I am hoping for something like EvE. Null-sec for us and high-sec for people that don't like PvP. I wouldn't be upset at all if they went in that direction.
Smedley is a huge fan of EvE, so there is hope.
Agreed. PvP should not be restricted at all anywhere, it should be just REALLY dumb to try to kill another player in and around the big NPC cities.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 The less restrictive the better in my opinion..if i seek a hand holding environment i'll play one of the any themeparks available.
"Restrictive" is subjective. I find being prevented from gathering, questing, or doing ANYTHING OTHER THAN pvp because someone wants to take getting beat up at school out on me pretty restrictive.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
I am hoping for something like EvE. Null-sec for us and high-sec for people that don't like PvP. I wouldn't be upset at all if they went in that direction.
Smedley is a huge fan of EvE, so there is hope.
Agreed. PvP should not be restricted at all anywhere, it should be just REALLY dumb to try to kill another player in and around the big NPC cities.
and again i ask this of PVPers and never seem to get a response. why does your fun take precedent over mine? who are you and why are you so special?
if i want to just explore, gather, build or just kill mobs why do you think you should have the right to kill me? what makes you so special that you can interrupt and downright ruin the fun that i was having?
sure you can, SWG Pre-CU was a very PVE oriented sandbox(oh please argue with me that its not a sandbox). Sandbox does automatically mean FFA PVP, nor does it mean no PVP at all either.
thats the problem with this forum is people on it don't even know what a sandbox game is.
I am hoping for something like EvE. Null-sec for us and high-sec for people that don't like PvP. I wouldn't be upset at all if they went in that direction.
Smedley is a huge fan of EvE, so there is hope.
Agreed. PvP should not be restricted at all anywhere, it should be just REALLY dumb to try to kill another player in and around the big NPC cities.
Well that's true if the game is a PvP game. But my issue is that PvP destroys the PvE aspect of the game making it watered down and boring.
I have played an open world pvp game and it did work pretty well but it was classless and PvE was a minor part of the game. First game I ever played was probably the best PvP game ever. Underlight. Pure PvP but with consequenses, largely skill based, and in addition to normal death there was a mechanism to do perminent death. But sadly the game never grew beyond it's initial launch. I think it was actually the first first person view MMO.... Another good PvP game was shadowbane but like most PvP oriented games PvE was dull and boring. Plus the game had a poor UI, lag, and other issues but it did have a great PvP system.
But in all cases the better the game is for PvP the worse it is for PvE. You can put them together but you can't make a great game that supports both.
Completely separate spell/skill and gear mechanics for PvE and PvP so that exploits / adjustments on either side do not impact the other side. Everyone I know is sick of that s**t.
PvP anywhere for those that opt in to participate in it - whether through personal flagging, guild flagging or other mechanics. I'm perfectly happy to share the world with those that want to be able to PvP anywhere out in the open. So long as they're PvPing with their like-minded buddies. Full PvP servers, battlegrounds or separate PvP zones have no impact on PvE anyway, so it doesn't really matter one way or the other what happens with those.
p.s. That is my "Realistic" hope. I've pretty much given up on a "PvP everywhere, but with a very harsh and realistic consequence system". Most PvP'ers would probably hate going to jail for 10 years for killing someone anyway.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
I dont understand why people think this will be a PvP FFA MMO like, let's say Darkfall is.... ITS EVERQUEST, since when is Everquest about PvP at all ?
Sandbox doesn't mean PvP FFA... get a clue people...
This will not be a PvP focused game, and if it is... it's not Everquest...
Again, how are you going to have sandbox If you remove the systems for players to engage in deep political interactions on both particular and community levels, therefore removing the networks of dependency among players, ergo, the basis for a sustainable game experience on the long-run?
I remind you that sandbox is an ensemble of mechanics and systems whose aim is to allow the player/s to develop their characters and legacies with the maximum possible freedom as well as allowing players to create their own content/experiences (in the contaxt of the lore)?
Yes, FFA OWPvP is a must in a sandbox - this doesn't imply that PVE must be subpar. To the one that mentions SWG: SWG wasn't oriented to PVE, you just orientated yourself for PVE but what gave longevity and life to SWG was player/player interaction.
