Good post. Wherever there are monsters, there is also a need for heroes. Maybe a good portion of the population will decide to fight the Player Monsters as well as the NPC ones.
Ideally, when signing up for a game we can make circles of influence by something as simple as a survey. Starting with age groups and finer filtering according to moral/ethical values. A simple 3 question survey is enough -- Age? Do you cuss; like to talk about politics; Religions; Drugs? Do you play casually or hardcore? And that is who we are matched with in a zone. No rocket science here, some basic social "order" questions that would make playing MMOs bearable. Can always change that zone if your values change, but, it'll give relief from this blob from Mars.
You're talking about playing with like minded people.
I see that as the function of a guild/tribe/kinship.
I'm talking about excluding people who make it a goal to ruin the fun for other people and do so 24/7 and manage to do so by just barely staying within the confines of the Code of Conduct.
The problem with your idea is griefers would intentionally answer the questions wrong in order to get with groups they could annoy.
You can't, because that's the culture of the internet itself. Which is like RL.
RL self-segregates because a cop can't be at your beck and call 24/7 to police it all. You live and socialize with those who share similar social/moral/ethic values. It's your circle of influence you feel comfortable being in, and by extension consider acceptable to be around, and thus have fun with.
My best time in WoW socially wasn't in a raid that downed a boss, it was a December random dungeon run that took 3hrs. Why did it take 3hrs? Because all of us were ladies cooking for Christmas, and inbetween baking, were passing time online. Now a 15 year-old would've been bored to tears talking about families and Christmas menus, let alone a power leveler would've been a raging because the run took forever, but we had fun. That's fun to me socially in groups, talking about families and that such, not reliving Parris Island with a bunch of raging kids who need to prove some ePeen. Different culture and values.
That's achieved by having better tools to tailor who you socialize with. Those Mars like kids I'm sure get along fine with their own peers. Others with their own, too.
@Op , thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and I enjoyed your article. I am one of those peaceful players you mentioned, but I love, enjoy , prefer FFA/PVP/Full Loot games. I actually suck at PVP but I do enjoy the danger.
You mentioned permadeath in the article and I wondered if murders, outlaws etc: ran the risk of permadeath how that would work.
In my opinion if I saw a murder , I would personally respect and fear him.
Originally posted by Axehilt ...Also, I don't think PVP is required for a good sandbox.
Totally agree and wish folks would stop suggesting otherwise.
Originally posted by EthanC Originally posted by TheChuckinator19908TOTAL FREEDOM!!
Thank you!
I was actually reading this post and wanted desperately to plug Divergence but um... Being one of it's developers I figured the post would probably be considered advertisement and flamed.
But since it's already been done... :P Yes, "Maximum Player Freedom" is the logo for our game. If you don't believe it, download, log in, and check it out
Very well done, looks awesome.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Thats weird cause I think Everquest was the most popular game, twice the subs of UO and SWG and it was most definately not a sandbox.
I think the point is that EQ was not a themepark; and if you had to label EQ as either a sandbox or themepark, it more closely resembles the former.
Themepark: 1. From the moment you log in, NPCs are telling you what to do ! (quest hubs) 2. Most of your xp and loot comes from quest rewards 3. Fairly easy game, not much stress.
EQ: 1. You are placed into the world and have to figure it out, often learning from other players. 2. Quests are hard and long and result in almost no xp and very little loot except in the case of major/epic like quests. 3. Hard game: high level aggro mobs roaming noob zones, faction issues, death penalties, corpse runs, down time.
Originally posted by botrytis I fixed it for you and increased the font size - makes it easier to read for us old guys.
Thanks, now I will read it, lol. Initially I read only the first paragraph then skimmed/skipped the rest. /edit, looks like it's saying PvP kills sandbox but see my first quote, above.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
I feel like somebody is going to argue with your statements a lot. Mostly the statements on PvP. The arguments will center around how limiting the freedom of PvP takes away from the sandbox, or how limiting the freedom of PvP will reduce the realism of the sandbox.
I'm not, because I more or less agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think. I mostly just skimmed your wall of text. But I'm pretty sure the PvP response is incoming.
To be honest this post seemed like the longest possible form of "PvP needs to be optional" I've ever seen.
