Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Sandboxes and FFA PVP
jusomdude
Member RarePosts: 2,706
Why do all these sandbox makers think that they have to have FFAPVP?
Sure it gives players more freedom, but the developers essentially shoot themselves in the foot.
If anything they should have an FFA server and a consentual PVP server or I dare say a trammel and felucca if they want to keep both types of players on one server. Or I think a system like EVE's could work pretty well.
FFAPVP is not synonymous with sandbox.
Early SWG did just fine without FFAPVP, and without a doubt better than any of these other FFAPVP sandboxes on the market.
Comments
Ok? lol
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
6142MB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Antec Gaming Phenom
Windows Vista Home Premium
The whole point of "Sandbox" style games is to have as few arbitrary restrictions on player activity as possible. If I want to try and build a wooden hut in the middle of a marsh, I should be able to. If I want to call my character The Right Honourable Stinky T Skunk and have him marry a lady skunk, I should be able to. If your character casts aspersions on the honour of my character's good lady wife, I should be able to stab him in the face.
So you're looking at it from the wrong direction: in a game style that is supposed to encourage and maximise player freedom, it is the arbitrary restriction on player freedom needs to be justified, not the freedom itself.
In practice of course, most "sandbox" style games have some kind of zoning system, where there are some relatively safe areas with restrictions on nonconsensual PvP, and the majority of the map is FFA.
It's worth noting that in the largest "sandbox" of all, EVE, the players themselves have made some of the FFA areas safer than the so-called Hi-sec area - for members of their own group. By their own efforts. In the long run, that's the kind of emergent effect that sandbox games should encourage, rather than relying on arbitrary, anti-immersive enforced mechanics. The more rules you enforce on people, the more like children they'll be inclined to act, obeying the letter of the rules, whilst constantly trying to subvert the spirit.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I agree with the OP, two of the three most popular sandbox MMOs were consenual PvP, UO and SWG.
The fact that none have come anywhere near those figures since, except EVE, is testament that many sandbox players don't like FFA PvP.
Heh, I always thought sandbox was about being able to shape the game world like you wanted it to. Change the world in a more lasting fashion then killing a boss who just respawns 5 minutes later.
Too much freedom also dimishes a sandbox if you ask me. If a game has too much PvP you just end up in a situation where you need 10 people defending a spot for every single person that's trying to make a lasting change in that spot. You end up with less then 10% playing an actual sandbox and having a lasting effect on the game world while the remaining 90% is just there in a sort of minion role.
While I understand that for quite a few players being the soldier and protecting allied players while killing enemy players in a dynamic environment I think that in a lot of sandboxes now available there's simply too much need for blobs and huge alliances to keep any property safe that it's actually diminishing the real sandbox aspect of those game.
In the end the freedom offered diminishes the sandbox offered. If FFA PvP where to be cut back then I think you'd see a whole lot more sandbox going on. Not to say that it should be removed completely. But PvP should be a tactical decision, not something you do out of boredom. Last I checked sandboxes weren't FPS deathmatches or team-deathmatches.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Because with ffa pvp a sandbox is more player centric.
It has far more meaningful territorial aspects.
It has a greater opportunity for player created roles and it allows more scope for players 'contolling' their own communities.
Furthermore FFA pvp also serves to create a much deeper, complex and realistic ig economy.
All pretty darn important in a sandbox i'd say.
EVE's system is FFA pvp so not sure what you are talking about there. That it has a security rating and npcs in some zones does not stop it from being an ffa pvp system. People can and will kill you if they think it worth the time regardless of sec space rating.
Whilst a sandbox does not need to be as pvp centric as say a Darkfall, which is specifically set up be as such, a sandbox loses a great deal if it has restricted pvp. Sure there can be npcs/towers/rating systems, but ultimately as long as the game has enough actual scope for other content, ffa can and should be a core component of the game.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I'm in this boat personally. Mainly because NA pvpers more often than not are griefer scum tthat will do everything they can to piss another player off for kicks. If there's a point to pvp or is pvp centric like say Planetside, I don't mind. But when high lvl people go to newbie towns to slaughter newbies that have only been on 5 minutes in game ever, it's not pvp, it's griefing. It's why I don't play Lineage 2. I kept getting slaughtered by bored high lvls in the newbie area. Same deal in Aion. Hit 20 just questing along, and BAM! blockade of griefers.
