Haha, what are all you people going to do when they make a sandbox game where PVP is a CHOICE?
You want to FFA PVP, then toggle yourself ON to FFA PVP. If you dont want PVP, toggle yourself OFF to FFA.
I'd wonder how I ended up in 2001.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This is a fairly good read and it touches on how people are trying to put community definitions on something that should not have anything but developer systems to facilitate the goal.
One of the fallacies of the Sandbox is that there is no set definition as rules in a sandbox make for a poor experience as a child. Though still there are natural rules of etiquette that must be enforced such as not throwing sand at your playmate as it could go into their eyes that must be enforced. Still, when at the beach when there are many different people around there will still be that bully that wants to kick over whatever you make. But that's a poor analogy as the beach is not a sandbox, as a sandbox has defined dimensions within the "Box". There will be measures to prevent that bully from entering whatever gates the sandbox off from the general public (some sandboxes are in a backyard and some in a park with parents watching).
This very much captures the nature of video games and how things such as coding and the fact that it's a game to apply nature rules that come along with gaming. The bully will need to find the open sources, whereas those who just want to have fun will play with sandboxes in more secure areas (the whole PvP server and Pve server thing or specific locations within the same server for either or). Therefore to specifically say that Sandbox MUST have PvP is defining a rule that should not exist within the natural boundaries; one person mentioned Minecraft as a good example of there being no PvP by nature.
Sadly every Sandbox that has put emphasis on PvP to date (where no special conditions already existed) has failed spectacularly (the definition of failed is different for everyone) simply because they did such: They put emphasis on PvP. Emphasis is not needed in the Sandbox. The divide by PvPers and Non-Pvpers is making it hard for this genre to grow as they are trying to define the experience. It's the game that the developer wants to make which should dictate what the experience will be and not shackles or chains by one group or the other. Minecraft wanted a specific sandbox experience that just happened to not have PvP. Eve wanted it's own experience, yet still made specific areas where it was much harder to grief and it fit in with the nature of the Space thriller they wanted what with governments and the like and groups enforcing law.
Yet within the confines of the Sandbox, defined definitions are needed as said in the first paragraph. Natural things that must be considered in the world the developer wants to create. If there is PvP, there needs to be ample systems in place to encourage self policing and penalties for actions. UO use to have it so that you became a "red" and could no longer enter any city and said player had to depend on player vendors and could not participate in the community due to them being outcast. Players would also actually seek them out and kill them for Honor and Karma and the like so that they could get valor titles and the "Knight of Justice" title implemented later on (which decayed over time if you didn't keep on taking out reds). Even cut of their heads and give them to someone wanting a bounty. This simulated a real environment whereby if you were a criminal you were alone; incredibly powerful guards would kill you on sight and you could no longer enter any public area. You were in the wilderness, you were a hardass and you were a target. Cut off from all supplies with the Law wanting to kill you over and over and loot your corpse repeatedly, especially since you no longer had access to a bank.
These systems were realistic and pretty much punished anyone partaking in unlawful PvP. Guilds could declare war on each other and killing their members would not make you a criminal. The criminal status would eventually fade, but if you kept on doing it, it could last for years. When you were a red, you were pretty much a baddass. You were a target to everyone and cut off from everything. It wasn't just a level 90 ganking a level 30 like some other games as it didn't have a level system or significant gear advantages. It meant something, and it made one's life incredibly hard as a result of it meaning something.
Any system that just blatantly supports gankfest PvP as "part of the game" in a sandbox is doomed to fail. PvP focused Sandboxes thus tend not to do very well as opposed to PvE focused ones, as PvE focused ones generally have more things to do, and more people are willing to partake in all the things to do as a community. Though perfectly mixing them to be more realistic to the point people don't fear being ganked repeatedly, but are still susceptible to what is basically simulated life (and the occasional hardass who survives all the penalties society puts on them as simulated by the game's definitions) in that they are open to attack... but it's just not beneficial to the attacker (unless they just want the notoriety) and you could just respawn anyway and continue what you were doing. Even adding additional penalties to being killed by a player when you're red with this; they throw your body in jail for a few minutes (or until you use thieving skills to break out or what not) as you cannot partake in city waypoints or guarded shrines and the like.
The wood around a sandbox keeps it in, and those inside it just play with it to their heart's content. Though again, there are naturally things you wouldn't do such as throwing sand in someone's eyes and expect not to have repercussions for such. In today's community we view the need of having PvE and PvP servers as just a way to split different thinking groups. It's mainly because, I think, that there are so many Sandbox MMO games that only focus on PvP and virtually none that do it like the above (or attempt to satisfy the PvE portion of the crowd). There is a divide between the fans of the genre. Some who play Themepark open world PvP don't want such massive yet realistic restrictions as they couldn't fathom not being able to enter their main cities in those games. They don't have to because these games have factions specifically made to fight each other. They have team mates of some sorts that just doesn't constitute a player made guild. Yet this is one of the very problems that's in the sandbox nowadays. Not wanting restrictions, and just wanting to kill that new player without ramifications. With the only thing companies do is say "oh... self policing!" in the most lazy and unrealistic way possible.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Minecraft can be played 100% PvE and I doubt anyone will deny it's a sandbox.