Many of you have criticized my post but have not provide with any logical arguments yet. It's very easy to take the first line of a post and just say "you're wrong" "you have an agenda" "you don't know what sandbox is" *roll eyes*.
Finally, it may be a bit too late too say this, but why all the players that want to have a tunnel vision experience in social games like MMORPGs are didn't stick to single-player games? It's such a selfish and entitled attitude imo...
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Again, how are you going to have sandbox If you remove the systems for players to engage in deep political interactions on both particular and community levels, therefore removing the networks of dependency among players, ergo, the basis for a sustainable game experience on the long-run?
I remind you that sandbox is an ensemble of mechanics and systems whose aim is to allow the player/s to develop their characters and legacies with the maximum possible freedom as well as allowing players to create their own content/experiences (in the contaxt of the lore)?
Yes, FFA OWPvP is a must in a sandbox - this doesn't imply that PVE must be subpar. To the one that mentions SWG: SWG wasn't oriented to PVE, you just orientated yourself for PVE but what gave longevity and life to SWG was player/player interaction.
Many of you have criticized my post but have not provide with any logical arguments yet. It's very easy to take the first line of a post and just say "you're wrong" "you have an agenda" "you don't know what sandbox is" *roll eyes*.
Finally, it may be a bit too late too say this, but why all the players that want to have a tunnel vision experience in social games like MMORPGs are didn't stick to single-player games? It's such a selfish and entitled attitude imo...
The paragraph highlighted in green does not logically follow from the previous two, while you might be able to argue that some form of PvP could enhance "political interactions" and "networks of dependency" the gank feste that is FFA PvP does neither. IMHO any form of PvP reduces social interaction and is therefore bad for a sandbox MMORPG.
As to the last: I like social interaction in my on-line games. I like grouping, crafting for others taking part in the shared building of a guild hall etc. These are not features of single player games, nor do they require any form of PvP.
Nor does freely giving of my time and interacting with others in a positive manner in any way constitute "a selfish and entitled attitude". However "ganking some newb" because it you find it fun does constitute "a selfish and entitled attitude".
Originally posted by ethion There has been other threads with discussion of PvE vs PvP so I thought creating a Poll would be interesting.
Guess you missed out on the Rallos Zek server. That was PvP and not just dueling. Granted the PvP was limited to four levels below and four levels above.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Listen, people, what you mean by "sandbox" and what SOE means may be completely unrelated. I wouldn't be surprised if SOE put out a strict themepark and called it a "sandbox" because "you can choose which ride to go to at any moment, and this is what sandbox truly is!"
The paragraph highlighted in green does not logically follow from the previous two, while you might be able to argue that some form of PvP could enhance "political interactions" and "networks of dependency" the gank feste that is FFA PvP does neither. IMHO any form of PvP reduces social interaction and is therefore bad for a sandbox MMORPG.
As to the last: I like social interaction in my on-line games. I like grouping, crafting for others taking part in the shared building of a guild hall etc. These are not features of single player games, nor do they require any form of PvP.
Nor does freely giving of my time and interacting with others in a positive manner in any way constitute "a selfish and entitled attitude". However "ganking some newb" because it you find it fun does constitute "a selfish and entitled attitude".
I concede you that ganking and abuse is a problem - I remember of couple of guys from my SWG days that were willing to pay a sub just to ruin others' fun, they were very keen on ruining RPG events just for the sake of it. You know that some people just want to see the world burn.
I mentioned how a FFA system must go along a strong consequences systems that penalizes criminal behaviour - UO did it very well in this regards, why not improve on this system?
Also, I think systems for perma-banning griefers and trolls must be optimized or properly implemented. My bet is to attach Credit Card Number or NIN to user's account to perma-ban trolls, cheaters and griefers for good.
And of course, I'm not again a server with rules for flaggin/unflagging for PvP for the socially awkward a/o PvP allergic, but I cannot accept removal of systems that provide games with appeal and sustainability on the long-run - that belongs to the realm of the selfish and the short-sighted.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Originally posted by Margulis It's interesting that the VAST majority want a PvE focused experience, but it seems like PvP people are vastly more vocal on forums.
It is also interesting how so many of them interpret muddling along cheerfully with your PvP flag off as being selfish while ganking is not. Also positively interacting with people in a cooperative manner becomes "socially awkward" while sneaking up on someone, killing them and tea-bagging their corpse all the while yelling noob noob noob becomes the epitome of good social behavior.