It doesn't help that NA players tend to not build communites that are willing to defend low lvl areas either. The pvp playerbase forces a game to institute protections or the game dies off slowly.
add: I notice people saying Eve this, Eve that. what about all the other FFA pvp mmos? dying a slow painful death.
Well I'm only playing EVE; I never played SWG or Darkfall, so I can't comment that much on how they do things in those games.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I think EvE is a lot more about freedom then it's about an actual sandbox. In the 2 years that I played EvE it was all about player interaction, not to say that's a bad thing. The opposite, it makes EvE a lot more fun then most of the other MMOs out there.
But for me a sandbox is also about interacting with and shaping your environment. In EvE there simply isn't that much interaction with the environment ( could have changed with planetary interaction, but I doubt it. ) partly because there's simply not much environment out there and partly because there's quite a few ( probably needed ) limitations on interacting with that environment.
High-sec zones generally don't change at all ( the zone itself that is, not the inhabitants ). At most you'll see some asteroid belts that are mined out.
Low-sec zones rarely change. At most you'll see some of the POS around the moons change.
Nul-sec zones change every now and then but even then not much. POS and TCU change reguraly and on rare occasions a player station will be built.
Again, I'm not referring to the players. Players in EvE are the most dynamic and emergent thing seen in current day MMOs. But the scenery itself doesn't really change at all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing EvE. I think it's a great game. But it's much more a political, military and economical game then it's a sandbox.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I can see your point but how exactly did the 'environment' change so much in the likes of SWG? Sure players could dump cities/harvesters down but aside from 'camping' them (city bans anyone), it's not like you could meaningfully fight over them and take territory per say or am I wrong in that line of thought (quite possible)?
Blowing a player base had far less consequence than say, taking out a super cap and to my mind is certainly no more 'world shaping' either.
PS: if you take politics, war/combat and economics out of a game what exactly is left in the sandbox aside from dumping down houses and grinding npc mobs?
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The only true sandbox is a compiler and development environment. By making a game you are inherently creating restrictions. Even the concept and existence of a wooden hut or a marsh are restrictions on the player. Why can't I make a high carbon steel hut that is 100 stories tall? Why stab the player in the face? Just destroy their entire planet. Oh yeah, its a fantasy game with all the restrictions of the world that was provided by the developers. Restricting the player and forcing them to live by the rules of the game are assumed to be a part of the game, just like FFA PvP. Would it be so unrealistic if the player that got stabbed in the face could dodge your attack, flee, and then bring in a policing force and have your character placed in jail for the next 10 (real) years? We must assume restrictions. Its just a matter of WHAT restrictions.
I feel more restricted in my options for creating systems of law and order. If a player can simply log-off then there is no ability to create any type of enforcement system. If a player can simply re-roll their character then there isn't any point in any punishment for their crimes. I might even go as far as to say that by having FFA PvP you are putting more restrictions on people than you would without it.
These are problems that can be fixed. Haven and Hearth has done this, but most games don't even try to address these problems. They encourage and even require anarchy. That in itself is more restricting and less realistic than the alternatives IMO.
Not saying you should remove war, politics and economy from a sandbox.
But for me a sandbox is about building a world. In EvE when you take a 0.0 zone you do it for the prestige of expanding your alliance's territory ( politics ) the fun of fighting players and showing you're better by kicking them out ( war ) or for the profit to be gained by the 0.0 ores and belt-rats as well as cap ship production ( economics ).
You don't go there to shape the zone the way you and your corpmates want it to, because you can't. You don't go there to make any lasting changes to the environment, because you can't.
Now again, there's nothing wrong with politics, war and economy. But it's clear that in EvE the focus is not on shaping the environment. It's on politics, war and economy. And that's probably a good thing. I imagine that there's a lot more players out there who are interested in those things then there are players who want to built their own world.
