how ridiculous it is to tell us that we should play LoL or tf2 etc. It's not that we want to fight all of the time. FFA PvP just happens to be the most natural way to have that. It's much more organic than any item loss or degradation system I've seen. It also adds an element of competition. If you want to suggest a system that offers the same benefits, I'm all ears.
    Third, you are assuming that "Sandbox Fans" and "FFA PvP Fans" are the same group of people. They are not. There is certainly some overlap there, but it's entirely possible to not be a fan of FFA PvP, but also be a fan of sandbox style game play.
    What is it with people on the internet always arguing over semantics? Sandbox fans will in general prefer open world pvp compared to non-sandbox fans. open world pvp is an innately sandbox feature. Technically everybody here is a sandbox fan in some ways and not a sandbox fan in others. In the context of this debate it's clear who I'm talking about: Sandbox fans = the people in this discussion that are arguing for open world pvp in a sandbox game.
    Fourth, I'm not sure you understood what I said about ArcheAge, and some research (which I did) would have told you what I was talking about. You could have come back with a very good retort about how ArcheAge isn't really watering the crafting down, but rather shifting the risk of crafting from the customers to the crafters. You could have even pointed out how what I was talking about had nothing to do with PvP at all. Instead you went off on whatever that tangent was you went off on about "We" and "You guys". It's kind of annoying coming up with better retorts against my posts than the people who seem to disagree with them.


    How am I misunderstanding the point? You're saying that ArcheAge started off as more of a sandbox game, but will continue to water itself down to appeal to more people because you're saying people don't forced pvp... or something to that effect. One of the things you mentioned that they could do to help mitigate this is to have a balance between pvp and pve. I'm pointing out that there's no difference between that and what we want. So you're saying "if they don't do X, they'll spiral down the drain like all of the other games that think there's millions to be made in a niche market." I'm telling you that X is what we're looking for.


    You can't seem to grasp the idea that we aren't looking for a game that just has pvp. We're looking for a game that has both. The people here who are arguing against open world pvp are arguing for a game that has just pve. They (you?) don't want a balance of pvp and pve, they want to have their pve game and either have a separate pvp server or pvp zones or pvp flagging. That's not a balance of pvp and pve.


    But I guess thanks for also arguing with yourself on top of the things I said?


    Finally, who is this group you've labeled, "We"? Who is this group you've labeled, "You guys"?



    We = people advocating for open world pvp. You guys = people who are arguing against it. Did you actually have trouble with that? Or are you just so desperate for valid points to make that you're throwing this out there just like the punctuation remark?


    ** You should look at that link just above my post. That will show you what kind of people are posting here on these forums. Which of those groups is the "We" and which of those groups is the "You guys".



    We = Sandbox Both


    You guys = Sandbox PvE




    Some minimal punctuation and grammar are always appreciated by the people who read through these posts. They may not say it, but it is appreciated.

    I can totally understand that you like games like Eve. Heck, I like games like Eve, though I don't particularly like Eve.

    Also, I said, "entertain", not, "understand". Totally different meaning. I know you can understand what's being said. You just can't or won't entertain the thought that ~some~ of what you're saying is wrong.

    There are a lot of ways to implement PvP in a sandbox game. You have expressed the opinion that FFA PvP is the only right way to do it. There is no "right" way to do it, only the way a person prefers it done. SWG implemented factional PvP with PvP flags and by all accounts it worked out great. They had a lot of other really bad problems with the game, but PvP wasn't one of them. If OW/FFA PvP was the only right way to implement PvP in a sandbox game, SWG would have had one more issue on the long list of issues, but it didn't. So there are at least two ways to implement PvP in a sandbox game that players will be happy with. There are probably at least a few others.

    If we look around and see that there are examples of games with OW/FFA PvP in existence, it's not a stretch to think a developer might try to build a sandbox game with something a little different, something that isn't OW/FFA PvP. Maybe it's different servers, maybe it's just the ability to flag or not for PvP, I don't know. Seems likely that it won't be Medieval Fantasy Eve though.

    **

    I never told anyone to go play LoL. I said the people who only want PvP are already playing LoL. Because, you know, it's all PvP, all the time.

    Just in case it comes up, I also never accused anyone of being a ganker and that's why they like OW/FFA PvP.

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

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Dihoru
    I am gonna go out here on a ledge and say sandboxes with pure PVE are less popular than sandboxes with both pvp and pve on the same shard blended in a smart way. I mean people who said "sandbox pvp" would jump ship almost immediately to a well balanced well built omni sandbox whereas PVE purists seem intent on having PVP and PVE servers not a mix (which just to be clear is not "both" , it is either PVP or PVE and it is both an asinine and immature view of things and showcases the mentality which led to... well the rise of themeparks and in time also the rise of F2P, kinda funny how two wrongs made a right as well).