Originally posted by Margulis It's interesting that the VAST majority want a PvE focused experience, but it seems like PvP people are vastly more vocal on forums.
It is also interesting how so many of them interpret muddling along cheerfully with your PvP flag off as being selfish while ganking is not. Also positively interacting with people in a cooperative manner becomes "socially awkward" while sneaking up on someone, killing them and tea-bagging their corpse all the while yelling noob noob noob becomes the epitome of good social behavior.
A person who lacks in rational arguments will tend to oversimplistic extremism. You are obsessed with ganking ffs.
As I've already said: there's much, much more in a FFA OWPvP model with a strong consequence system (RPG narratives, politics, interdependency networks, worthy trading on a risk/reward basis, bounty-hunting...) than the possibility of being ganked. About the latter, I emphasize the "consequence systems", "perma-ban system", "server with flag/unflag for PvP rules" parts.
An atributte of the short-sighted is that the trees won't allow them to see the forest.
Now, the choir of the chickens can keep on with the ganking hysteria. *cluck-cluck, bok-bok*
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Originally posted by Margulis It's interesting that the VAST majority want a PvE focused experience, but it seems like PvP people are vastly more vocal on forums.
It is also interesting how so many of them interpret muddling along cheerfully with your PvP flag off as being selfish while ganking is not. Also positively interacting with people in a cooperative manner becomes "socially awkward" while sneaking up on someone, killing them and tea-bagging their corpse all the while yelling noob noob noob becomes the epitome of good social behavior.
A person who lacks in rational arguments will tend to oversimplistic extremism. You are obsessed with ganking ffs.
As I've already said: there's much, much more in a FFA OWPvP model with a strong consequence system (RPG narratives, politics, interdependency networks, worthy trading on a risk/reward basis, bounty-hunting...) than the possibility of being ganked. About the latter, I emphasize the "consequence systems", "perma-ban system", "server with flag/unflag for PvP rules" parts.
An atributte of the short-sighted is that the trees won't allow them to see the forest.
Now, the choir of the chickens can keep on with the ganking hysteria. *cluck-cluck, bok-bok*
The interesting thing about having "consequences" for ganking is that some poor sod has to be ganked before the consequences start to kick in. From what I have seen in fact lots of poor sods get ganked before the consequences kick in. As for the consequences they often look like rewards for those that like to gank, prestige badges, special features etc. Also "bounting hunting" is simply rewarding ganking the gankers.
As for flag/unflag for PvP how can a system that included this be called FFA OWPvP? In fact the main difference between flag/unflag PvP and FFA PvP seems to me to be ganking.
While I do not like PvP I regard consensual PvP or a game that provides separate PvP and PvE servers to be a fine compromise. Even to the extent that having a FFA OWPvP server in a game does not bother me, I will not play on it but if there are enough people who like that sort of thing let them have it.
The interesting thing about having "consequences" for ganking is that some poor sod has to be ganked before the consequences start to kick in. From what I have seen in fact lots of poor sods get ganked before the consequences kick in. As for the consequences they often look like rewards for those that like to gank, prestige badges, special features etc. Also "bounting hunting" is simply rewarding ganking the gankers.
As for flag/unflag for PvP how can a system that included this be called FFA OWPvP? In fact the main difference between flag/unflag PvP and FFA PvP seems to me to be ganking.
While I do not like PvP I regard consensual PvP or a game that provides separate PvP and PvE servers to be a fine compromise. Even to the extent that having a FFA OWPvP server in a game does not bother me, I will not play on it but if there are enough people who like that sort of thing let them have it.
With regards to your first line: any game pretending to survive and keep on thrilling the players on the long run must work on the basis of the risk-reward equation - risk-reward is what creates interdependency, brings community together and promotes true heroism, on top of being more realistic from a RPG perspective. The alternative would be reward-reward, consensual-everything and extremely convenient: That is the crap we've been getting for the last 8 years, games so shallow and unfilling that don't have meat nor soul to last for more than 3 months.
I see the rest of your paragraph as highly especulative and exaggerated: I haven't seen a consequence system as the one you mention (a consequence system that rewards ganking in a RPG game is just stupid). Your comment about bounty hunting is extremely reduccionist in my view.
