Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Poll] Which open world PVP system is more "sandboxish"?
maccarthur2004
Member UncommonPosts: 511
Sandbox mmos is all about FREEDOM to the players do what they want to do, when they want, only limited by "natural" barriers or by others players (as in real life).
With this in mind, this question about pvp system comes to us: is more "sandboxish" a mmo to have the players vulnerable to attacks from others players or they be partialy or totally invulnerable?
Some people (the majority, i think) thinks that the vulnerability to attacks from others players is a obvious and natural feature of any "realistic" mmo, and restrictions in that feature would be a severe restriction in maybe the most important and outstanding thing of a mmo (the combat), and still more: this restriction damages several emergent cool events that naturally arises in a "realistic" enviroment (challenges involving politics, diplomacy, social meaningful interactions, war strategies and tactics, disputes for several resources in the open world, etc)
Others, in the other hand, thinks that the players should have the freedom to be invulnerable or vulnerable as he wants, that this invulnerability is a right and its absence is a restriction in the player freedom.
This is the poll question.
Comments
The best sandbox type PvP I found is happening on Blood&Glory ruleset server of AoC
- no guards after Tortage
- you drop items from your inventory when you die to a player. Some dance on your corpse afterwards when they also got some pvp gear tokens from your death.
- it makes you paranoid and it's fun. Nothing for carebears or people with heart problems though. Ragequits happen.
Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw
Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
.
.
The Return of ELITE !
Another question that emerges, acessory to that, is: how can the huge amount of disputable resources in the open world of a sandbox mmo be disputed by the players without free PVP?
In these mmos, almost everything is disputable: territorys, holds (that generates incomes and privilegies), lands, bosses, reputation, farm and mob spots, etc
If the pvp is not free, how can the players dispute these limited amount of resources?
Why do they need to be disputed? Just have them accessible to anyone and require skill to gather and process into products other people want.
Why do people insist that the most important feature in a sandbox game is about combat PvPer.
If a sandbox game does not have better Crafting PvP(supply chains, efficiencies), Territory control, PvEvP(efficiency in killing mobs, getting PvE achievements for profit) and Social PvP(recruitment, guild control). The game will dry up pretty quickly. There is a reason EvE is such a vibrant and successful game, even though it's so very uncompelling.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Sandbox actually has more to do with commerce, market control and ownership.
Open world pvp is merely one of the tools to achieve it. Just look at the most sandboxy games that existed - UO, pre-cu SWG, and even Darkfall - the pvp element is basically just a offspring of the struggle for power and mercantile strength, though of course the commerce was also improved by the need for equipment in pvp, and they ended up forming a circular relationship (hence the term military-industrial complex that is popular in today's media).
So I think there's a bit of a problem of forming your poll with pvp in sandbox as an "end". It is actually a "mean".
In fps games pvp maybe the "ends", but that's because that's what they are all about. In rpg however, individuals always have an ulterior motive to pvp (maybe to control a resource spawn, a territory, to build a reputation, etc.), so pvp is more the "means", and it seems to me the question should be ask on that basis on how people think pvp is best set up.
Voted vulnerability. I would add with the exception of safe zones for shopping, crafting, idling, etc.
This poll fits that thread:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/391344/The-biggest-current-fallacy-in-MMOs-Sandboxes-must-be-PvP-oriented.html
Flagging system + ability to attack opponents lands / structures ,whatevere there is.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Lineage 2 had a awesome flag system. You can flag attacking others players and if you be killed while flagged the killer wouldn't receive punishments. To kill another player without him being flagged results in punishments to the killer.
Archeage will have a similar system to the pvp betwenn same faction players.
The question wasn't "what works best for the most people," "what do you think is most fun," or even "what do you personally want?"
It was "Given sandboxes are about freedom, which is more sandboxish?"
And to that, there is really only one obvious answer imo.
Sounds pretty chic
I really would like to see some devs actually developing these flaggings systems more.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
If we're talking about a PvP sandbox, and this is known from the start...then vulnerability is of course the way to go. You know what you are getting yourself into and are willing to risk it. You may PvE if you want, but those that prefer PvE should not be playing and therefor won't get the 'QQ' the PvPers believe happens.
Also, for it to be 'good' PvP you need more than just "Go into the wilds and kill anything you see" lack of meaning to it. Be it territory control via faction/guild what not. Resources, camps (mining, lumber, etc.) anything players can build and control would be up for grabs.
Have killers, bounty hunters, death squads against opposing factions, doesn't matter. If the game's system has consequences by those getting killed like placing a bounty on the murderer's head, or refuse them acces to their town or have a security lvl in town making it impossible for them to enter until they pay damages, whatever...then it can be somewhat balanced for more fun.