I'm also not saying that EvE isn't a sandbox. There's without any doubt at all sandbox elements there. But I am saying that EvE is first and foremest about player conflict. And only secondary about the sandbox elements. And as such EvE is not the be all, end all sandbox MMO.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Actually, a sandbox goes very well with FFA. Although there *are* to be ways to ensure your own security, it's a matter of balance. Eve found that balance in dividing the game world into a "quite secure area" (hisec) and "definitely not secure unless you control it area" (nullsec) with a lowsec somewhere inbetween. And further, you have corporations and alliances, with the possibility to declare war on any other corp even in hisec. And if you definitely want to stay clear of pvp you can stay in NPC corps, that precludes several advanced things to you but you can still play and have fun. It's not easy to design a whole new game with such a balanced system from scratch!
I wouldn't really consider SWG a "real" sandbox because it didn't allow much diplomacy. You couldn't simply start your own faction. You had the whole scenario already prepared and you had to behave according to system limits (that is, you couldn't, for example, have your own plans to overthrow the Empire, if you were against the Empire you were with Luke Skywalker, no choice there).
That we can't have unlimited freedom to do everything we wish due to the fact that there is a limit to technology, coding, budget and imagination is not a counter to the fact that developers can and have added ffa rulesets which do give a greater scope for player options.
So long as the game has a combat system in place no doubt you will be able to have a chance of dodging that attack and running away. Given the fact that many ffa mmos have had some kind of rating system and npcs in them (and indeed players who hunt down pkers) then that aggressor may well end up 'getting his come-uppance'.
I'm also not so sure who would 're-roll' their character to get away with pking in an mmo which tends to be character progression intensive, especially ffa mmos which tend to err towards the long development timescale.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
The problem with wide-open FFA PvP is that it isn't really role-playing. In role-playing as in real life, actions have consequences, but in too many FFA PvP implementations, players can endlessly grief other players with nearly zero consequences. In real life or even in a good RPG, you'd have a squad of enforcers tracking you down to wipe you out. In EVE, you can hide out at the space station or in zero sec space forever.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a relatively open PvP system, but developers need to be serious about actions and consequences. And developers should not underestimate how clever players can be in circumventing systems put in the game by the developers. Again in EVE, there's a well-intended security rating system in place, but in practice it's all too common for "pirates" (read: griefers) to have an alternate "clean" account that they use to raise cash and run supplies for their pirate account so as to completely circumvent the security rating system.
If players really, really want a FFA PvP system, fine, but there should be some practical limitations put in place. First and foremost, players should not be able to hide by logging off. It is a cheap tactic. If having a totally open world where everyone can attack everyone is "realistic" and "challenging", fine. So is a world where you can't escape from your enemies by finding a secluded placing and logging off. If someone wants to find you and kill you, they should be able to do so whether you are online or offline. We'll see how committed to FFA PvP players would be in such an environment . . .
People seem to think that the only way to get territorial area control, massive guild/clan wars, structure building and defending etc. is to have FFA PvP.
A well done, multi-faction and guild/clan based PvP system can and will accomplish the same goals, while also eliminating the ganking/griefing of non-aligned players by asshats.
No MMO, as of yet, has come up with a decent morality/justice system that actually gives enough consequence to being a PK to make it both an enjoyable and challenging play style choice while also preventing the game from turning into yet another wild-west dog-eat-dog cluster frak.
Agreed. I personally would prefer a faction-based system, where players can form their own factions or join existing ones, and set relations with other factions; but where unaligned players have significant freedom to roam without having to worry about griefers. PvPers get as much PvP as they like while PvEers can go about their business without hassle.
I doubt that PVP is essential for sandbox, although I strongly prefer games with open world PVP over games without. There are plenty of gamers that just don't like PVP and want to craft and build and trade, with maybe some politics thrown in the mix and any combat that occurs must be under very controlled circumstances. Nothing says you can't do this in a sandbox type MMO. All games have some level of restriction on them.
For me though, a game is devoid of life without some form of open world PVP. But I think an effective system to make PVP more difficult in certain places and have real consequences is essential to work and feel right when in an MMO. Otherwise you might as well just to FPS matchmaking or structured battlegrounds, which you dont need an MMO to do.