I agree with you that a compromise must be made: My bet was a PVE oriented server where players would freely choose where/when to flag/unflag for PvP and another server with full FFA (with strong conequences ala UO, or an EVE similar system).
Even a PVE exclusive server for the PvP obnoxious would be fine I guess - although, I insist that removing systems that give a game its appeal on the long-run is never a good idea. All of us lose, the players and the RPG genre.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
sure you can, SWG Pre-CU was a very PVE oriented sandbox(oh please argue with me that its not a sandbox). Sandbox does automatically mean FFA PVP, nor does it mean no PVP at all either.
thats the problem with this forum is people on it don't even know what a sandbox game is.
SWG was also not a very good game. When people praise SWG, it was only a handful of features that they praise. People love to wallow in nostalgia.
In fact sandbox by its nature implies FFA OWPvP, as it provides with the only model for players to engage in complex interaction narratives: rogue factions, treason, espionage, counter-intelligence, piracy, mercs, bounty-hunting, worthy trading, serious politics... That is, the only viable way of ""endgame". And this is what sandbox is about, isn't it?
Ideally, this system (OWPvP FFA) would go along a complex consequence/penalty system to prevent/punish ganking and abuse. Removing it would dramatically damage the game's long-term sustainibility, it'd be much less game and an immersion breaker from an RPG point of view. In other words: you'd castrate the sandbox to turn it into another thing, something quite dull and lame i can tell you.
Why so many people don't understand this?
I'm going to chime in on this because it boggles me to no end...
I'm just not sure why anyone thinks that sandbox and PvP of any kind are related or implied to need one for the other to exist. The only pure online sandbox I've seen is Second Life. Oh and yes I heard the snickers about furries etc.. what I'm getting at is that someone buys a sim and can entirely build it. If they have the tools and ability there is literally very little limit to the world they can create. Which is of course exactly what a sandbox is...
As close as we get in standard MMO's is a little dungeon quest tool or perhaps a housing area. Where you can have some user created content.
For a "sandbox" there is no requirement other than the ability for the user to create content. In other words combat... which includes PvP is not required in a sandbox... ever. Obviously it can exist but it is not a requirement of a sandbox.
As to the OP and poll... My point of view which has been shaped over the years (going back to seeing Habitat on Quantum Link back in 1986..) and up through current times is like this... If they really want to make a PvP game then it has to be built from the ground up for PvP. Every single aspect of the game (economy, crafting etc) has to be deisgned around it. This is how you would make a really good PvP game.
The problem with including PvP and PvE in the same game... Well look at something like Dark Age of Camelot. A class is considered OP'd in PvP but in PvE its sub-par. They nerf the class due to PvP and totally destroy it for PvE. This simply pisses off customers for having their character destroyed over an aspect of the game they never take part in.
^^ In that case the only thing I've seen is something like in The Secret World. In PvP you have the uniform system which Funcom never really took advantage of in my opinion. Simply because all of the PvP balance issues (aka nerfs/buffs) could have been adjusted there and it would have not affected you outside of the PvP areas.
For reference Ultima Online in the days of FFA PvP full loot on death (even mobs looting you) along with snooping/stealing from players.. was my favorite MMO time period of all. So if I seem anti PvP in posts.. its not that at all. I just have certain opinions after watching how things have gone over the years.
Originally posted by ethion There has been other threads with discussion of PvE vs PvP so I thought creating a Poll would be interesting.
Guess you missed out on the Rallos Zek server. That was PvP and not just dueling. Granted the PvP was limited to four levels below and four levels above.
Not at all. I've been playing MMO since they day they were created. So there isn't really much I've missed out on. Well recently thats harder to say but anything that has any substantial popularity I've played. I've even played the PvP oriented ones although in recent years I've become pretty frustrated with PvP for the reasons I've mentioned, that it tends to degrade PvE experience which I find more enjoyable overall.
Originally posted by Margulis It's interesting that the VAST majority want a PvE focused experience, but it seems like PvP people are vastly more vocal on forums.
It is also interesting how so many of them interpret muddling along cheerfully with your PvP flag off as being selfish while ganking is not. Also positively interacting with people in a cooperative manner becomes "socially awkward" while sneaking up on someone, killing them and tea-bagging their corpse all the while yelling noob noob noob becomes the epitome of good social behavior.