I agree 200% with all what you said, OP, but I doubt you're going to achieve anything here on these forums.
Oh, and:
First of all.. to get that out of the way. I do think a pve sandbox is possible. Although it all comes down how you define a sandbox. No MMO sandbox is a 100% sandbox, and it isn't possible(or extremely difficult) nor is it viable nor fun. If it would be a 100% sandbox, and you would have more than 1 player pvp had to be enabled. But no mmo will ever be a 100% sandbox..
For me a sandbox in its core is a ever changing world. Build up stuff, change/modify stuff, destroy stuff. With other words visit a area in one week and you may see a forrest.. another week you may see a cleared forrest and a small village.. and in the next week you may see a ruin of a village.. and another week later you may see a ruin overgrown from a forrest. A sandbox is ultimatively about change.
And with that said, you see, we don't have a lot of games out there even worth the label sandbox. Minecraft is up to now maybe the most complete sandbox also it is not persistent over a lengthy time, and withit you don't have to worry that much about the destruction part, because the server will everything set back to zero every few weeks. But that is a huge drawback from minecraft.
This changing, especially the destruction part is easier and more naturally done with pvp. With other words that the players build stuff up, and that the players destroy stuff. But you can also lets do it the environment. Or you just focus on building up, but you will ultimately run into problems. Like no place for new creations, like a static world, and a lot of sandbox mmorpgs did have that problem, like SWG or UO, with houses all over the place and not enough room for more creativity.
And back to the 100% sandbox, and why at least in my humble opinion, you would have pvp. In a 100% sandbox everything would be able to create, to modify, to use and to destroy. And the player would be one part of that. But 100% sandboxes don't exist. and so it is rather pointless to discuss what left out aspect will change a sandbox into something else.
As long as the core, the ever changing world, is intact, as long as the player can have an impact in that world it is a sandbox. And the absence of pvp, or the presence of a few static elements(like quests) doesn't change that.
Every way in which two people can influence the world is a potential source of conflict and a potential weapon for lashing out at another people - even if it's arranging blocks to spell out an offensive message. The problem that non-PvP sandboxes eventually have to face as populations grow and the number of interactions between players increase is how to resolve the worst conflicts in a way that doesn't force the publisher to have manually police the worst conflicts.
Themeparks avoid this by simply taking away the sand - aside from kill-stealing or jumping around in someone's face, there's not a lot left that allows one player can do that's going to get on another player's nerves. PvP solves it by just throwing the ball into players' hands. Minecraft solves the problem by giving you control of your own private instance (which tends to create distracting arguments over whether this mix of private and public games really belongs in the same genre).
Every way in which two people can influence the world is a potential source of conflict and a potential weapon for lashing out at another people - even if it's arranging blocks to spell out an offensive message. The problem that non-PvP sandboxes eventually have to face as populations grow and the number of interactions between players increase is how to resolve the worst conflicts in a way that doesn't force the publisher to have manually police the worst conflicts.
Themeparks avoid this by simply taking away the sand - aside from kill-stealing or jumping around in someone's face, there's not a lot left that allows one player can do that's going to get on another player's nerves. PvP solves it by just throwing the ball into players' hands. Minecraft solves the problem by giving you control of your own private instance (which tends to create distracting arguments over whether this mix of private and public games really belongs in the same genre).
And the market let the consumer choose which solution he likes. Hence you have themepark games, and total pvp games like LoL.
The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution.
Minecraft can be played 100% PvE and I doubt anyone will deny it's a sandbox.
I agree 200% with all what you said, OP, but I doubt you're going to achieve anything here on these forums.
Oh, and:
First of all.. to get that out of the way. I do think a pve sandbox is possible. Although it all comes down how you define a sandbox. No MMO sandbox is a 100% sandbox, and it isn't possible(or extremely difficult) nor is it viable nor fun. If it would be a 100% sandbox, and you would have more than 1 player pvp had to be enabled. But no mmo will ever be a 100% sandbox..
For me a sandbox in its core is a ever changing world. Build up stuff, change/modify stuff, destroy stuff. With other words visit a area in one week and you may see a forrest.. another week you may see a cleared forrest and a small village.. and in the next week you may see a ruin of a village.. and another week later you may see a ruin overgrown from a forrest. A sandbox is ultimatively about change.
And with that said, you see, we don't have a lot of games out there even worth the label sandbox. Minecraft is up to now maybe the most complete sandbox also it is not persistent over a lengthy time, and withit you don't have to worry that much about the destruction part, because the server will everything set back to zero every few weeks. But that is a huge drawback from minecraft.
