Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What PVE sandpark/sandbox MMO was a user on here talking about?

24

Comments

  • barasawabarasawa Member UncommonPosts: 571
    filmoret said:
    filmoret said:
    For some reason sandbox and ffa pvp means the same thing.
    Lol  no it don't  People throw names around, and have no clue what they mean, I have a degree and been in this industry 15 years drives me nuts when people throw these words around call games like Call of Duty a MMO....  It's match making... or other games Open World...Open World Sandbox does not mean PVP....  Skyrim, is considered  Open World..     
    Sandbox is suppose to give players freedom to do anything.  Which includes stealing or attacking anyone anywhere.  It should also include an environment which can be molded by the players.  ... Look at all the sandbox online games in steam right now and they all include ffa pvp.
    No, sandbox means you can go anywhere and do any quest/mission you want to, or none at all if you prefer. You aren't tied into a linear storyline. Being able to alter the environment is an additional function that has been added in some games and is greatly enjoyed in most cases.
    Being able to F with other players has always been griefer territory and doesn't require a sandbox to do.
    The current trend of sandbox games seems to be tending towards greifing & pvp anywhere, which is also combined with no real content, or very sparse content, certainly hasn't helped the situation.

    Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...

  • filmoretfilmoret Member EpicPosts: 4,906
    Does Ark have less exploits and  hacking than H1Z1 then?  H1Z1 is a good start except for all the glitchers.
    Ark is really cool for builder/survival type game.  You can play the pve servers so you don't have to worry about hackers and I have yet to experience anything I would consider griefing.  You also tame dinosaurs and craft armor/clothes.  Yea if you are looking for sandbox this is very close.  I haven't really tried to group with anyone for anything so idk much about the multiplayer options.
    Are you onto something or just on something?
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member RarePosts: 2,951
    filmoret said:
    For some reason sandbox and ffa pvp means the same thing.
    Freedom and Sandbox go hand and hand.  It's not an illogical step.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 17,504
    filmoret said:
    For some reason sandbox and ffa pvp means the same thing.
    Freedom and Sandbox go hand and hand.  It's not an illogical step.
    If you and three other kids are playing in the sandbox at recess and you throw sand in their eyes, there will be consequences. Of course our typical mmo discourse dictates that we discuss things on the most absurd and overly simplistic level as possible. Please carry on with all things trite.
    *INCOMING RADIOACTIVE SUPERCELL*

    ...silent protagonist, Interloper, Traveller...
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,603
    BDO is not a sandbox game anyways. There is zero player input into the world, story, class/skills. Nothing unique made in crafting and the housing is instanced. You need more then freedom in how you level to be a sandbox. 



  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 6,223
    Using the "sandbox" analogy, little Billy is free to make whatever he wishes in the sandbox , but he isnt free to kill all the other children that are in the sandbox with him.
  • SevalaSevala Member UncommonPosts: 210
    filmoret said:
    Lets be real here.  There is no reason they shouldn't offer pve servers.  They can make more money from it without losing anything.

    Actually, historically speaking, they will lose the PVP crowd. If they offer PVE servers, the PVE crowd will leave the PVP servers leaving no one left for PVP to gank/grief with ease, meaning they will only have each other to target, which a large number of them do not enjoy (not saying all) and those servers will tank. Pretty much how it plays out.

    ~I am Many~

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member RarePosts: 2,951
    edited May 2016
    Torval said:
    filmoret said:
    For some reason sandbox and ffa pvp means the same thing.
    Freedom and Sandbox go hand and hand.  It's not an illogical step.
    If you and three other kids are playing in the sandbox at recess and you throw sand in their eyes, there will be consequences. Of course our typical mmo discourse dictates that we discuss things on the most absurd and overly simplistic level as possible. Please carry on with all things trite.
    But a sandbox MMORPG isn't literally a sandbox with kids playing.  A sandbox is generally meant to be a player content driven system.   Many people want a game where you build empires.  It makes sense that empires war.  Player drama is also played out with conflict and possibly killing.

    The problem isn't the killing.  It's the killing without consequences or accountability.  But as I said a Sandbox MMORPG and player killing isn't and illogical path.  Its not the only path though.
    Post edited by Vermillion_Raventhal on
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,427
    It's only freedom for some.  When your freedom starts impinging on others people's freedom (forcing them to engage in the activity they don't want to do) it is no longer freedom now is it. 
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 30,109
    Using the "sandbox" analogy, little Billy is free to make whatever he wishes in the sandbox , but he isnt free to kill all the other children that are in the sandbox with him.
    Actually, in the real world he totally is free to do exactly this, with severe consequences for everyone if/when he does.