Wish I could +1 a post
This is soo true. There is a certain sick thrill you get from killing other players. I remember once upon a time I was doing pve in shadowbane leveling and some guy stealthed up on me and killed me. He did it several times and I was so pissed about it cause he just wouldn't stop. I finally logged.
The next day I took advantage of a feature in shadowbane where when someone kills you it logs their name. You can also find them with some ability I don't recall. In any event I pulled in my guild for a little help and tracked this guy down and killed him numerous times. After awhile it became an obsession to track him and kill him. I out leveled him as his evil ways made it hard for him to progress. After a few days I just suddenly realized what I was doing when he asked me to stop and said he was sorry.
It really made me feel bad and it definitely brought out the worst in me. For me that was a major turning point on my attitude toward PvP. It is a negative experience. Now warzones are less of an issue as I think of them more like a sport or even a team sport. But even they can be upsetting at times with bad behavior.
Where buy contrast thinking back to EQ killing a boss is a challenge that involves team work and everything working together to achieve something. Sometimes you got greed and drama but mostly it is a positive experience.
Although I never advocate for non-consensual PvP having it there where you CAN engage in it makes the world that much more dynamic IMO. I'd much rather have 30% OWPvP (racial borders between kindoms, contested areas, etc.) than to either choose a 100% OWPvP or have it relegated to instanced battlegrounds.
I still hope they use phasing to bring the different servers (or shard channels) together in various points in the world. That way everyone gets what they want.
Originally posted by Margulis It's interesting that the VAST majority want a PvE focused experience, but it seems like PvP people are vastly more vocal on forums.
PVE people spend more time enjoying the game and socializing, while PVP people are constantly in rage mode on the forums cause X Y Z aren't fair in game (I've been there myself sadly).
I agree with you that a compromise must be made: My bet was a PVE oriented server where players would freely choose where/when to flag/unflag for PvP and another server with full FFA (with strong conequences ala UO, or an EVE similar system).
That's what it comes down to. There is no single ruleset that is going to please everyone. Simply offer multiple choices, but not too many to thin out the population. One is bound to cater to almost everyone.
I'm against a laundry list of "rules" and safeguards on a FFA server. I would much rather have a FFA... we make the rules, we suffer the consequences. No safety net. DAoC FFA servers were great, but died a sad death, because even in a PVP centric game, FFA doesn't work well or last long (majority of the time). Make a pop up when you log in "You will die in this world, a lot" "Do you wish to continue?" DAoC's site even said something like, if you have a problem, solve it with the PVP tools you have.
Sadly the risk-reward goes away very quickly when you either are on the winning or losing side. Better guilds usually band together to dominate and then fight amongst themselves, then quit once that has lost its fun. Bringing the majority of the not so good players along, because we all want to be like them...
Now a days, I prefer consensual PVP and like the random PVP encounters against others that are like minded. I'm done with the mindless gankging and steamrolling that comes along with FFA. Even given a strict FFA ruleset, if there is any chance for those that don't want to play nice to take advantage, they will.
No need for us to lure in PVErs, "It's okay, you'll be fine, look at all these rules" when in reality they are just fodder for those that can't win against the good PVPers and need an outlet for their anger.
Consensual could work very well in a Sandbox. PVE can do the back end work (crafting, city building, politics, resource management, etc) while PVPers can be the attack force and do the destroying and what not. Pretty much like real life. You have the people at home doing what they do and those that get sent off to kill some random other group of people. Seems to work well, at least if your on the winning side...
Comments
It wont be restricted on a PVP server.
"Restrictive" is subjective. I find being prevented from gathering, questing, or doing ANYTHING OTHER THAN pvp because someone wants to take getting beat up at school out on me pretty restrictive.
"You'll never win an argument with an idiot because he is too stupid to recognize his own defeat." ~Anonymous
and again i ask this of PVPers and never seem to get a response. why does your fun take precedent over mine? who are you and why are you so special?
if i want to just explore, gather, build or just kill mobs why do you think you should have the right to kill me? what makes you so special that you can interrupt and downright ruin the fun that i was having?
sure you can, SWG Pre-CU was a very PVE oriented sandbox(oh please argue with me that its not a sandbox). Sandbox does automatically mean FFA PVP, nor does it mean no PVP at all either.
thats the problem with this forum is people on it don't even know what a sandbox game is.