GW2 "built from the ground up with microtransactions in mind"
1) Cash->Gems->Gold->Influence->WvWvWBoosts = PAY2WIN
2) Mystic Chests = Crass in-game cash shop advertisements
Fact is that a sandbox WITH PvP should have FFA PvP over factionbased. What's the point of making a sandbox and disallow you to kill certain players?
I do agree that when making a sandbox with PvP, you MUST apply certain (criminal) rules to the PvP. If not, you'll end up with everyone killing everyone and have total anarchy...
I agree that EVE has done a good job on their PvP system in the sandbox, though the skill-system is a no-go for me (I'm not that patient). Lineage II is an other 'sandbox' PvP without factions where a good criminal system is incorporated, as well as reasons to PvP (castle/fortress sieges, territory control * player politics). Too bad, the 'grind' has made L2 a bot-fest
What stops me from using my non factional toon to prop up my faction/guild without running any risk again? Factional pvp only games can be fantastic, but we are talking about sandboxes specifically here. Taking the time to take and control territory when someone can simply waltz into it and mine the resources within it etc without a care in the world is not a great system to my mind. You're at war with my guild? fine i'll send my unguilded alt into your zone and mine away.
And no, being a pirate in EVE does not automatically mean you are a 'griefer'. Killing someone over and over and over just to upset them is griefing. Taking someone out to get their cargo (or even just for a pvp rush every so often) is not griefing.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Eve did it.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
I'm not saying we should have 100% freedom. What I am saying is that ANY game, with or without FFA PvP, is really just a set of rules and restrictions on what a player can do. To say that the goal of a sandbox game is to have no restrictions on a player is not true at all. The definition of a game is to be restricted. My point doesn't really have anything to do with FFA PvP, but more to do with the nature of games and our freedoms within them (i.e. Its all a contrived set of restrictions).
Dodging the attack is the easy part. "Getting his come-uppance" is the hard part when they are offline, hidden in a safe zone, or the other game mechanics restrict your ability to punish their crimes.
It happened in UO all the time. When your name is mud you reroll (or just play another character). Not everyone waits until they have time invested in their character to be an asshat.
What you do is tie the use of the mine to the guild that currently "owns" it. And other guilds can battle for controlling ownership, and only then can they allow their guildies and possibly allied guildies to mine it.
Once upon a time....
Nope
"Taking someone out to get their cargo (or even just for a pvp rush every so often is not griefing." <<< WHAT?!?!?!?
I was with you until you added the "just for pvp rush" part of it. While probably not "griefing" in legal since of the term (if there is one), it certainly feels that way to the person that is just minding there own business and you jump just for a "rush".
More on topic though, I play Darkfall. However, there are times I do not feel like logging on just because I don't want to have to deal with all those gankers that are out to get their "rush". I just want to maybe craft some things or gather a few mats. I don't want to have to deal with those that are not after my stuff but just are out for digital murder. So, I usually go play something else. Isn't freedom of choice great!
Let's party like it is 1863!
There are answers, solutions, to every "problem" faced in both FFA and factional guild/clan warfare etc. PvP.
The real problem is that devs now focus SO much of their time and effort on the PvE side that they cookie-cutter in a PvP system, be it factional or GvG or FFA etc. My guess as to why? PvE brings more MMO players in.
Sandbox games are really the worst offender here. They tend to cookie-cutter in a FFA PvP system instead of coming up with anything original or actually well designed in order to cover up an extreme lack of PvE content.
At least now a days, the PvE side of the fence is trying new things and trying to be innovative where as the PvP side is still stuck in their decade old mind set.
IMO, the DaoC, UO-factions, and even Lineage 2 clan vs. clan pvp systems are still the best ever made for a MMO instead of all this cookie-cutter FFA or instance based battlegrounds BS.
Games with instanced PvP should not include any open world PvP, as it is rendered pointless by the instanced stuff. On the same token, games with open world PvP should not include any instanced PvP.
Pick one or the other, make it work, innovate, design well, and prosper.