This changing, especially the destruction part is easier and more naturally done with pvp. With other words that the players build stuff up, and that the players destroy stuff. But you can also lets do it the environment. Or you just focus on building up, but you will ultimately run into problems. Like no place for new creations, like a static world, and a lot of sandbox mmorpgs did have that problem, like SWG or UO, with houses all over the place and not enough room for more creativity.
And back to the 100% sandbox, and why at least in my humble opinion, you would have pvp. In a 100% sandbox everything would be able to create, to modify, to use and to destroy. And the player would be one part of that. But 100% sandboxes don't exist. and so it is rather pointless to discuss what left out aspect will change a sandbox into something else.
As long as the core, the ever changing world, is intact, as long as the player can have an impact in that world it is a sandbox. And the absence of pvp, or the presence of a few static elements(like quests) doesn't change that.
My 2 cents.
On your PvE sandbox, there's no need to just believe they can exist - Free Realms, ATITD, Endless Forest and several others already do exist. You also mentioned UO in your post which is a PvE sandbox on the Trammel side.
"This changing, especially the destruction part is easier and more naturally done with pvp."
For you. For others, it's easier and more naturally done with compromise and teamwork. ATITD is an example of this, as sometimes progress and expansion means asking someone to move what they've built. Surprisingly, in a game where players can lobby for the creation of laws, they have opted to go in the direction of better ways to organize, transport and reconstruct rather than ways to physically beat others into submission.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Every way in which two people can influence the world is a potential source of conflict and a potential weapon for lashing out at another people - even if it's arranging blocks to spell out an offensive message. The problem that non-PvP sandboxes eventually have to face as populations grow and the number of interactions between players increase is how to resolve the worst conflicts in a way that doesn't force the publisher to have manually police the worst conflicts.
Themeparks avoid this by simply taking away the sand - aside from kill-stealing or jumping around in someone's face, there's not a lot left that allows one player can do that's going to get on another player's nerves. PvP solves it by just throwing the ball into players' hands. Minecraft solves the problem by giving you control of your own private instance (which tends to create distracting arguments over whether this mix of private and public games really belongs in the same genre).
And the market let the consumer choose which solution he likes. Hence you have themepark games, and total pvp games like LoL.
The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution.
so let the market speak then.
allmost every single game has some sort of PvP ,player versus player action.
let it be auction house competition,node harvesting,looting mobs etc,crafting I.E crafter for hire cheaper than...... etc
there is some products which tried really hard to get rid of these but thats niche ,how many are those? gw2?
so with your smart theory it indicates that theres little demand for full single player online games.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
As has been said before and ignored as it will be again...Sandbox is not dependent on PvP or PvE ,those are features that are put into a sandbox for players to use sandbox elements to effect and come from the nature of the genre and sub genre they fall under.Just like you can have PvE and PvP orientated "theme parks".
Anyone who thinks differently is either myopic,pushing an agenda or lacks a functioning imagination or combinations of the three.
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
Pretty much the exact fallacious attitude and arguments I talk about in the post.
The good news is...it doesn't really matter what he thinks. Devs don't make games for people who can argue the most on a forum. Games are based on what type of income they'll make. He can say whatever he wants as far as what a sandbox is. It will never change the fact that he's part of the less than %5 gamer population.
Once the game is made he can say it's not a sandbox because it doesn't have ffa pvp. It wont really change how much I enjoy it. Being part of the 95% has it's advantages.
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
btw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
This kind of attitude, especially the first line, pretty much sums up why I don't like PvP nor PvPers in MMORPGs.
Every way in which two people can influence the world is a potential source of conflict and a potential weapon for lashing out at another people - even if it's arranging blocks to spell out an offensive message. The problem that non-PvP sandboxes eventually have to face as populations grow and the number of interactions between players increase is how to resolve the worst conflicts in a way that doesn't force the publisher to have manually police the worst conflicts.
Themeparks avoid this by simply taking away the sand - aside from kill-stealing or jumping around in someone's face, there's not a lot left that allows one player can do that's going to get on another player's nerves. PvP solves it by just throwing the ball into players' hands. Minecraft solves the problem by giving you control of your own private instance (which tends to create distracting arguments over whether this mix of private and public games really belongs in the same genre).
And the market let the consumer choose which solution he likes. Hence you have themepark games, and total pvp games like LoL.
The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution.
so let the market speak then.
allmost every single game has some sort of PvP ,player versus player action.
let it be auction house competition,node harvesting,looting mobs etc,crafting I.E crafter for hire cheaper than...... etc
there is some products which tried really hard to get rid of these but thats niche ,how many are those? gw2?
so with your smart theory it indicates that theres little demand for full single player online games.
Of course the market is speaking. You can prevent it from doing so. Face it, there is little demand for FFA open world pvp in pve games.
And what are you talking about? SP online games are selling big.
Every way in which two people can influence the world is a potential source of conflict and a potential weapon for lashing out at another people - even if it's arranging blocks to spell out an offensive message. The problem that non-PvP sandboxes eventually have to face as populations grow and the number of interactions between players increase is how to resolve the worst conflicts in a way that doesn't force the publisher to have manually police the worst conflicts.