Well that's true if the game is a PvP game. But my issue is that PvP destroys the PvE aspect of the game making it watered down and boring.
I have played an open world pvp game and it did work pretty well but it was classless and PvE was a minor part of the game. First game I ever played was probably the best PvP game ever. Underlight. Pure PvP but with consequenses, largely skill based, and in addition to normal death there was a mechanism to do perminent death. But sadly the game never grew beyond it's initial launch. I think it was actually the first first person view MMO.... Another good PvP game was shadowbane but like most PvP oriented games PvE was dull and boring. Plus the game had a poor UI, lag, and other issues but it did have a great PvP system.
But in all cases the better the game is for PvP the worse it is for PvE. You can put them together but you can't make a great game that supports both.
---
Ethion
I'm hoping for:
Completely separate spell/skill and gear mechanics for PvE and PvP so that exploits / adjustments on either side do not impact the other side. Everyone I know is sick of that s**t.
PvP anywhere for those that opt in to participate in it - whether through personal flagging, guild flagging or other mechanics. I'm perfectly happy to share the world with those that want to be able to PvP anywhere out in the open. So long as they're PvPing with their like-minded buddies. Full PvP servers, battlegrounds or separate PvP zones have no impact on PvE anyway, so it doesn't really matter one way or the other what happens with those.
p.s. That is my "Realistic" hope. I've pretty much given up on a "PvP everywhere, but with a very harsh and realistic consequence system". Most PvP'ers would probably hate going to jail for 10 years for killing someone anyway.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
I dont understand why people think this will be a PvP FFA MMO like, let's say Darkfall is.... ITS EVERQUEST, since when is Everquest about PvP at all ?
Sandbox doesn't mean PvP FFA... get a clue people...
This will not be a PvP focused game, and if it is... it's not Everquest...
Again, how are you going to have sandbox If you remove the systems for players to engage in deep political interactions on both particular and community levels, therefore removing the networks of dependency among players, ergo, the basis for a sustainable game experience on the long-run?
I remind you that sandbox is an ensemble of mechanics and systems whose aim is to allow the player/s to develop their characters and legacies with the maximum possible freedom as well as allowing players to create their own content/experiences (in the contaxt of the lore)?
Yes, FFA OWPvP is a must in a sandbox - this doesn't imply that PVE must be subpar. To the one that mentions SWG: SWG wasn't oriented to PVE, you just orientated yourself for PVE but what gave longevity and life to SWG was player/player interaction.
Many of you have criticized my post but have not provide with any logical arguments yet. It's very easy to take the first line of a post and just say "you're wrong" "you have an agenda" "you don't know what sandbox is" *roll eyes*.
Finally, it may be a bit too late too say this, but why all the players that want to have a tunnel vision experience in social games like MMORPGs are didn't stick to single-player games? It's such a selfish and entitled attitude imo...
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
The paragraph highlighted in green does not logically follow from the previous two, while you might be able to argue that some form of PvP could enhance "political interactions" and "networks of dependency" the gank feste that is FFA PvP does neither. IMHO any form of PvP reduces social interaction and is therefore bad for a sandbox MMORPG.
As to the last: I like social interaction in my on-line games. I like grouping, crafting for others taking part in the shared building of a guild hall etc. These are not features of single player games, nor do they require any form of PvP.
Nor does freely giving of my time and interacting with others in a positive manner in any way constitute "a selfish and entitled attitude". However "ganking some newb" because it you find it fun does constitute "a selfish and entitled attitude".
Guess you missed out on the Rallos Zek server. That was PvP and not just dueling. Granted the PvP was limited to four levels below and four levels above.
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
Listen, people, what you mean by "sandbox" and what SOE means may be completely unrelated. I wouldn't be surprised if SOE put out a strict themepark and called it a "sandbox" because "you can choose which ride to go to at any moment, and this is what sandbox truly is!"
I concede you that ganking and abuse is a problem - I remember of couple of guys from my SWG days that were willing to pay a sub just to ruin others' fun, they were very keen on ruining RPG events just for the sake of it. You know that some people just want to see the world burn.