It has a lot of paragraphs and a lot of words, but it appears to simply be a rehash of the never ending argument about whether PvP should be optional or always on and this poster is of the mindset that it needs to be optional (one which I've posted about myself), but that post is a TL:DR overkill.
Originally posted by Axehilt ...Also, I don't think PVP is required for a good sandbox.
Totally agree and wish folks would stop suggesting otherwise.
Originally posted by EthanC
Originally posted by TheChuckinator19908TOTAL FREEDOM!!
Thank you!
I was actually reading this post and wanted desperately to plug Divergence but um... Being one of it's developers I figured the post would probably be considered advertisement and flamed.
But since it's already been done... :P Yes, "Maximum Player Freedom" is the logo for our game. If you don't believe it, download, log in, and check it out
Very well done, looks awesome.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Thats weird cause I think Everquest was the most popular game, twice the subs of UO and SWG and it was most definately not a sandbox.
I think the point is that EQ was not a themepark; and if you had to label EQ as either a sandbox or themepark, it more closely resembles the former.
Themepark: 1. From the moment you log in, NPCs are telling you what to do ! (quest hubs) 2. Most of your xp and loot comes from quest rewards 3. Fairly easy game, not much stress.
EQ: 1. You are placed into the world and have to figure it out, often learning from other players. 2. Quests are hard and long and result in almost no xp and very little loot except in the case of major/epic like quests. 3. Hard game: high level aggro mobs roaming noob zones, faction issues, death penalties, corpse runs, down time.
Originally posted by botrytis
I fixed it for you and increased the font size - makes it easier to read for us old guys.
Thanks, now I will read it, lol. Initially I read only the first paragraph then skimmed/skipped the rest. /edit, looks like it's saying PvP kills sandbox but see my first quote, above.
Except that EQ had linear clonal characters (all warriors were the same, all monks the same...), no way to differentiate classes, heavy loot driven game, no impact on the actual gameworld. The only thing remotely sandboxy was no restrictions on where you could go. To me EQ was a themepark through and through.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by fardreamer get your "truths" about humans checked. not all people are greedy selfish, whatever.,
IRL, yes. In fact, IRL there are tons of incentives for people to act altruistically, honorably, obey the law, etc. That is because RL has consequences and there is a finality to choices. Some of the most effective contributors to peace and human progress have used non-violent means.
Not so in your usual PVP-enabled MMO world.
In a PVP MMO, consequences are usually (and necessarily, of course) trivial. Anonymity removes a veneer of social control and incentive to behave in ways that invite reciprocal positive behavior. Online brings out the worst in human nature. If you give people power in MMO, a large percentage (much much larger than RL) will abuse it to harm others.
Gandhi, Mandela, Einstein - none of these folks would have survived to adult hood in your typical MMO with PVP. They would have been bumped off by DetHz0r666 for no reason other than because he could.
That is why true unrestricted PVP games are so rare. They become wastelands where the worst elements of the online world congregate to drive off everyone else.
I feel like somebody is going to argue with your statements a lot. Mostly the statements on PvP. The arguments will center around how limiting the freedom of PvP takes away from the sandbox, or how limiting the freedom of PvP will reduce the realism of the sandbox.
I'm not, because I more or less agree with a lot of what you're saying, I think. I mostly just skimmed your wall of text. But I'm pretty sure the PvP response is incoming.
To be honest this post seemed like the longest possible form of "PvP needs to be optional" I've ever seen.
It has a lot of paragraphs and a lot of words, but it appears to simply be a rehash of the never ending argument about whether PvP should be optional or always on and this poster is of the mindset that it needs to be optional (one which I've posted about myself), but that post is a TL:DR overkill.
Yah. Jus let the people that wanna kill each other flag themselves for PVP, the rest can be on their way. Of course, then the people that are flagged are ready and waiting for a fight, so killing them isn't as much fun.
Except that EQ had linear clonal characters (all warriors were the same, all monks the same...), no way to differentiate classes, heavy loot driven game, no impact on the actual gameworld. The only thing remotely sandboxy was no restrictions on where you could go. To me EQ was a themepark through and through.
Because it is a themepark game, which WoW (and many MMOs) is modeled.
To have a true sandbox MMORPG, it would have to support play styles that aren't friendly to the idea of MMO. Which is why the devs continue forcing players to play a certain way to ensure the genre is a MMO. It's not fun, but done because a MMORPG without the MMO, is an offline single player game.