Themeparks avoid this by simply taking away the sand - aside from kill-stealing or jumping around in someone's face, there's not a lot left that allows one player can do that's going to get on another player's nerves. PvP solves it by just throwing the ball into players' hands. Minecraft solves the problem by giving you control of your own private instance (which tends to create distracting arguments over whether this mix of private and public games really belongs in the same genre).
And the market let the consumer choose which solution he likes. Hence you have themepark games, and total pvp games like LoL.
The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution.
so let the market speak then.
allmost every single game has some sort of PvP ,player versus player action.
let it be auction house competition,node harvesting,looting mobs etc,crafting I.E crafter for hire cheaper than...... etc
there is some products which tried really hard to get rid of these but thats niche ,how many are those? gw2?
so with your smart theory it indicates that theres little demand for full single player online games.
Of course the market is speaking. You can prevent it from doing so. Face it, there is little demand for FFA open world pvp in pve games.
And what are you talking about? SP online games are selling big.
but you just said "The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution." ???
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Every way in which two people can influence the world is a potential source of conflict and a potential weapon for lashing out at another people - even if it's arranging blocks to spell out an offensive message. The problem that non-PvP sandboxes eventually have to face as populations grow and the number of interactions between players increase is how to resolve the worst conflicts in a way that doesn't force the publisher to have manually police the worst conflicts.
Themeparks avoid this by simply taking away the sand - aside from kill-stealing or jumping around in someone's face, there's not a lot left that allows one player can do that's going to get on another player's nerves. PvP solves it by just throwing the ball into players' hands. Minecraft solves the problem by giving you control of your own private instance (which tends to create distracting arguments over whether this mix of private and public games really belongs in the same genre).
And the market let the consumer choose which solution he likes. Hence you have themepark games, and total pvp games like LoL.
The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution.
so let the market speak then.
allmost every single game has some sort of PvP ,player versus player action.
let it be auction house competition,node harvesting,looting mobs etc,crafting I.E crafter for hire cheaper than...... etc
there is some products which tried really hard to get rid of these but thats niche ,how many are those? gw2?
so with your smart theory it indicates that theres little demand for full single player online games.
Of course the market is speaking. You can prevent it from doing so. Face it, there is little demand for FFA open world pvp in pve games.
And what are you talking about? SP online games are selling big.
Single Player games and Coop games sell very well,as do competitive PvP games.The market is saying that there is room for all of these games and combinations of them.Problem is when any of these features are tacked on to a game that had no focus on it for a marketing bullet point.To me this means the terribad single player campaigns tacked onto PvP games as well as tacked on PvP in many single player games.
Haha, what are all you people going to do when they make a sandbox game where PVP is a CHOICE?
You want to FFA PVP, then toggle yourself ON to FFA PVP. If you dont want PVP, toggle yourself OFF to FFA.
sick of CHOICE.
HUNDREDS OF GAMES all offer CHOICE, making them all the same optional everything/please everyone shallow experience.
Why don't you just play all of them and leave sandboxes alone? if you want theme parks, there they are all waiting for YOU
Choice needs to end at the download button
Hmmm and here I was thinking Sandbox is about choices/options. Seems you want less choices so themepark must be good to you?
I do enjoy some themepark but the one thing they truly lack is actuall choice, so where are those hunderds of games you mention? Because to me they must be sandbox games.
btw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
but isn't it if you die in pvp, you'll just respawn again in some area just like that "invincibility" you are talking about in themeparks? (except if a game has a "nightmare" mode though).
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
That is a great logical argument there.. totally ignore the fact that PvP has nothing to do with "sandbox" and /rant on.
Hamburger by definition kinda has to include the meat.
Sandbox by definition ONLY includes PvP if the creator.. adds it in.
There are exactly ZERO sandbox MMO's with PvP because there has never been an actual "sandbox" MMO. You need a world where every single thing can be created by the user and the only place I've seen that is second life. UO and EvE have never been sandboxes.. tho they often have the term applied. *edit note* I like to use Second Life as an example because if you have the skill set you can create everything. The issue is that paying $1000 for a sim and the $300 a month fee are quite a barrier and then of course even full sims only support so many users before lag is insane.
Now if you want to discuss the lack of well supported PvP MMO's.. yep I entirely agree. However, that comes down to convincing a developer to finance one... more than anything.
BS.
PvPvE is not a "feature" it's a mindset.
Sandbox = Immersion and realism.
You are there, you are not invincible to anything or anyone, no matter if player or NPC bot.
"oh but I only want to be attackable by scripted robot AI, not the real players around me in a multiplayer environment"
Yep... theme parks are -> that way
So for immersion and REALISM, everybody needs to be able to kill each other? Because that's immersive and real? Interesting but I was out in the world yesterday and didn't have a desire to kill anybody and I felt pretty immersed in the environment I was in, chatted with a few people, enjoyed the day. Pretty real experience and nobody wanted to kill each other at all.