    As mentioned above, the analogy gets silly pretty quickly.

    Ten types of internet trolls - Which one are you?

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, back in EVE until then

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon





  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768
    Using the "sandbox" analogy, little Billy is free to make whatever he wishes in the sandbox , but he isnt free to kill all the other children that are in the sandbox with him.

    He is free to make whatever the software allows him to do.  How it that different from what the themeparks allows?
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Member EpicPosts: 2,327
    edited May 2016
    Using the "sandbox" analogy, little Billy is free to make whatever he wishes in the sandbox , but he isnt free to kill all the other children that are in the sandbox with him.

    Oh, little Billy is free to kill alright, its the consequence of that act that is missing in non consensual OWPvP games. I doubt many would have a problem if once a player made the conscious decision to kill another player, once caught, that player would be sentenced and banned from the game for 10 to twelve years or more.  The act isn't whats missing, the penalty is.  

    Most pro-OWPvP are always quick to define a sandbox as being able to freely do whatever they want, including killing another.  That rationalization, however, ceases at the point of consequences.  They want to freely kill in a sandbox, they do not, however, want to pay the consequences of that act in a sandbox.  In other words, as far as they're concerned, the act defines a sandbox, the consequences of that act, however, do not.  

    Post edited by LacedOpium on
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member RarePosts: 2,951
    Using the "sandbox" analogy, little Billy is free to make whatever he wishes in the sandbox , but he isnt free to kill all the other children that are in the sandbox with him.

    Oh, little Billy is free to kill alright, its the consequence of that act that is missing in non consensual OWPvP games. I doubt many would have a problem if once a player made the conscious decision to kill another player, once caught, that player would be sentenced and banned from the game for 10 to twelve years or more.  The act isn't whats missing, the penalty is.  

    Most pro-OWPvP are always quick to define a sandbox as being able to freely do whatever they want, including killing another.  That rationalization, however, ceases at the point of consequences.  They want to freely kill in a sandbox, they do not, however, want to pay the consequences of that act in a sandbox.  In other words, as far as they're concerned, the act defines a sandbox, the consequences of that act, however, do not.  

    It's more players bring the consequences but it doesn't work by just killing back.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member EpicPosts: 7,510
    Any MMO that allows you to reach max level and craft or do what you want to do without forced PvP is a PvE MMO to me.  Unless you feel like a person that has to do every inch of content, MMO's in which you have the options to flag or go into a PvP zone or have PvP/PvE only servers are fine.  I play ESO, GW2, Marvel Heroes and can do alot of things and PvP is always optional.  There are others that have a mix but allow you to do only PvE if that's what you want.  

    "The courage to walk into the Darkness, but strength to return to the Light." Parables of the Allspring, Destiny

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member EpicPosts: 7,510
    Sevala said:
    filmoret said:
    Lets be real here.  There is no reason they shouldn't offer pve servers.  They can make more money from it without losing anything.

    Actually, historically speaking, they will lose the PVP crowd. If they offer PVE servers, the PVE crowd will leave the PVP servers leaving no one left for PVP to gank/grief with ease, meaning they will only have each other to target, which a large number of them do not enjoy (not saying all) and those servers will tank. Pretty much how it plays out.
    That's a sad statement about PvP.  Another thing is players get tired of only doing PvP and like to break it up with PvE sometimes.  Some players will level up on the PvE server then tranfer to the PvP server, if allowed.

    "The courage to walk into the Darkness, but strength to return to the Light." Parables of the Allspring, Destiny

  • MukeMuke Member RarePosts: 2,610
    filmoret said:
    Does Ark have less exploits and  hacking than H1Z1 then?  H1Z1 is a good start except for all the glitchers.
    Ark is really cool for builder/survival type game.  You can play the pve servers so you don't have to worry about hackers and I have yet to experience anything I would consider griefing.  You also tame dinosaurs and craft armor/clothes.  Yea if you are looking for sandbox this is very close.  I haven't really tried to group with anyone for anything so idk much about the multiplayer options.
    There's pretty much "PVP" and hacking/exploiting going on even on PVE Ark servers lol.
    Destroyed countless dino parks on PVE servers. Not directly, but still..by my doing.

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

  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    filmoret said:
    For some reason sandbox and ffa pvp means the same thing.
    Freedom and Sandbox go hand and hand.  It's not an illogical step.
    It's interesting how much Consequences change that notion.

    Fortunately, most game developers are too lazy for consequences, "just let the little bastards PK each other, it's all they want."
  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    It's interesting how much Consequences change that notion.