There's methods to have both, but for whatever reason devs continue on that EQ model. In the scheme of things, it's actually curtailing the MMO aspect of it, and ruins any attempt at sandboxing a genre.
For the other discussion here about PvP: PvP is included in sandboxes as that's the active content. Don't have to add PvE content which is time consuming and costly to produce. All those F2P games are PvP orientated, yet for some strange reason a PvE game with optional PvP and a themepark game at that, has the most players. Ironic, huh?
Originally posted by fardreamer get your "truths" about humans checked. not all people are greedy selfish, whatever.,
IRL, yes. In fact, IRL there are tons of incentives for people to act altruistically, honorably, obey the law, etc. That is because RL has consequences and there is a finality to choices.
This is why I asked the question, would permadeath be a good option for murders?
In a game with permadeath full loot ffa pvp only good/confident players would choose to be outcasts.
I think I could play a game with this type of risk/reward system.
By the way I am an old man and cannot pvp
I would be the victim, but I would respect/fear the outcast.
The bullies/wannabes would be playing some other game
as a post above mentioned, the answer to "does a sandbox NEED to have PVP?" is "no."
the OP makes some points that i sorta kinda agree with regarding MMO which do have pvp. from now on in this post if i say "sandbox mmo" i'm talking about one with pvp.
I'm going to do what i can't help doing and use as my primary examples the 2 sandbox mmo that i have the most experience with, and that i enjoy / enjoyed the most: eve and darkfalll.
Eve is of course the big, famous, monster sandbox and in my opinion the most successful MMO ever made vis a vis immersion. Darkfall is (on the surface at least) the sandbox mmo chosen by people who think even the harsh world of eve is too warm and squishy.
The majority of folks playing eve don't grief, don't steal, don't scam, and don't even pvp often. Even players who live in null-sec (me, for example) can spend most of their time in peaceful pursuits and only kick on the violence switch when "duty calls" (ex; home defense). Yet, eve revolves around PVP. Literally. Even the Ship materials buyer/trader who spends his time hauling minerals thru high sec is feeding the PVP furnace of eve. in PVP ships blow up. then PVP folks need more ships. then they buy ships from non PVP folks who constructed them, who in turn constructed them out of minerals mined by a non PVP miner. considering nearly everything in eve is crafted by players you can see how important CCP have made the ever belittled care bear to their game's economy.
in this way, eve assured that PVE and PVP will simply have to make nice, and (except for hulkageddon!!!!) this arrangement has made it possible for many a so called care bear to step into the pvp sandbox of eve and find a home.
this is the economic engine of eve but (and here i am nodding to the OP) what systems are in place to assure that pvp/ pve relationship is maintained? the High-sec / low-sec / nullsec system. in it, some places are delineated by the game as safer from ill wishing pvp'ers than others. the only 100% time a player is safe is when they are docked, but in high sec one has a very good deal of protection, mostly in the form of very swift punishment that CONCORD (in game police) will dish out to outlaws.
to me this is just what the doctor ordered when the OP expressed their concerns for any game in which griefing is allowed to turn lots of folks away from a sandbox MMO. "a safe place". as much as I love eve and CCP i don't think for a second that it would have survived this long without the sec system.
lets compare this to Darkfall (current iteration). in darkfall there are actual small corners of the map where pvp cannot occur whatsoever. however everywhere else, people are free game and no punishment exists to prevent someone from ruining a peaceful player's harvesting run, etc. I personally dont mind this approach to the point of excluding the game (i played it for a while and only quit because it had adverse effects on my CPU temperature... funny for an 8 core CPU but that's for another thread aint it). but it does a whole lot to make the sandbox mmo experience more shallow for pve players and therefore, as pve players leave, more shallow overall. for example, to play darkfall without getting frustrated to the point of pulling hair out, one NEEDS to acquire the mindset that gear is completely throwaway and you don't need to sweat the loss of your gear at all. in eve your "gear" (space ship) is also destructable but the nature of eve's security systems allow for gear to be introduced into the game that takes great endeavors to produce, the loss of which would be a DRAMATIC blow not just to a player but to a whole alliance of players (eve players know i'm talking about titans). emotional bonds to a game are part of what keeps a gamer coming back to a game; I know that i would be upset if i lost my PVE dominix that has served me in 0.0 unharmed by other players for 2 years. that's a good thing for ccp. i have an emotional bond to their game. When i lost a set of gear in darkfall that i had actually crafted myself i simply went to my bank and got an identical set of gear and equipped it.