    There are no pure PvE games. Except maybe The Secret World, but even there players can enter battlegrounds. I would be willing to bet that the people who want a Sandbox PvE game aren't looking at a pure PvE game, they just want a game where the PvE is optional, or at least happens in an expected area or time.

    For instance, PvE and PvP zones, or PvP flags, that type of thing.

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

  • DarkOmegaDarkOmega Comox, BCPosts: 28Member

    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.

    I think your confused as to what a pvp sandbox is. There are barely any pvp sandbox mmo's that are worthy of the name. Eve is about the only one I can think of that is truly sandbox. There might be 1 or 2 more that I haven't heard of/played but that's about it. A themepark with some afterthought sandbox elements doesn't make a sandbox.

    Due to the nature of a sandbox game, unless your unleashing AI akin to Skynet into the game you will not get much of a PVE sandbox, least not that'll last more then a couple months before all the content is completely done.

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

     


    Originally posted by Dihoru
    I am gonna go out here on a ledge and say sandboxes with pure PVE are less popular than sandboxes with both pvp and pve on the same shard blended in a smart way. I mean people who said "sandbox pvp" would jump ship almost immediately to a well balanced well built omni sandbox whereas PVE purists seem intent on having PVP and PVE servers not a mix (which just to be clear is not "both" , it is either PVP or PVE and it is both an asinine and immature view of things and showcases the mentality which led to... well the rise of themeparks and in time also the rise of F2P, kinda funny how two wrongs made a right as well).


    There are no pure PvE games. Except maybe The Secret World, but even there players can enter battlegrounds. I would be willing to bet that the people who want a Sandbox PvE game aren't looking at a pure PvE game, they just want a game where the PvE is optional, or at least happens in an expected area or time.

    For instance, PvE and PvP zones, or PvP flags, that type of thing.

     

    There are no pure PVE sandboxes because they're rubbish but people still want them because they'd rather fight for territory with AIs or face swarm attacks (or zergs) by AI controlled characters. This is by the way an actual thing, I saw someone one here say Tabula Rasa (Lord British's defunct MMO) would've been great if they stuck to the initial aggressive AI and it would've been an PVE sandbox.

     

    Basically people who want a pure PVE sandbox want all combat to be vs AI regardless how stale or just plain dumb it may be.

    Also the castration of PVP by having it occur only in arenas/battlegrounds or select servers while it doesn't make a sandbox a true PVE sandbox it is still damn close.

    image
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Dihoru
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by Dihoru I am gonna go out here on a ledge and say sandboxes with pure PVE are less popular than sandboxes with both pvp and pve on the same shard blended in a smart way. I mean people who said "sandbox pvp" would jump ship almost immediately to a well balanced well built omni sandbox whereas PVE purists seem intent on having PVP and PVE servers not a mix (which just to be clear is not "both" , it is either PVP or PVE and it is both an asinine and immature view of things and showcases the mentality which led to... well the rise of themeparks and in time also the rise of F2P, kinda funny how two wrongs made a right as well).
    There are no pure PvE games. Except maybe The Secret World, but even there players can enter battlegrounds. I would be willing to bet that the people who want a Sandbox PvE game aren't looking at a pure PvE game, they just want a game where the PvE is optional, or at least happens in an expected area or time. For instance, PvE and PvP zones, or PvP flags, that type of thing.  
    There are no pure PVE sandboxes because they're rubbish but people still want them because they'd rather fight for territory with AIs or face swarm attacks (or zergs) by AI controlled characters. This is by the way an actual thing, I saw someone one here say Tabula Rasa (Lord British's defunct MMO) would've been great if they stuck to the initial aggressive AI and it would've been an PVE sandbox.

     

    Basically people who want a pure PVE sandbox want all combat to be vs AI regardless how stale or just plain dumb it may be.

    Also the castration of PVP by having it occur only in arenas/battlegrounds or select servers while it doesn't make a sandbox a true PVE sandbox it is still damn close.




    What you're saying isn't really any different than the people who say that all the FFA PvP people are gankers. You're simplifying something that isn't very simple.

    DAoC seems to do pretty well, and it had a combination of PvE and PvP zones. People were really very happy to go out and engage in a lot of PvP, but they just didn't want to be shopping for new armor and get trampled under a stampede of players from another realm in the vendor's stall.

    There are perfectly reasonable ways to setup PvP in games that don't involve not allowing the choice to participate. It's just not necessary. Even CCP recognized this. That's why they changed or updated the rules with high sec space. It allows people to PvP when they want to PvP, and to PvE when they want to PvE.