I mentioned how a FFA system must go along a strong consequences systems that penalizes criminal behaviour - UO did it very well in this regards, why not improve on this system?
Also, I think systems for perma-banning griefers and trolls must be optimized or properly implemented. My bet is to attach Credit Card Number or NIN to user's account to perma-ban trolls, cheaters and griefers for good.
And of course, I'm not again a server with rules for flaggin/unflagging for PvP for the socially awkward a/o PvP allergic, but I cannot accept removal of systems that provide games with appeal and sustainability on the long-run - that belongs to the realm of the selfish and the short-sighted.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
It is also interesting how so many of them interpret muddling along cheerfully with your PvP flag off as being selfish while ganking is not. Also positively interacting with people in a cooperative manner becomes "socially awkward" while sneaking up on someone, killing them and tea-bagging their corpse all the while yelling noob noob noob becomes the epitome of good social behavior.
A person who lacks in rational arguments will tend to oversimplistic extremism. You are obsessed with ganking ffs.
As I've already said: there's much, much more in a FFA OWPvP model with a strong consequence system (RPG narratives, politics, interdependency networks, worthy trading on a risk/reward basis, bounty-hunting...) than the possibility of being ganked. About the latter, I emphasize the "consequence systems", "perma-ban system", "server with flag/unflag for PvP rules" parts.
An atributte of the short-sighted is that the trees won't allow them to see the forest.
Now, the choir of the chickens can keep on with the ganking hysteria. *cluck-cluck, bok-
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
The interesting thing about having "consequences" for ganking is that some poor sod has to be ganked before the consequences start to kick in. From what I have seen in fact lots of poor sods get ganked before the consequences kick in. As for the consequences they often look like rewards for those that like to gank, prestige badges, special features etc. Also "bounting hunting" is simply rewarding ganking the gankers.
As for flag/unflag for PvP how can a system that included this be called FFA OWPvP? In fact the main difference between flag/unflag PvP and FFA PvP seems to me to be ganking.
While I do not like PvP I regard consensual PvP or a game that provides separate PvP and PvE servers to be a fine compromise. Even to the extent that having a FFA OWPvP server in a game does not bother me, I will not play on it but if there are enough people who like that sort of thing let them have it.
With regards to your first line: any game pretending to survive and keep on thrilling the players on the long run must work on the basis of the risk-reward equation - risk-reward is what creates interdependency, brings community together and promotes true heroism, on top of being more realistic from a RPG perspective. The alternative would be reward-reward, consensual-everything and extremely convenient: That is the crap we've been getting for the last 8 years, games so shallow and unfilling that don't have meat nor soul to last for more than 3 months.
I see the rest of your paragraph as highly especulative and exaggerated: I haven't seen a consequence system as the one you mention (a consequence system that rewards ganking in a RPG game is just stupid). Your comment about bounty hunting is extremely reduccionist in my view.
I agree with you that a compromise must be made: My bet was a PVE oriented server where players would freely choose where/when to flag/unflag for PvP and another server with full FFA (with strong conequences ala UO, or an EVE similar system).
Even a PVE exclusive server for the PvP obnoxious would be fine I guess - although, I insist that removing systems that give a game its appeal on the long-run is never a good idea. All of us lose, the players and the RPG genre.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
SWG was also not a very good game. When people praise SWG, it was only a handful of features that they praise. People love to wallow in nostalgia.
I'm going to chime in on this because it boggles me to no end...
I'm just not sure why anyone thinks that sandbox and PvP of any kind are related or implied to need one for the other to exist. The only pure online sandbox I've seen is Second Life. Oh and yes I heard the snickers about furries etc.. what I'm getting at is that someone buys a sim and can entirely build it. If they have the tools and ability there is literally very little limit to the world they can create. Which is of course exactly what a sandbox is...
As close as we get in standard MMO's is a little dungeon quest tool or perhaps a housing area. Where you can have some user created content.
For a "sandbox" there is no requirement other than the ability for the user to create content. In other words combat... which includes PvP is not required in a sandbox... ever. Obviously it can exist but it is not a requirement of a sandbox.
As to the OP and poll... My point of view which has been shaped over the years (going back to seeing Habitat on Quantum Link back in 1986..) and up through current times is like this... If they really want to make a PvP game then it has to be built from the ground up for PvP. Every single aspect of the game (economy, crafting etc) has to be deisgned around it. This is how you would make a really good PvP game.