    Fortunately, most game developers are too lazy for consequences, "just let the little bastards PK each other, it's all they want."
    What game do you feel lacks consequences?  To be a game, decisions must exist.  Once decisions exist, consequences are their inevitable outcome.  So all games have consequences.

    The decision/consequence set isn't always hard to master (Tic Tac Toe), but that's just bad game design.  

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,054
    Using the "sandbox" analogy, little Billy is free to make whatever he wishes in the sandbox , but he isnt free to kill all the other children that are in the sandbox with him.

    Oh, little Billy is free to kill alright, its the consequence of that act that is missing in non consensual OWPvP games. I doubt many would have a problem if once a player made the conscious decision to kill another player, once caught, that player would be sentenced and banned from the game for 10 to twelve years or more.  The act isn't whats missing, the penalty is.  

    Most pro-OWPvP are always quick to define a sandbox as being able to freely do whatever they want, including killing another.  That rationalization, however, ceases at the point of consequences.  They want to freely kill in a sandbox, they do not, however, want to pay the consequences of that act in a sandbox.  In other words, as far as they're concerned, the act defines a sandbox, the consequences of that act, however, do not.  

    Not only is your little Billy comment funny, but your post sparked a cool concept for a Bounty/Punishment system in my head.  So, you rule.

    On topic:  I agree that the problem is a lack of consequences in general.  I wonder how many PvE players would have more interest in PvP if there was a legitimate justice system protecting their interests.  There really haven't been very many games with legitimate punishments for murderers/gankers.

    Obviously, you can't literally ban players from your game for doing something they are allowed to do, but there definitely should be some type of harsh penalties befitting the crime.  Ganking an innocent being the obvious worst thing, with the harshest punishment.

    The real question is where's the balance point for said justice system?  How can you severely discourage something while still allowing it?  Where's the breaking point where the innocents are satisfied with the punishment but the criminals still find their pursuits worth it and don't simply all walk away?
  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Member EpicPosts: 2,327
    Lokero said:
    Using the "sandbox" analogy, little Billy is free to make whatever he wishes in the sandbox , but he isnt free to kill all the other children that are in the sandbox with him.

    Oh, little Billy is free to kill alright, its the consequence of that act that is missing in non consensual OWPvP games. I doubt many would have a problem if once a player made the conscious decision to kill another player, once caught, that player would be sentenced and banned from the game for 10 to twelve years or more.  The act isn't whats missing, the penalty is.  

    Most pro-OWPvP are always quick to define a sandbox as being able to freely do whatever they want, including killing another.  That rationalization, however, ceases at the point of consequences.  They want to freely kill in a sandbox, they do not, however, want to pay the consequences of that act in a sandbox.  In other words, as far as they're concerned, the act defines a sandbox, the consequences of that act, however, do not.  

    Not only is your little Billy comment funny, but your post sparked a cool concept for a Bounty/Punishment system in my head.  So, you rule.

    On topic:  I agree that the problem is a lack of consequences in general.  I wonder how many PvE players would have more interest in PvP if there was a legitimate justice system protecting their interests.  There really haven't been very many games with legitimate punishments for murderers/gankers.

    Obviously, you can't literally ban players from your game for doing something they are allowed to do, but there definitely should be some type of harsh penalties befitting the crime.  Ganking an innocent being the obvious worst thing, with the harshest punishment.

    The real question is where's the balance point for said justice system?  How can you severely discourage something while still allowing it?  Where's the breaking point where the innocents are satisfied with the punishment but the criminals still find their pursuits worth it and don't simply all walk away?

    The answer to that question is not that difficult to arrive at if there is a commitment to the effort of making a sandbox as realistic as possible.  And to do that there has to be a consistent and fair application of inconvenience placed on both the killed and the killer.  Currently, that commitment is not there.  If it was we would not see nearly as much senseless "ganking" in games as we see now.

    PvP and PvE games can only coexist when the rules are fairly applied to both game play demographics. A beginning to that fairness doctrine has to begin with no one being forced to PvP if that is their game play preference.  All this would entail is a game in which non-consensual OWPvP is open to all players who voluntarily "volunteer" for war.  If you engage in node, siege, castle, seafaring war, or if you assist or are an accomplice in any way, form to any combat related activities then you are fair game for non-consensual OWPvP.  If you are an impartial citizen, then you should not be subjected to non-consensual OWPvP, and if any players "ganks" you, then the penalty for such offense should be severe and clearly understood.