Also, based on your statements all sandboxes must be heavily PvP. There can't be any other option for some people to have games tailored to their play style? All sandboxes must fit your playstyle? You don't think that's selfish and arrogant at all?
Yea, I went to the park yesterday. Played several rounds of disc golf with my kids and just when we reached the 7th hole, a wild barbarian with crazed eyes lept from the bushes and I knew it was fight or flight...err...wait. We had fun and patiently waited our turn amidst all the others playing. That was real, I was thoroughly immersed. We didn't feel compelled to slay and loot the ones ahead of us.
I remember the wild forum debates on these very forums about players wanting a separate PvE server on Darkfall and PvP'ers spoke out against it. The conversation felt like talking to a wall from the PvE'ers perspective. We didn't get what we wanted, now the shoe is on the other foot and guess what, wall. PvE players want what PvP'ers have had all along, just minus the PvP'ers. I only hope we get it in EQNext.
Why is it that there is such a concerted effort by such a small oral minority here on the forums in regards to pvp hatred?
I am glad you have an opinion, everyone is entitled one, even if they are the dumbest opinions ever, cough.
Sandbox, as defined by the way things have been going, does in luxe pvp. Cry all you guys want, if you want a TRUE SANDBOX GAME, you'll have pvp. If you want the ability to build barbie houses, decorate, there's games for you Llready. If you want to modify land, build your own dungeons,, looks like that's happening as well, aka never winter.
Point is this, you all need to settle on a term and not just decide sandbox means what you want it to.
Yea, I went to the park yesterday. Played several rounds of disc golf with my kids and just when we reached the 7th hole, a wild barbarian with crazed eyes lept from the bushes and I knew it was fight or flight...err...wait. We had fun and patiently waited our turn amidst all the others playing. That was real, I was thoroughly immersed. We didn't feel compelled to slay and loot the ones ahead of us.
+1
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
That is a great logical argument there.. totally ignore the fact that PvP has nothing to do with "sandbox" and /rant on.
Hamburger by definition kinda has to include the meat.
Sandbox by definition ONLY includes PvP if the creator.. adds it in.
There are exactly ZERO sandbox MMO's with PvP because there has never been an actual "sandbox" MMO. You need a world where every single thing can be created by the user and the only place I've seen that is second life. UO and EvE have never been sandboxes.. tho they often have the term applied. *edit note* I like to use Second Life as an example because if you have the skill set you can create everything. The issue is that paying $1000 for a sim and the $300 a month fee are quite a barrier and then of course even full sims only support so many users before lag is insane.
Now if you want to discuss the lack of well supported PvP MMO's.. yep I entirely agree. However, that comes down to convincing a developer to finance one... more than anything.
BS.
PvPvE is not a "feature" it's a mindset.
Sandbox = Immersion and realism.
You are there, you are not invincible to anything or anyone, no matter if player or NPC bot.
"oh but I only want to be attackable by scripted robot AI, not the real players around me in a multiplayer environment"
Yep... theme parks are -> that way
So for immersion and REALISM, everybody needs to be able to kill each other? Because that's immersive and real? Interesting but I was out in the world yesterday and didn't have a desire to kill anybody and I felt pretty immersed in the environment I was in, chatted with a few people, enjoyed the day. Pretty real experience and nobody wanted to kill each other at all.
Also, based on your statements all sandboxes must be heavily PvP. There can't be any other option for some people to have games tailored to their play style? All sandboxes must fit your playstyle? You don't think that's selfish and arrogant at all?
Yea, I went to the park yesterday. Played several rounds of disc golf with my kids and just when we reached the 7th hole, a wild barbarian with crazed eyes lept from the bushes and I knew it was fight or flight...err...wait. We had fun and patiently waited our turn amidst all the others playing. That was real, I was thoroughly immersed. We didn't feel compelled to slay and loot the ones ahead of us.
I remember the wild forum debates on these very forums about players wanting a separate PvE server on Darkfall and PvP'ers spoke out against it. The conversation felt like talking to a wall from the PvE'ers perspective. We didn't get what we wanted, now the shoe is on the other foot and guess what, wall. PvE players want what PvP'ers have had all along, just minus the PvP'ers. I only hope we get it in EQNext.
This is not the same argument at all.Darkfall is built from the ground up as FFA full loot PvP,it was advertised from it's first PR piece to be such,it never,ever pretended to be otherwise and it's what the dev's vision of the game is focused on.They never wanted the PvE only demographic and never tried to gain it.
It would be the same as someone going to a Batman Arkham series forum and demanding the game have deathmatch mode put in Arkham City just for them and their friends.
