Do PvP sandbox MMOs have too much filler content?

TheScavenger

When (most, not all, but most) PvPers play a sandbox MMO...they don't want to grind crafting, grind mobs, grind quests...they don't want to travel for anything longer than a 10 minute run...they just want to kill people.

I was thinking why so many PvP sandbox MMOs fail, and came to the conclusion...they barely focus on PvP but all the other filler stuff pvpers don't care about.

When I play leagues of legend. I kill (or get killed) in seconds. I don't grind barely any levels (levels super fast and you get levels killing players)

When I play a FPS game like battlefield or call of duty...there is no grinding, there is no crafting where gotta grind 100s of hours to craft stuff or harvest resources...its just pure pvp. No filler content.

If a PvP sandbox MMO wants to see success, they need to copy LoL, or Planetside 2 or the typical FPS game...remove carfting, remove all filler content...just focus 100% on people killing each other.

Thats all most pvpers want, and many pvpers would love to join a PvP MMO if it didn't have so much grindy content and didn't have any filler content made to look like the game has more depth than it actually does. Developers should focus on a pure pvp experience for PvP sandbox MMOs, and forget all the filler content and stuff most pvpers don't even care to do.

Kyleran

Er yeah, those exist already.....Fortnite, PUBG, and many others.  

Perhaps you'll try one?

Aethaeryn

Yeah, I completely disagree.  Sandbox MMos are different specifically because of what you mention. . why should they be like those other games. . when they already exist.  PvP MMOs offer player progression that takes time and that makes the player more attached to the character.  The world is also explored more in a LARGE open setting.  The combat and encounters are more organic and arent arena fights.  Those games are great, but like you said. they already exist.  Chess should just get rid of those tedious rules that slow it down and just be checkers. . except there already is checkers.

postlarval

There's already a game that has what you're looking for -- Fortnite, and it's awesome.

But it's NOT a sandbox and NOT an MMO.

Maggon

Taking all those elements away, and just having people kill eachother, effectively removes the sandbox part and turns it into a deathmatch - so not entirely sure how any pvp centric sandbox mmo's would have anything fixed if they simply just change genre.

blamo2000

Whats a pvp sandbox mmo with all these quests you are talking about?  Almost all of them focus on crafting.  I honestly have no idea what the difference between a pvp sandbox mmo and a survival game is.  

But I agree with the guy above.  There are tons of games out with just the pvp and nothing else.  Like MOBAs and H1Z1 has a mode for it, Unknown Player Battleground, and the Fortnite game he suggested.  I think Blizzard's two mmo's since WoW (not Diablo or StarCraft - the hearth something and the other one that started off as WoW2) fit the "only pvp and nothing else" bill.


But for me, the big issue I have is all these games that are primarily focused on building and crafting being called everything besides building and crafting games.  

TheScavenger

Maggon said:

Taking all those elements away, and just having people kill eachother, effectively removes the sandbox part and turns it into a deathmatch - so not entirely sure how any pvp centric sandbox mmo's would have anything fixed if they simply just change genre.

I don't see it as that. The problem I find is because they have a ton of unneeded elements, when they should only focus on what PvPers want in a PvP game, and that is PvP only. If that isn't the case, why is every PvP sandbox MMO (besides EVE, which already kinda does what I have in mind despite a lot of grindy elements) very niche? But EVE isn't quite a success either. Even EVE doesn't see nearly as many active players as WoW. And no MMO sees as much success as the typical MOBA or FPS game.

They all remain niche in a gaming industry dominated by PvPers. And many outside the MMO genre don't play them because they are grindy, and it takes too long to get to the PvP part of the game. They don't care about crafting or anything else. Remove all of that, put in PvP only focused gameplay and easy access to PvP and it be a lot less niche genre.

Because most PvP sandbox MMOs barely see any players at all compared to themepark MMOs and PVE based sandbox MMOs. That isn't normal when there are so many PvPers in the gaming genre.

And if you look outside MMO forums, most people don't like MMOs because how grindy they are and it takes too long to get to the "good" part of the game. 

Which leads me to...why would a REAL PvPer, one who only focuses on PvP (like in MOBA games) care about crafting or anything else?

Only focusing on PvP doesn't make it less of a sandbox, its just removing all the junk content that PvPers don't care about and focusing only on that experience. Everything else is filler content, that can easily be ignored and not be put into the game.