i guess this is my long winded way of pretty much (but not exactly) agreeing with the OP. though it should be reaffirmed that EQN can very easily be a sandbox MMO with no pvp whatsoever or (this is my preference) exist in multiple PVP states on multiple servers with different rulesets.
thanx for reading
Da Skull
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Originally posted by wargfoot Could you give examples of your claim?
Um...without going to refute every single line seperatedly, because pretty much every single line is flawed, I would sum up the fallacy of OP:
The force behind the change is economical, not the demand. There is no rise of people asking sandbox games, it is just development of standard model MMO is way too expensive and some developers are trying out new possible, profitable approach how to make a game.
Quite tiring, repeated ad nausea fallacy of looking at MMO development from "gamer" point of view. Games are not made for nor by "gamers", they are made to make money.
And last, but not least, when a game developer announce a development of "sandbox" game, it can mean basically anything...and people like to fill the holes with wishful thinking.
Originally posted by Ehliya Originally posted by fardreamerget your "truths" about humans checked. not all people are greedy selfish, whatever.,
IRL, yes. In fact, IRL there are tons of incentives for people to act altruistically, honorably, obey the law, etc. That is because RL has consequences and there is a finality to choices. Some of the most effective contributors to peace and human progress have used non-violent means.
Not so in your usual PVP-enabled MMO world.
In a PVP MMO, consequences are usually (and necessarily, of course) trivial. Anonymity removes a veneer of social control and incentive to behave in ways that invite reciprocal positive behavior. Online brings out the worst in human nature. If you give people power in MMO, a large percentage (much much larger than RL) will abuse it to harm others.
Gandhi, Mandela, Einstein - none of these folks would have survived to adult hood in your typical MMO with PVP. They would have been bumped off by DetHz0r666 for no reason other than because he could.
That is why true unrestricted PVP games are so rare. They become wastelands where the worst elements of the online world congregate to drive off everyone else.
Even without those consequences people do not act like unrestrained murderers as they do in most MMORPGs where it's possible to do so. The Wild West was not nearly as murderous as it was portrayed in movies. The small town I live in has more murders per capita than any Wild West town did and there are certainly more consequences now than there were then. Most people don't need much of an excuse to not behave like sociopaths IRL. In video games, unless it's impossible or the options extremely limited, acting like a sociopath or a psychopath is SOP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The irony of the sandbox MMO is that the term was coined to refer to building sandcastles, but most people who clamour for a sandbox want rather to kick sand in other peoples' faces.
Um...without going to refute every single line seperatedly, because pretty much every single line is flawed, I would sum up the fallacy of OP:
The force behind the change is economical, not the demand. There is no rise of people asking sandbox games, it is just development of standard model MMO is way too expensive and some developers are trying out new possible, profitable approach how to make a game.
Quite tiring, repeated ad nausea fallacy of looking at MMO development from "gamer" point of view. Games are not made for nor by "gamers", they are made to make money.
And last, but not least, when a game developer announce a development of "sandbox" game, it can mean basically anything...and people like to fill the holes with wishful thinking.
If that was really the case then there wouldn't be several AAA MMO's that were either totally sandboxes, or had aspects of sandboxes, coming out relatively soon. People are looking for something different besides the traditional theme park because for many people it has gotten old.
in this way, eve assured that PVE and PVP will simply have to make nice, and (except for hulkageddon!!!!) this arrangement has made it possible for many a so called care bear to step into the pvp sandbox of eve and find a home.
Yet carebearing in EvE isn't really a supported game style. If you're a nullbear, you're also out of your element, because PvP is the prime focus of EvE. It's nice that there is some PvE concepts, but you know full well that miner is prey, thus, your Hulkageddon remark.
EvE isn't a good example of a sandbox game, too many other aspects in it that prevents having a true sandbox. I call EvE sandbox in name only, because the illusion is there of a sandbox (no "!" signs over agent heads [though you're reminded they are there when you dock]; you are free to travel and all), but that illusion ends beyond the safety of high-sec. Then it becomes a EQ style game, with one avatar guild dictating access to content and controlling the server economy. So, truly, it's not truly a sandbox game.