Originally posted by killahh Dear op, and supporters. Why is it that there is such a concerted effort by such a small oral minority here on the forums in regards to pvp hatred? I am glad you have an opinion, everyone is entitled one, even if they are the dumbest opinions ever, cough. Sandbox, as defined by the way things have been going, does in luxe pvp. Cry all you guys want, if you want a TRUE SANDBOX GAME, you'll have pvp. If you want the ability to build barbie houses, decorate, there's games for you Llready. If you want to modify land, build your own dungeons,, looks like that's happening as well, aka never winter. Point is this, you all need to settle on a term and not just decide sandbox means what you want it to. /facepalm
PvP is fine in games if players are given the option to not partake. Some players,like me, wish for a SWG type sandbox. It has happened before. Not all games need to be Darkfall or Eve to be sandbox, that is actually only limiting yourself with what you can do. Why?
Originally posted by killahh Dear op, and supporters. Why is it that there is such a concerted effort by such a small oral minority here on the forums in regards to pvp hatred? I am glad you have an opinion, everyone is entitled one, even if they are the dumbest opinions ever, cough. Sandbox, as defined by the way things have been going, does in luxe pvp. Cry all you guys want, if you want a TRUE SANDBOX GAME, you'll have pvp. If you want the ability to build barbie houses, decorate, there's games for you Llready. If you want to modify land, build your own dungeons,, looks like that's happening as well, aka never winter. Point is this, you all need to settle on a term and not just decide sandbox means what you want it to. /facepalm
Why is it that there is such a concerted effort by such a very very small oral minority here on the forums in regards to optional pvp hatred? I am glad you have an opinion, everyone is entitled one, even if they are the dumbest opinions ever, cough. Sandbox, as defined by the way things have been going, has never been defined as pvp. Cry all you guys want, if you want a TRUE SANDBOX GAME, you'll have optional pvp as it give choice. If you want the ability to gank, and grief, there's games for you Llready. If you want to attack anyone anywhere any time looks like that's happening as wel. Point is this, you all need to settle on a term and not just decide sandbox means what you want it to. /facepalm
Right back at you. It has never meant pvp... ever. Some of them had it, some didn't, some had optional. They were still considered sandbox
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
you want sandbox without FFA PvP? Go play the countless theme parks they made for YOU.
not wanting PvP in a sandbox is like wanting a quarterpounder burger without meat.
Eat something different then if you don't want meat
btw PvP is not a feature, it's a realistic setting - you are there, you are not invincible. the immersion breaking invincible mode of theme parks -> that way please
Did you not read a word he put down?
Removing one features does not turn a sandbox game into a themepark.
Or one can think of it the other way; adding ffa pvp to any themepark doesn't automatically make that game a sandbox. So therefore there has to be more to it than that.
You might think that pvp is the crux of a sandbox but removing something that no one wants and leaving everything that they do want doesn't really cause an issue.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
I'd wonder how I ended up in 2001.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
sick of CHOICE.
HUNDREDS OF GAMES all offer CHOICE, making them all the same optional everything/please everyone shallow experience.
Why don't you just play all of them and leave sandboxes alone? if you want theme parks, there they are all waiting for YOU
Choice needs to end at the download button
This is a fairly good read and it touches on how people are trying to put community definitions on something that should not have anything but developer systems to facilitate the goal.
One of the fallacies of the Sandbox is that there is no set definition as rules in a sandbox make for a poor experience as a child. Though still there are natural rules of etiquette that must be enforced such as not throwing sand at your playmate as it could go into their eyes that must be enforced. Still, when at the beach when there are many different people around there will still be that bully that wants to kick over whatever you make. But that's a poor analogy as the beach is not a sandbox, as a sandbox has defined dimensions within the "Box". There will be measures to prevent that bully from entering whatever gates the sandbox off from the general public (some sandboxes are in a backyard and some in a park with parents watching).
This very much captures the nature of video games and how things such as coding and the fact that it's a game to apply nature rules that come along with gaming. The bully will need to find the open sources, whereas those who just want to have fun will play with sandboxes in more secure areas (the whole PvP server and Pve server thing or specific locations within the same server for either or). Therefore to specifically say that Sandbox MUST have PvP is defining a rule that should not exist within the natural boundaries; one person mentioned Minecraft as a good example of there being no PvP by nature.
Sadly every Sandbox that has put emphasis on PvP to date (where no special conditions already existed) has failed spectacularly (the definition of failed is different for everyone) simply because they did such: They put emphasis on PvP. Emphasis is not needed in the Sandbox. The divide by PvPers and Non-Pvpers is making it hard for this genre to grow as they are trying to define the experience. It's the game that the developer wants to make which should dictate what the experience will be and not shackles or chains by one group or the other. Minecraft wanted a specific sandbox experience that just happened to not have PvP. Eve wanted it's own experience, yet still made specific areas where it was much harder to grief and it fit in with the nature of the Space thriller they wanted what with governments and the like and groups enforcing law.