Sure there are other games like LoL or Call of Duty or Battlefield, but they see far far more success than any MMO...they are obviously doing something right. Shouldn't sandbox MMOs evolve and just give what PvPers want, and that is PvP and not all the other junk that doesn't matter to a PvPer?

aRtFuLThinG

Sandbox MMO with just PvP and nothing else is called a survival game. There are heaps of those out there already.

If you are in fact talking about an MMORPG with just PvP and nothing else, then that wouldn't really fit the criteria of the RPG part of the MMORPG wouldn't it? Since RPGs are about stories and character development as much as combat.

VengeSunsoar

I would say see exact opposite they have two little filler content. if they had more sandbox elements the newest and a greater chance of getting those PVE players that like to occasionally PVP and then it pure PVP people would have someone to prey on. 

Pvp players want someone to PvP with. Most people like to PVP and PVE. You take out those sandbox elements and you remove an entire section of the population. This means she will only get pure PVP players. In the MMORPG genre that is a miniscule fraction of the population meaning there will be no one to PvP with.

Scot

Sandbox is about giving players the tools to do things themselves, that "filler content" you mention is part of the tools. If a game is described as a PvP sandbox game and there is nothing else but PvP, that to me is not sandbox. You need another way for describing what it is.

Theocritus

I'm not a PVPer per se, but i don't find the Fortnites and Overwatches all that much fun...I can only play games like that for a very short amount of time then I am done....I need character development and other deeper gameplay to stay involved.

Panther2103

They had 100% PvP MMO's. I remember playing the hell out of them when they came out. I think one was called Fury? It was basically just the PvP aspects and class aspects of an MMO but with grinding removed. Same thing with the game Forge. 

The problem is, without the grinding there isn't enough content. 

I mean there's also Battle Royale games like other people have said. 

Kyleran

Scot said:

Sandbox is about giving players the tools to do things themselves, that "filler content" you mention is part of the tools. If a game is described as a PvP sandbox game and there is nothing else but PvP, that to me is not sandbox. You need another way for describing what it is.

There is a term already, "gankbox."

Sovrath

TheScavenger said:

When (most, not all, but most) PvPers play a sandbox MMO...they don't want to grind crafting, grind mobs, grind quests...they don't want to travel for anything longer than a 10 minute run...they just want to kill people.

I was thinking why so many PvP sandbox MMOs fail, and came to the conclusion...they barely focus on PvP but all the other filler stuff pvpers don't care about.

When I play leagues of legend. I kill (or get killed) in seconds. I don't grind barely any levels (levels super fast and you get levels killing players)

When I play a FPS game like battlefield or call of duty...there is no grinding, there is no crafting where gotta grind 100s of hours to craft stuff or harvest resources...its just pure pvp. No filler content.

If a PvP sandbox MMO wants to see success, they need to copy LoL, or Planetside 2 or the typical FPS game...remove carfting, remove all filler content...just focus 100% on people killing each other.

Thats all most pvpers want, and many pvpers would love to join a PvP MMO if it didn't have so much grindy content and didn't have any filler content made to look like the game has more depth than it actually does. Developers should focus on a pure pvp experience for PvP sandbox MMOs, and forget all the filler content and stuff most pvpers don't even care to do.

"Most" pvp'ers play sandbox mmo's? Really? What are you basing this on? Especially since, over the years, we've had so many posts about people wanting sandbox mmo's that have no pvp. And then the subsequent discussion about how that isn't possible/is possible.

You are mixing up the idea that pvp players want an open world to do what they want with "open world that is a sandbox."

PVP does not define a sandbox. I would argue that some would say "building/economy/trade" define a sandbox.

And then we get back to the "what is a sandbox" discussion.

Scorchien

 UO Trammel is a sandbox ... UO Felucca is a sandbox ,   Both shards acttract PVPer and PvErs ..

  Eve is a sandbox .... IMO if CCP ,tommorow offered up a Eve Trammel it would do just fine also..

        PVP is not exclusive to Sandbox

     PVE is not exclusive to Sandbox

Mikeha

Black Desert Online

Anthur

This is a fun thread or I didn't get the op ? So you are saying you don't like games of genre A, so you want them to be like games of a different genre ? This is either very sad or funny. I choose funny.

Gdemami

Recipe for succesful sandbox: remove everything what makes it a sandbox.

Solution to world hunger is comming next...

Velifax

I agree with most here, that youve missed something crucial.

Kids playing with trucks in a sandbox like to build and destroy the roads (survival and building mechanics) as well as drive the trucks (pvp).

You seem to have the attitude of the kid who gets in trouble because he keeps hitting other kids and their trucks because he has no interest in the sandbox aspect.

That's perfectly fine of course, play what you wish, but there's no call to kick over their sand castles (try to change their sandbox mmo). Just join the group of kids hitting each other with trucks (pvp only games).

Not trying to be mean it just fit the analogy

Quizzical

One question is that of balance.  Some people want PVP in which those who have played longer have an enormous advantage over newer players because they're higher level or have better gear or whatever.  That tends to lead to games dying because no one wants to be the new, lower level players who die a lot.  A typical FPS or MOBA doesn't have that sort of long leveling mechanic.

Another issue is that some sandbox fans aren't there for the PVP.  If you're there to craft or explore or whatever and willing to accept that the game has PVP on the side--especially if it's consensual--you'd quit if they took out everything except for the PVP.  They just took out the parts of the game that you liked.

MadFrenchie

Quizzical said:

One question is that of balance.  Some people want PVP in which those who have played longer have an enormous advantage over newer players because they're higher level or have better gear or whatever.  That tends to lead to games dying because no one wants to be the new, lower level players who die a lot.  A typical FPS or MOBA doesn't have that sort of long leveling mechanic.

Another issue is that some sandbox fans aren't there for the PVP.  If you're there to craft or explore or whatever and willing to accept that the game has PVP on the side--especially if it's consensual--you'd quit if they took out everything except for the PVP.  They just took out the parts of the game that you liked.

I was thinking about the first paragraph you mentioned today.  MOBAs do indeed have inequitable power levels, they just occur within the course of every given game.  Players are only equal power levels for approximately the first 5 minutes of any given game, then differences in resources gained (XP, gold for items, etc.) tip the scales.

It got me thinking about why the hell MOBAs decided to artificially tip the scales toward the winning team through bonuses above and beyond the organic.  Taking down a tower grants XP/gold AND that tower is no longer there to defend minion pushes or serve as relative safe areas for players to retreat to.  Why would they add the XP and gold bonus?  It's unnecessary.

I feel that any game that gives artificial advantages to a team or player already winning are fatally flawed designs.

Quizzical

MadFrenchie said:

Quizzical said:

One question is that of balance.  Some people want PVP in which those who have played longer have an enormous advantage over newer players because they're higher level or have better gear or whatever.  That tends to lead to games dying because no one wants to be the new, lower level players who die a lot.  A typical FPS or MOBA doesn't have that sort of long leveling mechanic.

Another issue is that some sandbox fans aren't there for the PVP.  If you're there to craft or explore or whatever and willing to accept that the game has PVP on the side--especially if it's consensual--you'd quit if they took out everything except for the PVP.  They just took out the parts of the game that you liked.

I was thinking about the first paragraph you mentioned today.  MOBAs do indeed have inequitable power levels, they just occur within the course of every given game.  Players are only equal power levels for approximately the first 5 minutes of any given game, then differences in resources gained (XP, gold for items, etc.) tip the scales.

It got me thinking about why the hell MOBAs decided to artificially tip the scales toward the winning team through bonuses above and beyond the organic.  Taking down a tower grants XP/gold AND that tower is no longer there to defend minion pushes or serve as relative safe areas for players to retreat to.  Why would they add the XP and gold bonus?  It's unnecessary.

I feel that any game that gives artificial advantages to a team or player already winning are fatally flawed designs.

There actually are good reasons for it.

1)  Stalemates are not fun.  A game has to have some mechanic to ensure that it can't stalemate.  If the game continues until one side destroys the other's base, and fighting at your base confers some sort of defensive advantages (e.g., the base deals damage in itself, or players who die can get there faster after they respawn because it's closer), that can cause a match to stalemate.  Stalemates are really toxic, and even if only one match in 50 results in a stalemate, that one can result in a disproportionate number of people getting frustrated and quitting the game entirely--not just the match.

If, after a while, the game tilts things to try to give one side or the other clear advantages, that makes it much harder to stalemate.  Time limits with alternate victory conditions that declare one side or the other the winner as soon as time runs out is one way to avoid this.  Timers that modify the rules after fixed periods of time to make it easier for a side to end the game can also help.  But changing the rules as the game goes along isn't as aesthetically pleasing as winning a match by the "normal" rules.