Originally posted by wsmar People are looking for something different besides the traditional theme park because for many people it has gotten old.
Yet, people every year spent more and more money on traditional themepark games.
When devs say "It's going to be a sandbox", it is likely vastly different from what you consider yourself a sandbox, you just fill blanks with wishful thinking, denying reality...
I don't feel Minecraft played a role in sandbox MMO's coming to fruition so much as people consistently complaining about how all the MMO's are the same... Just looking at this forums history alone over the past few years speaks volumes.
As for your opinion on PvP, I can only assume that you were picked on in real life and have carried that with you to present day. You really seem to have an issue with being pushed around. I won't lie, I was sometimes the bully in real life, but in UO (a game which proved you have no idea what you are talking about) I was the good guy. I pk'd a few times, just for the rush as I was new to it all. My guys name was Buddy (had a couple other 7x gms too). I joined a guild, hunted PK'ers for other newbs or new chars in dungeons like Shame. Often there weren't many PK'ers around... they would be in predictable places to fight others who wanted the same. I ended up discovering new areas/zones most of the time. Finding the ostrich looking lizard mount thing before most had was awesome. Made so much $$ off that lol. Anyway, regarding pk'ers, It was obvious to avoid brit graveyard for a year before they moved west and camped a portal. Even then, die to them and run at them naked upon repsawn and they usually just let you be lol. The game was more exciting because you had to avoid the main road when travelling in certain areas, and you were always in danger. Whether it be an npc or player. That's not griefing to me, thats frickin roleplaying. You think you'd be travelling safely everywhere hundreds of years ago? Nope. Griefing is that rare douchebag in the newbie zone who hunts you down till someone high level clears them out. In UO there was no such area.
In UO your char would actually feel different from others. Whether it be how you distributed your LIMITED amount of 700 skill points, your appearance, your items, your home, later your customized home, your mount (some harder to get), your pets... guild designation (wars/alliances/colours), order vs chaos... so much of the game was optional to really make your one char different from another of yours or anyone elses. And dont get me wrong, there was cookie cutter builds, but the other things helped. I could go on and on about things that can set you apart from others... but it's all been said far too often
Oh and too add one thing. There were no rewards for being the good guy. Yet the majority were just that... the good guy.
People are looking for something different besides the traditional theme park because for many people it has gotten old.
Yet, people every year spent more and more money on traditional themepark games.
When devs say "It's going to be a sandbox", it is likely vastly different from what you consider yourself a sandbox, you just fill blanks with wishful thinking, denying reality...
Or they can play MOBA, ARPG, MMO shooters, and other online games. No one says people have to stay with MMORPGs. In fact, didn't i read many here don't even play MMORPGs anymore?
Comments
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Do you have something to say to anyone?
You can't, because that's the culture of the internet itself. Which is like RL.
RL self-segregates because a cop can't be at your beck and call 24/7 to police it all. You live and socialize with those who share similar social/moral/ethic values. It's your circle of influence you feel comfortable being in, and by extension consider acceptable to be around, and thus have fun with.
My best time in WoW socially wasn't in a raid that downed a boss, it was a December random dungeon run that took 3hrs. Why did it take 3hrs? Because all of us were ladies cooking for Christmas, and inbetween baking, were passing time online. Now a 15 year-old would've been bored to tears talking about families and Christmas menus, let alone a power leveler would've been a raging because the run took forever, but we had fun. That's fun to me socially in groups, talking about families and that such, not reliving Parris Island with a bunch of raging kids who need to prove some ePeen. Different culture and values.
That's achieved by having better tools to tailor who you socialize with. Those Mars like kids I'm sure get along fine with their own peers. Others with their own, too.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Herald of innovation, Vanquisher of the old! - Awake a few hours almost everyday!
Sorry but no, there is no merit behind your wall of text.
It is just another thread of generalizations based on personal bias ignoring any facts and contradictions with reality...
@Op , thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and I enjoyed your article. I am one of those peaceful players you mentioned, but I love, enjoy , prefer FFA/PVP/Full Loot games. I actually suck at PVP but I do enjoy the danger.