Yet within the confines of the Sandbox, defined definitions are needed as said in the first paragraph. Natural things that must be considered in the world the developer wants to create. If there is PvP, there needs to be ample systems in place to encourage self policing and penalties for actions. UO use to have it so that you became a "red" and could no longer enter any city and said player had to depend on player vendors and could not participate in the community due to them being outcast. Players would also actually seek them out and kill them for Honor and Karma and the like so that they could get valor titles and the "Knight of Justice" title implemented later on (which decayed over time if you didn't keep on taking out reds). Even cut of their heads and give them to someone wanting a bounty. This simulated a real environment whereby if you were a criminal you were alone; incredibly powerful guards would kill you on sight and you could no longer enter any public area. You were in the wilderness, you were a hardass and you were a target. Cut off from all supplies with the Law wanting to kill you over and over and loot your corpse repeatedly, especially since you no longer had access to a bank.
These systems were realistic and pretty much punished anyone partaking in unlawful PvP. Guilds could declare war on each other and killing their members would not make you a criminal. The criminal status would eventually fade, but if you kept on doing it, it could last for years. When you were a red, you were pretty much a baddass. You were a target to everyone and cut off from everything. It wasn't just a level 90 ganking a level 30 like some other games as it didn't have a level system or significant gear advantages. It meant something, and it made one's life incredibly hard as a result of it meaning something.
Any system that just blatantly supports gankfest PvP as "part of the game" in a sandbox is doomed to fail. PvP focused Sandboxes thus tend not to do very well as opposed to PvE focused ones, as PvE focused ones generally have more things to do, and more people are willing to partake in all the things to do as a community. Though perfectly mixing them to be more realistic to the point people don't fear being ganked repeatedly, but are still susceptible to what is basically simulated life (and the occasional hardass who survives all the penalties society puts on them as simulated by the game's definitions) in that they are open to attack... but it's just not beneficial to the attacker (unless they just want the notoriety) and you could just respawn anyway and continue what you were doing. Even adding additional penalties to being killed by a player when you're red with this; they throw your body in jail for a few minutes (or until you use thieving skills to break out or what not) as you cannot partake in city waypoints or guarded shrines and the like.
The wood around a sandbox keeps it in, and those inside it just play with it to their heart's content. Though again, there are naturally things you wouldn't do such as throwing sand in someone's eyes and expect not to have repercussions for such. In today's community we view the need of having PvE and PvP servers as just a way to split different thinking groups. It's mainly because, I think, that there are so many Sandbox MMO games that only focus on PvP and virtually none that do it like the above (or attempt to satisfy the PvE portion of the crowd). There is a divide between the fans of the genre. Some who play Themepark open world PvP don't want such massive yet realistic restrictions as they couldn't fathom not being able to enter their main cities in those games. They don't have to because these games have factions specifically made to fight each other. They have team mates of some sorts that just doesn't constitute a player made guild. Yet this is one of the very problems that's in the sandbox nowadays. Not wanting restrictions, and just wanting to kill that new player without ramifications. With the only thing companies do is say "oh... self policing!" in the most lazy and unrealistic way possible.
First of all.. to get that out of the way. I do think a pve sandbox is possible. Although it all comes down how you define a sandbox. No MMO sandbox is a 100% sandbox, and it isn't possible(or extremely difficult) nor is it viable nor fun. If it would be a 100% sandbox, and you would have more than 1 player pvp had to be enabled. But no mmo will ever be a 100% sandbox..
For me a sandbox in its core is a ever changing world. Build up stuff, change/modify stuff, destroy stuff. With other words visit a area in one week and you may see a forrest.. another week you may see a cleared forrest and a small village.. and in the next week you may see a ruin of a village.. and another week later you may see a ruin overgrown from a forrest. A sandbox is ultimatively about change.
And with that said, you see, we don't have a lot of games out there even worth the label sandbox. Minecraft is up to now maybe the most complete sandbox also it is not persistent over a lengthy time, and withit you don't have to worry that much about the destruction part, because the server will everything set back to zero every few weeks. But that is a huge drawback from minecraft.
This changing, especially the destruction part is easier and more naturally done with pvp. With other words that the players build stuff up, and that the players destroy stuff. But you can also lets do it the environment. Or you just focus on building up, but you will ultimately run into problems. Like no place for new creations, like a static world, and a lot of sandbox mmorpgs did have that problem, like SWG or UO, with houses all over the place and not enough room for more creativity.
And back to the 100% sandbox, and why at least in my humble opinion, you would have pvp. In a 100% sandbox everything would be able to create, to modify, to use and to destroy. And the player would be one part of that. But 100% sandboxes don't exist. and so it is rather pointless to discuss what left out aspect will change a sandbox into something else.
As long as the core, the ever changing world, is intact, as long as the player can have an impact in that world it is a sandbox. And the absence of pvp, or the presence of a few static elements(like quests) doesn't change that.
My 2 cents.
Why don't you leave sandboxes alone. It never meant ffa pvp... ever. Some had it, some didn't. Some had it and changed. They were all still sandboxes.
If you can't tell the difference between a themepark and a sandbox without ffa pvp... well take the blinders off and get more experience.
Very good post. I completely agree.
And the market let the consumer choose which solution he likes. Hence you have themepark games, and total pvp games like LoL.