    A game with little or no PvP won't sell very well. This was part of TSW's problem (I think). A game that doesn't give players much choice about when they engage in PvP won't do very well either. This is the problem with Darkfall and Mortal Online. Though, DF and MO do have some other issues, especially MO. A game that gives individual players choices, that gives them some control over when they engage in PvP will do much better. This would be Eve and post Trammel UO. SWG would be in this category too, though like DF and MO, SWG had some pretty big issues.

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

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon


    Some minimal punctuation and grammar are always appreciated by the people who read through these posts. They may not say it, but it is appreciated.


    Well practically speaking, if you're responding to multiple points, it's a lot better to break your responses up like this so the person reading it can understand what you're responding to. I think that's much more important than whatever autocorrect failures I had from my phone which you could probably decipher within the context of whatever it was I was saying anyway.



    I can totally understand that you like games like Eve. Heck, I like games like Eve, though I don't particularly like Eve.


    Also, I said, "entertain", not, "understand". Totally different meaning. I know you can understand what's being said. You just can't or won't entertain the thought that ~some~ of what you're saying is wrong.



    It's kind of hard to entertain the idea if it's never been brought up to me, don't you think? It's hard enough to get you guys to even understand what we want, let alone for you to understand it and then come up with a reasonable counter offer. Present a reasonable substitute for ffa pvp as a source of risk/reward and I'll entertain the idea.



    There are a lot of ways to implement PvP in a sandbox game. You have expressed the opinion that FFA PvP is the only right way to do it. There is no "right" way to do it, only the way a person prefers it done.


    Depends on what you mean. I never said anybody's opinion about what they prefer to play is wrong. But ffa pvp is more sandbox than non-ffa pvp. That's not an opinion.



    SWG implemented factional PvP with PvP flags and by all accounts it worked out great. They had a lot of other really bad problems with the game, but PvP wasn't one of them. If OW/FFA PvP was the only right way to implement PvP in a sandbox game, SWG would have had one more issue on the long list of issues, but it didn't. So there are at least two ways to implement PvP in a sandbox game that players will be happy with. There are probably at least a few others.


    Again, I never said the only kind of pvp that people enjoy is ffa pvp. That would be a ridiculous thing to say. So you showing an example of a popular game that had opt-in pvp really doesn't mean anything. Also, from what I understand the rest of that game was EXTREMELY sandboxy, particularly professions. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here to be honest.



    If we look around and see that there are examples of games with OW/FFA PvP in existence, it's not a stretch to think a developer might try to build a sandbox game with something a little different, something that isn't OW/FFA PvP. Maybe it's different servers, maybe it's just the ability to flag or not for PvP, I don't know. Seems likely that it won't be Medieval Fantasy Eve though.


    Very few games have done fantasy sandbox with ffa pvp well... in fact almost none have. Hell, barely any have even done it poorly. They have not at all been given the chance/budget that non-sandbox games have been given. If there were a high budget fantasy sandbox game with ffa pvp (but natural restrictions like guards, notoriety, bounties etc), deep crafting and pve, city building/sieging, etc you'd be crazy to think that would be an enormous success. Look at eve for goodness sake. Everything about that game screams anti-new player. It's incredibly daunting to get into, it's harsh, it's... a little boring, and even that game is wildly successful, especially considering how stable its success is.



    **

    I never told anyone to go play LoL. I said the people who only want PvP are already playing LoL. Because, you know, it's all PvP, all the time.

    Just in case it comes up, I also never accused anyone of being a ganker and that's why they like OW/FFA PvP.


    Then why even bring it up? Nobody here is asking for an instanced arcade pvp only game like LoL et al.

  • GreezGreez Wickie Watchie, FLPosts: 103Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

    A game with little or no PvP won't sell very well. This was part of TSW's problem (I think). A game that gives individual players choices, that gives them some control over when they engage in PvP will do much better. This would be Eve and post Trammel UO. SWG would be in this category too, though like DF and MO, SWG had some pretty big issues.

    WoW and Rift sell just fine and they are in the "little to no PvP" group for me. Saying that it was part of TSW's problem is worthless, there are so many factors in why a game does or doesn't sell, on the PvE side alone, that you can say pretty much anything and it's equally unproven.

    EVE is a PvP driven game, let's not pretend that it isn't. Sure, you can avoid PvP but you'll have a diminished experience and you'll be grossly dependent on PvPers doing anything regardless. That is not balanced.

    SWG is a better example and most of its issues were rather easy to fix. Unfortunately, it was butchered to death...

Sign In or Register to comment.