You mentioned permadeath in the article and I wondered if murders, outlaws etc: ran the risk of permadeath how that would work.
In my opinion if I saw a murder , I would personally respect and fear him.
The business model would also need to be P2P.
Just a thought.
http://www.entropiapartners.com/?r=22415
Totally agree and wish folks would stop suggesting otherwise.
Thank you!I was actually reading this post and wanted desperately to plug Divergence but um... Being one of it's developers I figured the post would probably be considered advertisement and flamed.
But since it's already been done... :P Yes, "Maximum Player Freedom" is the logo for our game. If you don't believe it, download, log in, and check it out
Very well done, looks awesome.
I think the point is that EQ was not a themepark; and if you had to label EQ as either a sandbox or themepark, it more closely resembles the former.
Themepark:
1. From the moment you log in, NPCs are telling you what to do ! (quest hubs)
2. Most of your xp and loot comes from quest rewards
3. Fairly easy game, not much stress.
EQ:
1. You are placed into the world and have to figure it out, often learning from other players.
2. Quests are hard and long and result in almost no xp and very little loot except in the case of major/epic like quests.
3. Hard game: high level aggro mobs roaming noob zones, faction issues, death penalties, corpse runs, down time.
Thanks, now I will read it, lol. Initially I read only the first paragraph then skimmed/skipped the rest. /edit, looks like it's saying PvP kills sandbox but see my first quote, above.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
To be honest this post seemed like the longest possible form of "PvP needs to be optional" I've ever seen.
It has a lot of paragraphs and a lot of words, but it appears to simply be a rehash of the never ending argument about whether PvP should be optional or always on and this poster is of the mindset that it needs to be optional (one which I've posted about myself), but that post is a TL:DR overkill.
Except that EQ had linear clonal characters (all warriors were the same, all monks the same...), no way to differentiate classes, heavy loot driven game, no impact on the actual gameworld. The only thing remotely sandboxy was no restrictions on where you could go. To me EQ was a themepark through and through.
IRL, yes. In fact, IRL there are tons of incentives for people to act altruistically, honorably, obey the law, etc. That is because RL has consequences and there is a finality to choices. Some of the most effective contributors to peace and human progress have used non-violent means.
Not so in your usual PVP-enabled MMO world.
In a PVP MMO, consequences are usually (and necessarily, of course) trivial. Anonymity removes a veneer of social control and incentive to behave in ways that invite reciprocal positive behavior. Online brings out the worst in human nature. If you give people power in MMO, a large percentage (much much larger than RL) will abuse it to harm others.
Gandhi, Mandela, Einstein - none of these folks would have survived to adult hood in your typical MMO with PVP. They would have been bumped off by DetHz0r666 for no reason other than because he could.
That is why true unrestricted PVP games are so rare. They become wastelands where the worst elements of the online world congregate to drive off everyone else.
Yah. Jus let the people that wanna kill each other flag themselves for PVP, the rest can be on their way. Of course, then the people that are flagged are ready and waiting for a fight, so killing them isn't as much fun.
Because it is a themepark game, which WoW (and many MMOs) is modeled.
To have a true sandbox MMORPG, it would have to support play styles that aren't friendly to the idea of MMO. Which is why the devs continue forcing players to play a certain way to ensure the genre is a MMO. It's not fun, but done because a MMORPG without the MMO, is an offline single player game.
There's methods to have both, but for whatever reason devs continue on that EQ model. In the scheme of things, it's actually curtailing the MMO aspect of it, and ruins any attempt at sandboxing a genre.
For the other discussion here about PvP: PvP is included in sandboxes as that's the active content. Don't have to add PvE content which is time consuming and costly to produce. All those F2P games are PvP orientated, yet for some strange reason a PvE game with optional PvP and a themepark game at that, has the most players. Ironic, huh?
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
This is why I asked the question, would permadeath be a good option for murders?
In a game with permadeath full loot ffa pvp only good/confident players would choose to be outcasts.
I think I could play a game with this type of risk/reward system.
By the way I am an old man and cannot pvp
I would be the victim, but I would respect/fear the outcast.
The bullies/wannabes would be playing some other game
http://www.entropiapartners.com/?r=22415
as a post above mentioned, the answer to "does a sandbox NEED to have PVP?" is "no."
the OP makes some points that i sorta kinda agree with regarding MMO which do have pvp. from now on in this post if i say "sandbox mmo" i'm talking about one with pvp.