The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution.
On your PvE sandbox, there's no need to just believe they can exist - Free Realms, ATITD, Endless Forest and several others already do exist. You also mentioned UO in your post which is a PvE sandbox on the Trammel side.
"This changing, especially the destruction part is easier and more naturally done with pvp."
For you. For others, it's easier and more naturally done with compromise and teamwork. ATITD is an example of this, as sometimes progress and expansion means asking someone to move what they've built. Surprisingly, in a game where players can lobby for the creation of laws, they have opted to go in the direction of better ways to organize, transport and reconstruct rather than ways to physically beat others into submission.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
so let the market speak then.
allmost every single game has some sort of PvP ,player versus player action.
let it be auction house competition,node harvesting,looting mobs etc,crafting I.E crafter for hire cheaper than...... etc
there is some products which tried really hard to get rid of these but thats niche ,how many are those? gw2?
so with your smart theory it indicates that theres little demand for full single player online games.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
well, if you arent able to do what you want, it aint a sandbox is it?
so, a true sandbox needs pvp. no idea why we are discussing that...... or rather, why you try to discuss it.
the discussion is a lie!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
As has been said before and ignored as it will be again...Sandbox is not dependent on PvP or PvE ,those are features that are put into a sandbox for players to use sandbox elements to effect and come from the nature of the genre and sub genre they fall under.Just like you can have PvE and PvP orientated "theme parks".
Anyone who thinks differently is either myopic,pushing an agenda or lacks a functioning imagination or combinations of the three.
The good news is...it doesn't really matter what he thinks. Devs don't make games for people who can argue the most on a forum. Games are based on what type of income they'll make. He can say whatever he wants as far as what a sandbox is. It will never change the fact that he's part of the less than %5 gamer population.
Once the game is made he can say it's not a sandbox because it doesn't have ffa pvp. It wont really change how much I enjoy it. Being part of the 95% has it's advantages.
This kind of attitude, especially the first line, pretty much sums up why I don't like PvP nor PvPers in MMORPGs.
Of course the market is speaking. You can prevent it from doing so. Face it, there is little demand for FFA open world pvp in pve games.
And what are you talking about? SP online games are selling big.
but you just said "The fact that there is little mix of pve and FFA open world pvp indicates that there is little demand for that particular solution." ???
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Single Player games and Coop games sell very well,as do competitive PvP games.The market is saying that there is room for all of these games and combinations of them.Problem is when any of these features are tacked on to a game that had no focus on it for a marketing bullet point.To me this means the terribad single player campaigns tacked onto PvP games as well as tacked on PvP in many single player games.
Hmmm and here I was thinking Sandbox is about choices/options. Seems you want less choices so themepark must be good to you?
I do enjoy some themepark but the one thing they truly lack is actuall choice, so where are those hunderds of games you mention? Because to me they must be sandbox games.
but isn't it if you die in pvp, you'll just respawn again in some area just like that "invincibility" you are talking about in themeparks? (except if a game has a "nightmare" mode though).
Yea, I went to the park yesterday. Played several rounds of disc golf with my kids and just when we reached the 7th hole, a wild barbarian with crazed eyes lept from the bushes and I knew it was fight or flight...err...wait. We had fun and patiently waited our turn amidst all the others playing. That was real, I was thoroughly immersed. We didn't feel compelled to slay and loot the ones ahead of us.
I remember the wild forum debates on these very forums about players wanting a separate PvE server on Darkfall and PvP'ers spoke out against it. The conversation felt like talking to a wall from the PvE'ers perspective. We didn't get what we wanted, now the shoe is on the other foot and guess what, wall. PvE players want what PvP'ers have had all along, just minus the PvP'ers. I only hope we get it in EQNext.
Why is it that there is such a concerted effort by such a small oral minority here on the forums in regards to pvp hatred?
I am glad you have an opinion, everyone is entitled one, even if they are the dumbest opinions ever, cough.
Sandbox, as defined by the way things have been going, does in luxe pvp.
Cry all you guys want, if you want a TRUE SANDBOX GAME, you'll have pvp. If you want the ability to build barbie houses, decorate, there's games for you Llready. If you want to modify land, build your own dungeons,, looks like that's happening as well, aka never winter.
Point is this, you all need to settle on a term and not just decide sandbox means what you want it to.
/facepalm
over 20 years of mmorpg's and counting...
+1
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This is not the same argument at all.Darkfall is built from the ground up as FFA full loot PvP,it was advertised from it's first PR piece to be such,it never,ever pretended to be otherwise and it's what the dev's vision of the game is focused on.They never wanted the PvE only demographic and never tried to gain it.
It would be the same as someone going to a Batman Arkham series forum and demanding the game have deathmatch mode put in Arkham City just for them and their friends.
PvP is fine in games if players are given the option to not partake. Some players,like me, wish for a SWG type sandbox. It has happened before. Not all games need to be Darkfall or Eve to be sandbox, that is actually only limiting yourself with what you can do. