Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

with all the pro Sandbox talk over the last decade, no sandbox game really changed the formula

1235

Comments

  • HatefullHatefull Member EpicPosts: 2,303
    edited June 2019
    PvPers wouldn't like a pvp optional sandbox MMO because then they'd have no noobs to gank and they could only gank themselves and then Johhny depp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmVzDXe1sN4 they'd need an actual challenge so would whine and whine and whine
    You really need to shut up. You have no idea what you are on about.

    One example would be SWG, the PvP there was wildly popular and guess what? Yes, it was consensual. Again, just one example.

    This notion that people only pvp in order to gank people much lower level or with less skill is asinine. As a matter of fact, I do now know anyone personally that does enjoy punishing lower level players like that. I know they exist, but not nearly in the numbers people want to believe.

    Getting killed in a PvP game is NOT griefing, it is playing the game. Taking advantage of mechanics that are in said game and working as designed, is not cheating. Using these things to deny others fun playing the game, is, however, that is highly subjective.

    If you log into eve, go to null sec space and then bitch because someone blew you up when you only wanted to mine asteroids, you are the blithering idiot. The other person is just playing a game.
    Gyva02

    If you want a new idea, go read an old book.

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,201
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

    Yea, but if Sam decides he wants to slap the heck out of Frodo, there would be no artificial wall that would just prevent him from doing that. 
    There are several Lord of the Rings videogames from the old days (and an MMORPG in the present day) and Sam was never able to do that. The artificial wall's always been there.  Even in the movies and novels, you can call that artificial wall, "The storyline". The Lord of the Rings story simply wouldn't work if it functioned like an FFA PvP world and had a playerbase to match.  Arguably society too since real life society and the MiddleEarth Society have things like permadeath, which no FFA PVP MMO had.
    I dont think there actually has ever been any artificial force like this in Middle Earth.

    Smeagol was very much able to kill his friend and steal the ring from him. Boromir was able to go after Frodo. Saruman could attack Gandalf and so on.

    Just like in the real world, anyone can attack anyone else in Middle Earth.

    I get your point about the story, but imagine there was no "Lord of the Rings" and "Hobbit" and the other books. If there was just Middle Earth and you and other players were thrown in, it would only make sense for you to be able to attack each other because why not.  Nobody is surrounded by a force field there.

    I think this is as far as I want to go in the discussion about PVP setting of Middle Earth :). We are both looking at it from a slightly different angle, I think.


    Smeagol changed character, literally. He was a slave to the ring, no decisions to be made, thanks to preshioussshh.

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

    See anything here that is kind of a theme? Maybe... consequences?

    Sam wouldn't hit Frodo not because of some invisible wall, but because of something called character, which most video game players lack, thus the need to "hard code" it in, introducing invisible walls, as it were.
    Consequences are great. They are necessary. Without them, it is pretty much guaranteed that a FFA PVP game turns into an arena due to the nature of humans. I think it actually happened to most games with this setting due to a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms being put in place by the developers.

    My original point, from which I got a little bit distracted, was that I am of the opinion that the level of PVP in a sandbox MMORPG can be effectively regulated in a way that it will not be excessive, game-defining, or too disruptive for the players including those who are only interested in the PVE aspects of the game.

    You may be ok with the invisible walls and it is great because we all like different things. For me, however, these significantly reduce the amount of joy I am getting from playing the game because they are something so unrealistic that they break my immersion and remind me that I am just playing a game.

    Some time ago, I made a thread here discussing whether an MMORPG with FFA OW PVP can work for everyone. It was a heated discussion and many people disagreed with me, but I am still of the opinion that it can :).


    Consequences would have to be harsh.  Many killers would complain because most of don't want consequences.  We want kill or be killed to rule the day.  Problem is that MMORPG players generally don't like being murdered.  You so can't die perm so players are unable to defend themselves from the threat.  Even if you win they come right back and your time is being enganged dealing with them.
    I am not a game developer and not a very creative person either, so I never attempted to come up with a specific PVP regulation myself.

    The consequences would have to harsh enough to adequately function as a deterrent to an undesirable behavior and should be set in accordance with the extent of player killing the developers would want to be taking place in their game.