2)  It is poor game design to have a game continue for long periods of time after it is obvious which side is going to win.  It's not fun to be expected to continue to fight for another 20 minutes after it's obvious that your side has no chance.  And because of that, a lot of people will close the match or go AFK or whatever once it's clear that they're going to lose.  It also isn't fun to win games because the other side abandoned the game, nor to lose because your teammates left prematurely, thinking that they would inevitably lose, when the game still seemed winnable.

Rather, once it's obvious to everyone in the match which side is going to win, you want the game to end as quickly as possible.  Bonuses that make the side that is going to win able to quickly wrap up the match by the normal rules can help with this.  It's asking much less of the losing side in a match to stick it out for another two minutes than to ask them to hang around for another 20 minutes.

3)  It can increase the variance of matches, giving weaker players a better chance to beat stronger players while still letting the game feel like a contest of skill and not luck.  Suppose, for example, that one team is clearly stronger than the other, and would typically get about 2/3 of the kills if there were no level or gear differences.  Let's also suppose for simplicity that the first team to 10 kills wins.  The weaker team has less than a 6.5% chance of winning that match.

If each kill gives your team a considerable buff, however, so that getting the first kill might make you stronger by enough that you'd expect to get half of the kills if you stayed stronger by that margin for the rest of the match, then the weaker team's chances of winning is at least 1/3 (chance of first kill) * 1/2 (chance of winning if they get the first kill), which is 1/6, or much more than 6.5%.

I'm not saying that it's compelling that all MOBAs should make getting a kill make you a lot stronger.  Different MOBAs can have different game design decisions for a variety of reasons.  But I am saying that it's a reasonable thing to do.

Furthermore, that's very different from the long-term leveling that MMORPGs have.  Even if you end up behind on levels and then lose in a MOBA, you've caught up at the start of the next match.  In an MMORPG with non-consensual, open-world PVP, you might have weeks or months to catch up.  Getting ganked a ton with no real chance of fighting back other than waiting until you've caught up in level just isn't fun.

Chimborazo

I think the problem is that they are "not fish nor meat", don't know if you say that in English too. It's hard to put together a comprehensive quality experience in a game. If the sandbox had all the aspects well balanced and properly done, it could attract many different type of players. Because this rarely happens, we see people preferring to play single player RPG / theme park and then search for a PvP game (Moba, FPS, battle royal) when they feel 

anemo

The current problem is that MMO sandboxes are choosing to be sandboxes because the devs can't afford content.   It's almost a game dev prayer at this point,  "Giveth each player a pointy stick, and hopeth they are interesting enough to make content".   As if being able to use a pointy stick on another human makes a sandbox game.

In my opinion in good MMO sandbox games (Haven and Hearth, and Screeps) you can actually go a really really long time without ever entering combat, and when you do there is usually a pretty direct reason.   

Fortunately there are some really good modern examples of what a single player sandbox can be: Oxygen Not Included, Factorio, Stardew, and quite a few of the newer building/crafting loop games.  We're just at the point where the newer single player sandbox games are quite recent (Factorio is only two years old, Stardew 1.5 years), I imagine that MMO devs were probably still in pre-pre-production when the newer building/crafting loop games hit BIG. 

(As an aside and a very opinionated opinion I think devs looking at older single player sandboxes like Minecraft and Space Engineers could reasonably say to themselves "Oh they're just doing what we have been doing for the past decade, at a free-er scale since they aren't Massively Multiplayer", and not have much of a reason to take better lessons from them).

______________________________

A sandbox needs more than just the ability to make a pointy stick and use it.    Which is pretty much what most MMO "sandboxes" have.

Though the newer single player sandbox games do a really good job having a really good crafting loop where as you advance you get to make: new stuff, old stuff faster, stuff at bigger scale, stuff with less continuous attention, same stuff in new ways, with new systems that are more finicky, and similar.   They are in fact so good at this that often times when a player starts playing with these their first thought is "Wow this would be so cool if I could get others to build stuff with me", rather than "Wow I need to put this in someone's gut now".

MadFrenchie

@Quizzical the ticket system is a pretty clever way to get around it without necessarily allowing snowballing, now that you allude to it.  Since tickets gradually tick down on their own in most, it limits the overall time of the match.  I know Hirez uses that in Arena matches in Smite, it'd be interested to see how a MOBA laned map with obiectives would play out with such a ticket system.  It is general enough to allow mitlple map and objective types, and it diminishes the need to give an advantage to said team because it would inevitably march the match towards a conclusion.  Only the rate changes according to map objectives held/minion and player kills.