I'm going to do what i can't help doing and use as my primary examples the 2 sandbox mmo that i have the most experience with, and that i enjoy / enjoyed the most: eve and darkfalll.
Eve is of course the big, famous, monster sandbox and in my opinion the most successful MMO ever made vis a vis immersion. Darkfall is (on the surface at least) the sandbox mmo chosen by people who think even the harsh world of eve is too warm and squishy.
The majority of folks playing eve don't grief, don't steal, don't scam, and don't even pvp often. Even players who live in null-sec (me, for example) can spend most of their time in peaceful pursuits and only kick on the violence switch when "duty calls" (ex; home defense). Yet, eve revolves around PVP. Literally. Even the Ship materials buyer/trader who spends his time hauling minerals thru high sec is feeding the PVP furnace of eve. in PVP ships blow up. then PVP folks need more ships. then they buy ships from non PVP folks who constructed them, who in turn constructed them out of minerals mined by a non PVP miner. considering nearly everything in eve is crafted by players you can see how important CCP have made the ever belittled care bear to their game's economy.
in this way, eve assured that PVE and PVP will simply have to make nice, and (except for hulkageddon!!!!) this arrangement has made it possible for many a so called care bear to step into the pvp sandbox of eve and find a home.
this is the economic engine of eve but (and here i am nodding to the OP) what systems are in place to assure that pvp/ pve relationship is maintained? the High-sec / low-sec / nullsec system. in it, some places are delineated by the game as safer from ill wishing pvp'ers than others. the only 100% time a player is safe is when they are docked, but in high sec one has a very good deal of protection, mostly in the form of very swift punishment that CONCORD (in game police) will dish out to outlaws.
to me this is just what the doctor ordered when the OP expressed their concerns for any game in which griefing is allowed to turn lots of folks away from a sandbox MMO. "a safe place". as much as I love eve and CCP i don't think for a second that it would have survived this long without the sec system.
lets compare this to Darkfall (current iteration). in darkfall there are actual small corners of the map where pvp cannot occur whatsoever. however everywhere else, people are free game and no punishment exists to prevent someone from ruining a peaceful player's harvesting run, etc. I personally dont mind this approach to the point of excluding the game (i played it for a while and only quit because it had adverse effects on my CPU temperature... funny for an 8 core CPU but that's for another thread aint it). but it does a whole lot to make the sandbox mmo experience more shallow for pve players and therefore, as pve players leave, more shallow overall. for example, to play darkfall without getting frustrated to the point of pulling hair out, one NEEDS to acquire the mindset that gear is completely throwaway and you don't need to sweat the loss of your gear at all. in eve your "gear" (space ship) is also destructable but the nature of eve's security systems allow for gear to be introduced into the game that takes great endeavors to produce, the loss of which would be a DRAMATIC blow not just to a player but to a whole alliance of players (eve players know i'm talking about titans). emotional bonds to a game are part of what keeps a gamer coming back to a game; I know that i would be upset if i lost my PVE dominix that has served me in 0.0 unharmed by other players for 2 years. that's a good thing for ccp. i have an emotional bond to their game. When i lost a set of gear in darkfall that i had actually crafted myself i simply went to my bank and got an identical set of gear and equipped it.
i guess this is my long winded way of pretty much (but not exactly) agreeing with the OP. though it should be reaffirmed that EQN can very easily be a sandbox MMO with no pvp whatsoever or (this is my preference) exist in multiple PVP states on multiple servers with different rulesets.
thanx for reading
Da Skull
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
Um...without going to refute every single line seperatedly, because pretty much every single line is flawed, I would sum up the fallacy of OP:
The force behind the change is economical, not the demand. There is no rise of people asking sandbox games, it is just development of standard model MMO is way too expensive and some developers are trying out new possible, profitable approach how to make a game.
Quite tiring, repeated ad nausea fallacy of looking at MMO development from "gamer" point of view. Games are not made for nor by "gamers", they are made to make money.
And last, but not least, when a game developer announce a development of "sandbox" game, it can mean basically anything...and people like to fill the holes with wishful thinking.
Not so in your usual PVP-enabled MMO world.