    Assuming that we would want to have an amount of PVP which would not negatively affect the gaming experience of the players who are not looking for PVP at all, I then agree that the consequences would have to be rather harsh.

    In this scenario, I dont think anyone would worry too much if the people who are only or mostly interested in killing other players were not interested in the game and would simply leave. 
    Ok, so we have these needs so far for a successful open world PvP game:

    1. A deterrent from PKing.
    2. The deterrent has to be harsh enough to make it functional and prevent unwelcome PvP.

    But how do you allow PvPers to PvP among themselves, without this deterrant?
    My answer has always been a Warfare System. One that allows any guild to declare war on any others, with a cost of some sort.
    And only guild members who are enlisted in their own army are part of the war, so that these guilds can also have members who play the other stuff (crafting, trade, etc.) who don't have to be subject to the constant PvP. That allows guilds to be much more rounded as far as player types.

    There's a lot more to this, besides what's been mentioned. Little details. I'll get to that later.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,171
    bcbully said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

    Yea, but if Sam decides he wants to slap the heck out of Frodo, there would be no artificial wall that would just prevent him from doing that. 
    There are several Lord of the Rings videogames from the old days (and an MMORPG in the present day) and Sam was never able to do that. The artificial wall's always been there.  Even in the movies and novels, you can call that artificial wall, "The storyline". The Lord of the Rings story simply wouldn't work if it functioned like an FFA PvP world and had a playerbase to match.  Arguably society too since real life society and the MiddleEarth Society have things like permadeath, which no FFA PVP MMO had.
    I dont think there actually has ever been any artificial force like this in Middle Earth.

    Smeagol was very much able to kill his friend and steal the ring from him. Boromir was able to go after Frodo. Saruman could attack Gandalf and so on.

    Just like in the real world, anyone can attack anyone else in Middle Earth.

    I get your point about the story, but imagine there was no "Lord of the Rings" and "Hobbit" and the other books. If there was just Middle Earth and you and other players were thrown in, it would only make sense for you to be able to attack each other because why not.  Nobody is surrounded by a force field there.

    I think this is as far as I want to go in the discussion about PVP setting of Middle Earth :). We are both looking at it from a slightly different angle, I think.


    Smeagol changed character, literally. He was a slave to the ring, no decisions to be made, thanks to preshioussshh.

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

    See anything here that is kind of a theme? Maybe... consequences?

    Sam wouldn't hit Frodo not because of some invisible wall, but because of something called character, which most video game players lack, thus the need to "hard code" it in, introducing invisible walls, as it were.
    Consequences are great. They are necessary. Without them, it is pretty much guaranteed that a FFA PVP game turns into an arena due to the nature of humans. I think it actually happened to most games with this setting due to a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms being put in place by the developers.

    My original point, from which I got a little bit distracted, was that I am of the opinion that the level of PVP in a sandbox MMORPG can be effectively regulated in a way that it will not be excessive, game-defining, or too disruptive for the players including those who are only interested in the PVE aspects of the game.

    You may be ok with the invisible walls and it is great because we all like different things. For me, however, these significantly reduce the amount of joy I am getting from playing the game because they are something so unrealistic that they break my immersion and remind me that I am just playing a game.

    Some time ago, I made a thread here discussing whether an MMORPG with FFA OW PVP can work for everyone. It was a heated discussion and many people disagreed with me, but I am still of the opinion that it can :).


    Consequences would have to be harsh.  Many killers would complain because most of don't want consequences.  We want kill or be killed to rule the day.  Problem is that MMORPG players generally don't like being murdered.  You so can't die perm so players are unable to defend themselves from the threat.  Even if you win they come right back and your time is being enganged dealing with them.
    I am not a game developer and not a very creative person either, so I never attempted to come up with a specific PVP regulation myself.

    The consequences would have to harsh enough to adequately function as a deterrent to an undesirable behavior and should be set in accordance with the extent of player killing the developers would want to be taking place in their game.

    Assuming that we would want to have an amount of PVP which would not negatively affect the gaming experience of the players who are not looking for PVP at all, I then agree that the consequences would have to be rather harsh.