    Penalties can be a combination of those systems already implemented in BDO and Archeage, only more sever in nature.  Once a player is "ganked," a foot print is left behind (log transcripts) that mark that player as a fugitive (red player).  The player is free to roam as a fugitive until captured (killed by bounty hunters).  Once that player is "captured," the penatlies are then automatically assessed according to that players rap sheet (gank history).  A first offense carries a certain amount of karma penalty, a gold fine, heavier taxes and vendor prices, and a percentage reduction in skills and abilities.  Each additional offense increases those penalties accordingly without limits.  If that PvP players continues with his/her reckless ganking behavior, then their character will eventually gimp itself.  That may sound harsh, but its a choice that the player made for him or herself and they only have themselves to blame.

    Like society, however, there could be acts in world that a player could engage in that would bring that player back to good standing.  These could be made in the form of fees made to the player(s) he/she "ganked," "community service" by doing quests or gaining achievements in which the player he/she "ganked" would receive credit for, in the form of a self-imposed voluntary number of days banned from the game, or a combination of all of the above.

    That is just an example of a system that would fairly consider both game play styles as opposed to the way non-consensual OWPvP is being currently implemented in most games that only serves to satisfy and drive enjoyment to a segment of the player population at the expense, frustration and irritation of other.  Not only is this wrong and needs to change, but it does nothing to advance the long term profitability and success of the game in question.  
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 6,223
    So why not have an option at character creation for players that have no itnerest in PVP? Let them choose an option where they get flagged as non PVP then they can play the game without constant harrassment? I probably would have stuck with UO back in its day if it had a system like that, but instead every time I stepped out of town i got killed......
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member EpicPosts: 7,510
    So why not have an option at character creation for players that have no itnerest in PVP? Let them choose an option where they get flagged as non PVP then they can play the game without constant harrassment? I probably would have stuck with UO back in its day if it had a system like that, but instead every time I stepped out of town i got killed......
    Because gankers always push for open world PvP.  They know if you can flag yourself for PvE only they would have no one to play with when they wanted to play.  With open world or forced PvP players can decide before they even log in that they want to PvP and disrupt the plans of others who just planned on questing or gathering that day, and if the game allows can camp and kill a player for hours, greatly changing what they had planned to do that session.  They want to kill you and take your stuff and laugh at you in chat while doing it.

    "The courage to walk into the Darkness, but strength to return to the Light." Parables of the Allspring, Destiny

  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Because gankers always push for open world PvP.  They know if you can flag yourself for PvE only they would have no one to play with when they wanted to play.  With open world or forced PvP players can decide before they even log in that they want to PvP and disrupt the plans of others who just planned on questing or gathering that day, and if the game allows can camp and kill a player for hours, greatly changing what they had planned to do that session.  They want to kill you and take your stuff and laugh at you in chat while doing it.
    Yeah but who cares about catering to those players?  There's a strong market for good PVE games, and there's a strong market for good PVP games (ie not MMORPGs), but gankers don't really represent a significant chunk of players (and more importantly, their desires conflict with the much larger group of players interested in good PVE games.)

    Casual PVPers (gankers) can either accept that they're going to end up in a isolated game or server that only has like-minded players (ie it doesn't have PVE-focused players to gank), or they can accept not having any game to play that caters to their casual PVP at all.  They don't get to ruin the quality of the majority of players just because they want to.

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member RarePosts: 3,778
    Axehilt said:
    Because gankers always push for open world PvP.  They know if you can flag yourself for PvE only they would have no one to play with when they wanted to play.  With open world or forced PvP players can decide before they even log in that they want to PvP and disrupt the plans of others who just planned on questing or gathering that day, and if the game allows can camp and kill a player for hours, greatly changing what they had planned to do that session.  They want to kill you and take your stuff and laugh at you in chat while doing it.
    Yeah but who cares about catering to those players?  There's a strong market for good PVE games, and there's a strong market for good PVP games (ie not MMORPGs), but gankers don't really represent a significant chunk of players (and more importantly, their desires conflict with the much larger group of players interested in good PVE games.)

    Casual PVPers (gankers) can either accept that they're going to end up in a isolated game or server that only has like-minded players (ie it doesn't have PVE-focused players to gank), or they can accept not having any game to play that caters to their casual PVP at all.  They don't get to ruin the quality of the majority of players just because they want to.
    Gankers seem to be the most vocals online and that seems to make developers think that's what all the pvp players want aka "freedom" to do anything without consequences.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 11,416
    edited May 2016
    bcbully said:
    filmoret said:
    For some reason sandbox and ffa pvp means the same thing.
    Well sandbox implies freedom. Having a huge/hard "you can not..." above your head kinda ruins the whole freedom thing...
    There are all kinds of "you can not" in every game, sandbox or otherwise. Anything the developers decided to not include in the game is a "you can not."

    That total freedom thing only exists in science fiction books about MMOs.
    Post edited by Iselin on
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
Sign In or Register to comment.