In a PVP MMO, consequences are usually (and necessarily, of course) trivial. Anonymity removes a veneer of social control and incentive to behave in ways that invite reciprocal positive behavior. Online brings out the worst in human nature. If you give people power in MMO, a large percentage (much much larger than RL) will abuse it to harm others.
Gandhi, Mandela, Einstein - none of these folks would have survived to adult hood in your typical MMO with PVP. They would have been bumped off by DetHz0r666 for no reason other than because he could.
That is why true unrestricted PVP games are so rare. They become wastelands where the worst elements of the online world congregate to drive off everyone else.
Even without those consequences people do not act like unrestrained murderers as they do in most MMORPGs where it's possible to do so. The Wild West was not nearly as murderous as it was portrayed in movies. The small town I live in has more murders per capita than any Wild West town did and there are certainly more consequences now than there were then. Most people don't need much of an excuse to not behave like sociopaths IRL. In video games, unless it's impossible or the options extremely limited, acting like a sociopath or a psychopath is SOP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If that was really the case then there wouldn't be several AAA MMO's that were either totally sandboxes, or had aspects of sandboxes, coming out relatively soon. People are looking for something different besides the traditional theme park because for many people it has gotten old.
Yet carebearing in EvE isn't really a supported game style. If you're a nullbear, you're also out of your element, because PvP is the prime focus of EvE. It's nice that there is some PvE concepts, but you know full well that miner is prey, thus, your Hulkageddon remark.
EvE isn't a good example of a sandbox game, too many other aspects in it that prevents having a true sandbox. I call EvE sandbox in name only, because the illusion is there of a sandbox (no "!" signs over agent heads [though you're reminded they are there when you dock]; you are free to travel and all), but that illusion ends beyond the safety of high-sec. Then it becomes a EQ style game, with one avatar guild dictating access to content and controlling the server economy. So, truly, it's not truly a sandbox game.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Yet, people every year spent more and more money on traditional themepark games.
When devs say "It's going to be a sandbox", it is likely vastly different from what you consider yourself a sandbox, you just fill blanks with wishful thinking, denying reality...
I don't feel Minecraft played a role in sandbox MMO's coming to fruition so much as people consistently complaining about how all the MMO's are the same... Just looking at this forums history alone over the past few years speaks volumes.
As for your opinion on PvP, I can only assume that you were picked on in real life and have carried that with you to present day. You really seem to have an issue with being pushed around. I won't lie, I was sometimes the bully in real life, but in UO (a game which proved you have no idea what you are talking about) I was the good guy. I pk'd a few times, just for the rush as I was new to it all. My guys name was Buddy (had a couple other 7x gms too). I joined a guild, hunted PK'ers for other newbs or new chars in dungeons like Shame. Often there weren't many PK'ers around... they would be in predictable places to fight others who wanted the same. I ended up discovering new areas/zones most of the time. Finding the ostrich looking lizard mount thing before most had was awesome. Made so much $$ off that lol. Anyway, regarding pk'ers, It was obvious to avoid brit graveyard for a year before they moved west and camped a portal. Even then, die to them and run at them naked upon repsawn and they usually just let you be lol. The game was more exciting because you had to avoid the main road when travelling in certain areas, and you were always in danger. Whether it be an npc or player. That's not griefing to me, thats frickin roleplaying. You think you'd be travelling safely everywhere hundreds of years ago? Nope. Griefing is that rare douchebag in the newbie zone who hunts you down till someone high level clears them out. In UO there was no such area.
In UO your char would actually feel different from others. Whether it be how you distributed your LIMITED amount of 700 skill points, your appearance, your items, your home, later your customized home, your mount (some harder to get), your pets... guild designation (wars/alliances/colours), order vs chaos... so much of the game was optional to really make your one char different from another of yours or anyone elses. And dont get me wrong, there was cookie cutter builds, but the other things helped. I could go on and on about things that can set you apart from others... but it's all been said far too often
Oh and too add one thing. There were no rewards for being the good guy. Yet the majority were just that... the good guy.
Or they can play MOBA, ARPG, MMO shooters, and other online games. No one says people have to stay with MMORPGs. In fact, didn't i read many here don't even play MMORPGs anymore?
The irony of the sandbox is that a themepark is just a gamified sandbox.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"