    In this scenario, I dont think anyone would worry too much if the people who are only or mostly interested in killing other players were not interested in the game and would simply leave. 
    Ok, so we have these needs so far for a successful open world PvP game:

    1. A deterrent from PKing.
    2. The deterrent has to be harsh enough to make it functional and prevent unwelcome PvP.

    But how do you allow PvPers to PvP among themselves, without this deterrant?
    My answer has always been a Warfare System. One that allows any guild to declare war on any others, with a cost of some sort.
    And only guild members who are enlisted in their own army are part of the war, so that these guilds can also have members who play the other stuff (crafting, trade, etc.) who don't have to be subject to the constant PvP. That allows guilds to be much more rounded as far as player types.

    There's a lot more to this, besides what's been mentioned. Little details. I'll get to that later.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
    Now that's funny.
    I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

    Once upon a time....

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,201
    edited June 2019
    bcbully said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

    Yea, but if Sam decides he wants to slap the heck out of Frodo, there would be no artificial wall that would just prevent him from doing that. 
    There are several Lord of the Rings videogames from the old days (and an MMORPG in the present day) and Sam was never able to do that. The artificial wall's always been there.  Even in the movies and novels, you can call that artificial wall, "The storyline". The Lord of the Rings story simply wouldn't work if it functioned like an FFA PvP world and had a playerbase to match.  Arguably society too since real life society and the MiddleEarth Society have things like permadeath, which no FFA PVP MMO had.
    I dont think there actually has ever been any artificial force like this in Middle Earth.

    Smeagol was very much able to kill his friend and steal the ring from him. Boromir was able to go after Frodo. Saruman could attack Gandalf and so on.

    Just like in the real world, anyone can attack anyone else in Middle Earth.

    I get your point about the story, but imagine there was no "Lord of the Rings" and "Hobbit" and the other books. If there was just Middle Earth and you and other players were thrown in, it would only make sense for you to be able to attack each other because why not.  Nobody is surrounded by a force field there.

    I think this is as far as I want to go in the discussion about PVP setting of Middle Earth :). We are both looking at it from a slightly different angle, I think.


    Smeagol changed character, literally. He was a slave to the ring, no decisions to be made, thanks to preshioussshh.

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

    See anything here that is kind of a theme? Maybe... consequences?

    Sam wouldn't hit Frodo not because of some invisible wall, but because of something called character, which most video game players lack, thus the need to "hard code" it in, introducing invisible walls, as it were.
    Consequences are great. They are necessary. Without them, it is pretty much guaranteed that a FFA PVP game turns into an arena due to the nature of humans. I think it actually happened to most games with this setting due to a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms being put in place by the developers.

    My original point, from which I got a little bit distracted, was that I am of the opinion that the level of PVP in a sandbox MMORPG can be effectively regulated in a way that it will not be excessive, game-defining, or too disruptive for the players including those who are only interested in the PVE aspects of the game.

    You may be ok with the invisible walls and it is great because we all like different things. For me, however, these significantly reduce the amount of joy I am getting from playing the game because they are something so unrealistic that they break my immersion and remind me that I am just playing a game.

    Some time ago, I made a thread here discussing whether an MMORPG with FFA OW PVP can work for everyone. It was a heated discussion and many people disagreed with me, but I am still of the opinion that it can :).


    Consequences would have to be harsh.  Many killers would complain because most of don't want consequences.  We want kill or be killed to rule the day.  Problem is that MMORPG players generally don't like being murdered.  You so can't die perm so players are unable to defend themselves from the threat.  Even if you win they come right back and your time is being enganged dealing with them.
    I am not a game developer and not a very creative person either, so I never attempted to come up with a specific PVP regulation myself.

    The consequences would have to harsh enough to adequately function as a deterrent to an undesirable behavior and should be set in accordance with the extent of player killing the developers would want to be taking place in their game.

    Assuming that we would want to have an amount of PVP which would not negatively affect the gaming experience of the players who are not looking for PVP at all, I then agree that the consequences would have to be rather harsh.

    In this scenario, I dont think anyone would worry too much if the people who are only or mostly interested in killing other players were not interested in the game and would simply leave. 
    Ok, so we have these needs so far for a successful open world PvP game:

    1. A deterrent from PKing.
    2. The deterrent has to be harsh enough to make it functional and prevent unwelcome PvP.

    But how do you allow PvPers to PvP among themselves, without this deterrant?
    My answer has always been a Warfare System. One that allows any guild to declare war on any others, with a cost of some sort.
    And only guild members who are enlisted in their own army are part of the war, so that these guilds can also have members who play the other stuff (crafting, trade, etc.) who don't have to be subject to the constant PvP. That allows guilds to be much more rounded as far as player types.

    There's a lot more to this, besides what's been mentioned. Little details. I'll get to that later.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
    Now that's funny.
    I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

    Oh what sever did you play on? Why don’t you tell us what you remember?
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,171
    bcbully said:
    bcbully said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

    Yea, but if Sam decides he wants to slap the heck out of Frodo, there would be no artificial wall that would just prevent him from doing that. 
    There are several Lord of the Rings videogames from the old days (and an MMORPG in the present day) and Sam was never able to do that. The artificial wall's always been there.  Even in the movies and novels, you can call that artificial wall, "The storyline". The Lord of the Rings story simply wouldn't work if it functioned like an FFA PvP world and had a playerbase to match.  Arguably society too since real life society and the MiddleEarth Society have things like permadeath, which no FFA PVP MMO had.
    I dont think there actually has ever been any artificial force like this in Middle Earth.

    Smeagol was very much able to kill his friend and steal the ring from him. Boromir was able to go after Frodo. Saruman could attack Gandalf and so on.

    Just like in the real world, anyone can attack anyone else in Middle Earth.

    I get your point about the story, but imagine there was no "Lord of the Rings" and "Hobbit" and the other books. If there was just Middle Earth and you and other players were thrown in, it would only make sense for you to be able to attack each other because why not.  Nobody is surrounded by a force field there.

    I think this is as far as I want to go in the discussion about PVP setting of Middle Earth :). We are both looking at it from a slightly different angle, I think.


    Smeagol changed character, literally. He was a slave to the ring, no decisions to be made, thanks to preshioussshh.

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

    See anything here that is kind of a theme? Maybe... consequences?

    Sam wouldn't hit Frodo not because of some invisible wall, but because of something called character, which most video game players lack, thus the need to "hard code" it in, introducing invisible walls, as it were.
    Consequences are great. They are necessary. Without them, it is pretty much guaranteed that a FFA PVP game turns into an arena due to the nature of humans. I think it actually happened to most games with this setting due to a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms being put in place by the developers.

    My original point, from which I got a little bit distracted, was that I am of the opinion that the level of PVP in a sandbox MMORPG can be effectively regulated in a way that it will not be excessive, game-defining, or too disruptive for the players including those who are only interested in the PVE aspects of the game.

    You may be ok with the invisible walls and it is great because we all like different things. For me, however, these significantly reduce the amount of joy I am getting from playing the game because they are something so unrealistic that they break my immersion and remind me that I am just playing a game.

    Some time ago, I made a thread here discussing whether an MMORPG with FFA OW PVP can work for everyone. It was a heated discussion and many people disagreed with me, but I am still of the opinion that it can :).


    Consequences would have to be harsh.  Many killers would complain because most of don't want consequences.  We want kill or be killed to rule the day.  Problem is that MMORPG players generally don't like being murdered.  You so can't die perm so players are unable to defend themselves from the threat.  Even if you win they come right back and your time is being enganged dealing with them.
    I am not a game developer and not a very creative person either, so I never attempted to come up with a specific PVP regulation myself.

    The consequences would have to harsh enough to adequately function as a deterrent to an undesirable behavior and should be set in accordance with the extent of player killing the developers would want to be taking place in their game.

    Assuming that we would want to have an amount of PVP which would not negatively affect the gaming experience of the players who are not looking for PVP at all, I then agree that the consequences would have to be rather harsh.

    In this scenario, I dont think anyone would worry too much if the people who are only or mostly interested in killing other players were not interested in the game and would simply leave. 
    Ok, so we have these needs so far for a successful open world PvP game:

    1. A deterrent from PKing.
    2. The deterrent has to be harsh enough to make it functional and prevent unwelcome PvP.

    But how do you allow PvPers to PvP among themselves, without this deterrant?
    My answer has always been a Warfare System. One that allows any guild to declare war on any others, with a cost of some sort.
    And only guild members who are enlisted in their own army are part of the war, so that these guilds can also have members who play the other stuff (crafting, trade, etc.) who don't have to be subject to the constant PvP. That allows guilds to be much more rounded as far as player types.

    There's a lot more to this, besides what's been mentioned. Little details. I'll get to that later.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
    Now that's funny.
    I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

    Oh what sever did you play on? Why don’t you tell us what you remember?
    I didn't. It's one of those things where I knew I didn't want to play it so I didn't.
    Beyond that, I don't have to explain myself to you. Not in this situation.
    Had the the topic been that game, I might have had some comments on it.
    But this is a case of you just trying to live up to you namesake. And I'm not going to cooperate with you. ;)
    Gdemami

    Once upon a time....

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,201
    edited June 2019
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,171
    bcbully said:
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
    Well Mr. Bully, what makes you think that the PvP is the reason I don't want to play that game?

    Why would you assume that my posts indicated that any game without rampant PKing would be ok in my book? (And frankly, I have my doubts that that's the reality.)

    Why would you throw out a PtW game as if that's the answer for me?

    Why would you ignore the posts I made, which you are responding to, and INSTRUCT me to play a game that doesn't have what I posted about?

    bcbullyGdemami

    Once upon a time....

  • TillerTiller Member EpicPosts: 8,870
    edited June 2019
    Hatefull said:
    PvPers wouldn't like a pvp optional sandbox MMO because then they'd have no noobs to gank and they could only gank themselves and then Johhny depp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmVzDXe1sN4 they'd need an actual challenge so would whine and whine and whine
    You really need to shut up. You have no idea what you are on about.

    One example would be SWG, the PvP there was wildly popular and guess what? Yes, it was consensual. Again, just one example.

    This notion that people only pvp in order to gank people much lower level or with less skill is asinine. As a matter of fact, I do now know anyone personally that does enjoy punishing lower level players like that. I know they exist, but not nearly in the numbers people want to believe.

    Getting killed in a PvP game is NOT griefing, it is playing the game. Taking advantage of mechanics that are in said game and working as designed, is not cheating. Using these things to deny others fun playing the game, is, however, that is highly subjective.

    If you log into eve, go to null sec space and then bitch because someone blew you up when you only wanted to mine asteroids, you are the blithering idiot. The other person is just playing a game.
    Actually what he said isn't entirely wrong. I remember reading that exact argument in the earlier days of the BDO forums. Many folks actually wanted the forced level 49 PvP to stay because they felt the game was more fun ganking unsuspecting people.  Eventually they locked it behind the level level 49 quest giving folks the option to opt out of PvP like the Korean servers, but it is a thing.

    Hell even swg had it's problems in the early days. I don't know if you ever read the old SWG forums back in the day but I remember a story of some dancer named Combat Biscuit who was quitting the game over a tef gank she got while buffing someone.

    Some PvPers even complained about the TEF system sometimes because it made it hard to 1v1 when anyone could just TEF ride anyone by healing them. Next thing you know it was 1v10.  I remember lots of large scale battles starting over a gank. On my server, Bloodfin the guild DREAD (which later became AXIS) used to role large gank squads of people between Bestine and Anchohead looking for afkers, Jedi, anyone who was red. Was it fun? yeah, but people complained.

    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    bcbully said:
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
    Sounds fun honestly.  Is the game still active.  I played for awhile.  Don't remember why I stopped.  
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,201
    bcbully said:
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
    Sounds fun honestly.  Is the game still active.  I played for awhile.  Don't remember why I stopped.  
    As far as I know it still is.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,328
    The developmental irony is that it is more difficult to create an engaging game with less prefabricated content than it is to create a game with more prefabricated content. 
    SovrathGdemamiAmarantharbcbully

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,172
    edited June 2019
    Amathe said:
    The developmental irony is that it is more difficult to create an engaging game with less prefabricated content than it is to create a game with more prefabricated content. 
    ...is it? Where did you get that from?
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,328
    Gdemami said:
    Amathe said:
    The developmental irony is that it is more difficult to create an engaging game with less prefabricated content than it is to create a game with more prefabricated content. 
    ...is it? Where did you get that from?
     LOL. 
    AlBQuirky

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,226
    Amathe said:
    Gdemami said:
    Amathe said:
    The developmental irony is that it is more difficult to create an engaging game with less prefabricated content than it is to create a game with more prefabricated content. 
    ...is it? Where did you get that from?
     LOL. 
    I guess he doesn't know about copy and paste? :lol:
    Amathe

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    The majority of pvpers who want to fight worthy opponents instead of ganking lowbies these days play games where the concept of "lowbie" doesn't exist.  MOBAs, Battle Royales, etc.
    ikcin
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    edited June 2019
    You simply do not get it. The general problem with the FFA PvP is not the risk - full loot, perma death, ganking and etc. The problem is why you do FFA PvP? The multiplayer progression. It is obvious why you PvE - solo character progression. But why do you PvP? The implementation of adequate multiplayer goals is the field most sandbox MMOs fail. And without multiplayer goals and consequences, the sandbox MMO simply does not happen.  Sandbox MMO is above all a game for competition and cooperation. But the developer should give immersive short and long term goals, risk, rewards and tools for that competition and cooperation. 

    Take L2 and Albion as good examples. Both have sandbox elements. But in L2 after GoD the short term cooperation is broken - no holly trinity, random parties, daily grind, even solo instanced. In Albion the long term cooperation is broken - no valid guild qoals that include all the members, no balance among the guilds, so broken competition, instanced 5vs5 GvG, instead of open world GvG. Playing both games you will see the FFA PvP is not a problem at all. 
    GdemamiSteelhelm
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,226
    edited June 2019
    Gdemami said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    I guess he doesn't know about copy and paste? :lol:
    I am not sure what you are trying to imply there. Did you happen to try to make an impression that you are such an ignorant halfwit to believe making a "mainstream" game is like copy and paste functionality?
    Ah yes... When logic and actual debate fail, go to personal attacks. Must have struck a nerve...

    It doesn't take even a half-wit like me to know that copying content then pasting it in different areas is much easier than trying to make an actual, engaging game. But, who knows what goes on in that giggly muscle between your ears, eh?
    Gdemami

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,825
    I only like using the letters mmorpg because any other label given to these games is not fully accurate.
    So i want a fully fledged realistic/plausible,good looking,good mechanics,world building and good AI.
    I do not want to chase markers over npc heads...EVER,that was acceptable back in the mmorpg design infancy but we should be well beyond that point by now.

    Survival games gives a far better platform but lack the overall content.So what i would like to see is a HQ survival game with scripted events and more tools to support living in a world.Yes it is ok and i prefer some interaction with npc's,just nothing with hand holding and VERY few of those fetch me quests,i want to interact like i would within the LORE of the game,be it magical/fantasy or more modern realism,either way doesn't matter.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,099
    Wizardry said:
    I only like using the letters mmorpg because any other label given to these games is not fully accurate.
    So i want a fully fledged realistic/plausible,good looking,good mechanics,world building and good AI.
    I do not want to chase markers over npc heads...EVER,that was acceptable back in the mmorpg design infancy but we should be well beyond that point by now.

    Survival games gives a far better platform but lack the overall content.So what i would like to see is a HQ survival game with scripted events and more tools to support living in a world.Yes it is ok and i prefer some interaction with npc's,just nothing with hand holding and VERY few of those fetch me quests,i want to interact like i would within the LORE of the game,be it magical/fantasy or more modern realism,either way doesn't matter.
    I think persistent online world fits more so.  That fits the orginal group of games and to me what truly separates CoD from Planetside. 

    When I think of MMORPG it always start with the world.  I would not consider a 10000k deathmatch FPS a MMOFPS.  I would consider a 1000 player server persistent world that is FPS a MMOFPS.


    AlBQuirky
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,172
    AlBQuirky said:

    It doesn't take even a half-wit
    ....actually, that is all it takes.