The problem with including PvP and PvE in the same game... Well look at something like Dark Age of Camelot. A class is considered OP'd in PvP but in PvE its sub-par. They nerf the class due to PvP and totally destroy it for PvE. This simply pisses off customers for having their character destroyed over an aspect of the game they never take part in.
^^ In that case the only thing I've seen is something like in The Secret World. In PvP you have the uniform system which Funcom never really took advantage of in my opinion. Simply because all of the PvP balance issues (aka nerfs/buffs) could have been adjusted there and it would have not affected you outside of the PvP areas.
For reference Ultima Online in the days of FFA PvP full loot on death (even mobs looting you) along with snooping/stealing from players.. was my favorite MMO time period of all. So if I seem anti PvP in posts.. its not that at all. I just have certain opinions after watching how things have gone over the years.
Not at all. I've been playing MMO since they day they were created. So there isn't really much I've missed out on. Well recently thats harder to say but anything that has any substantial popularity I've played. I've even played the PvP oriented ones although in recent years I've become pretty frustrated with PvP for the reasons I've mentioned, that it tends to degrade PvE experience which I find more enjoyable overall.
---
Ethion
Wish I could +1 a post
This is soo true. There is a certain sick thrill you get from killing other players. I remember once upon a time I was doing pve in shadowbane leveling and some guy stealthed up on me and killed me. He did it several times and I was so pissed about it cause he just wouldn't stop. I finally logged.
The next day I took advantage of a feature in shadowbane where when someone kills you it logs their name. You can also find them with some ability I don't recall. In any event I pulled in my guild for a little help and tracked this guy down and killed him numerous times. After awhile it became an obsession to track him and kill him. I out leveled him as his evil ways made it hard for him to progress. After a few days I just suddenly realized what I was doing when he asked me to stop and said he was sorry.
It really made me feel bad and it definitely brought out the worst in me. For me that was a major turning point on my attitude toward PvP. It is a negative experience. Now warzones are less of an issue as I think of them more like a sport or even a team sport. But even they can be upsetting at times with bad behavior.
Where buy contrast thinking back to EQ killing a boss is a challenge that involves team work and everything working together to achieve something. Sometimes you got greed and drama but mostly it is a positive experience.
---
Ethion
....Being Banned from MMORPG's forums since 2010, for Trolling the Trolls!!!
I still hope they use phasing to bring the different servers (or shard channels) together in various points in the world. That way everyone gets what they want.
PVE people spend more time enjoying the game and socializing, while PVP people are constantly in rage mode on the forums cause X Y Z aren't fair in game (I've been there myself sadly).
That's what it comes down to. There is no single ruleset that is going to please everyone. Simply offer multiple choices, but not too many to thin out the population. One is bound to cater to almost everyone.
I'm against a laundry list of "rules" and safeguards on a FFA server. I would much rather have a FFA... we make the rules, we suffer the consequences. No safety net. DAoC FFA servers were great, but died a sad death, because even in a PVP centric game, FFA doesn't work well or last long (majority of the time). Make a pop up when you log in "You will die in this world, a lot" "Do you wish to continue?" DAoC's site even said something like, if you have a problem, solve it with the PVP tools you have.
Sadly the risk-reward goes away very quickly when you either are on the winning or losing side. Better guilds usually band together to dominate and then fight amongst themselves, then quit once that has lost its fun. Bringing the majority of the not so good players along, because we all want to be like them...
Now a days, I prefer consensual PVP and like the random PVP encounters against others that are like minded. I'm done with the mindless gankging and steamrolling that comes along with FFA. Even given a strict FFA ruleset, if there is any chance for those that don't want to play nice to take advantage, they will.
No need for us to lure in PVErs, "It's okay, you'll be fine, look at all these rules" when in reality they are just fodder for those that can't win against the good PVPers and need an outlet for their anger.
Consensual could work very well in a Sandbox. PVE can do the back end work (crafting, city building, politics, resource management, etc) while PVPers can be the attack force and do the destroying and what not. Pretty much like real life. You have the people at home doing what they do and those that get sent off to kill some random other group of people. Seems to work well, at least if your on the winning side...