    Yeah, tell me more about logic failing...
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,226
    edited June 2019
    Gdemami said:
    AlBQuirky said:

    It doesn't take even a half-wit
    ....actually, that is all it takes.

    Yeah, tell me more about logic failing...
    Oh... You try so hard. Keep on trying ;)

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • SteelhelmSteelhelm Member UncommonPosts: 332
    since we are talking about pvp i'll bud in...
    another mechanic to tackle the ffa pvp dilemma are pvp tags
    letting players to tag themselves for a pvp role in the world that defines who they can and cannot attack: bandit, guard, merchant, murderer, bounty hunter etc

    of course some tags should have to be forced on players for some actions for example for transporting goods you get the merchant tag etc
    and if you tag yourself as a murderer and use the tag to randomly kill, that should be a one way ticket to permadeath...

    but the biggest design decision will always remain imo: will you allow murderers to attack anyone indiscriminately... or create tagless players and if you create these tagless PVE players what would their role in the world be... what would they contribute to the game...

    just some of my thoughts on open world pvp...
    GdemamiAlBQuirky
    Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    Steelhelm said:
    since we are talking about pvp i'll bud in...
    another mechanic to tackle the ffa pvp dilemma are pvp tags
    letting players to tag themselves for a pvp role in the world that defines who they can and cannot attack: bandit, guard, merchant, murderer, bounty hunter etc

    of course some tags should have to be forced on players for some actions for example for transporting goods you get the merchant tag etc
    and if you tag yourself as a murderer and use the tag to randomly kill, that should be a one way ticket to permadeath...

    but the biggest design decision will always remain imo: will you allow murderers to attack anyone indiscriminately... or create tagless players and if you create these tagless PVE players what would their role in the world be... what would they contribute to the game...

    just some of my thoughts on open world pvp...
    You start from the end - the current mechanisms. Again L2 and Albion - in the first you have experience loss, in the second - full loot. Which is more harsh? The answer is L2, as you need more time to get the experience. But full loot obviously sounds harder. Actually there are not murders, loot and etc. - everything is about the time loss and the time need. So the risk/reward ratio. But these are the mechanisms of the play. They change and they are rebalanced constantly.

    The core of the game are the goals and the tools. So why you play, and how to reach your goals. To call a game multiplayer, it shall have multiplayer goals, and tools. To make a game about solo progression and then to say: now let FFA PvP - is obvious recipe for failure. But that is exactly what most developers do.


    Gdemami
  • SteelhelmSteelhelm Member UncommonPosts: 332
    ikcin said:
    Steelhelm said:
    since we are talking about pvp i'll bud in...
    another mechanic to tackle the ffa pvp dilemma are pvp tags
    letting players to tag themselves for a pvp role in the world that defines who they can and cannot attack: bandit, guard, merchant, murderer, bounty hunter etc

    of course some tags should have to be forced on players for some actions for example for transporting goods you get the merchant tag etc
    and if you tag yourself as a murderer and use the tag to randomly kill, that should be a one way ticket to permadeath...

    but the biggest design decision will always remain imo: will you allow murderers to attack anyone indiscriminately... or create tagless players and if you create these tagless PVE players what would their role in the world be... what would they contribute to the game...

    just some of my thoughts on open world pvp...
    You start from the end - the current mechanisms. Again L2 and Albion - in the first you have experience loss, in the second - full loot. Which is more harsh? The answer is L2, as you need more time to get the experience. But full loot obviously sounds harder. Actually there are not murders, loot and etc. - everything is about the time loss and the time need. So the risk/reward ratio. But these are the mechanisms of the play. They change and they are rebalanced constantly.

    The core of the game are the goals and the tools. So why you play, and how to reach your goals. To call a game multiplayer, it shall have multiplayer goals, and tools. To make a game about solo progression and then to say: now let FFA PvP - is obvious recipe for failure. But that is exactly what most developers do.


    Like you said, it's not about solo mechanics, but each player controls an individual avatar. If you let players throw shit at each other, they will. That's why ffa pvp games fail. Many people come to ffa pvp games to gank noobs because it makes them feel good. I'm not interested in that kind of gameplay. That's the failure to me.
    GdemamiAmaranthar
    Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
Sign In or Register to comment.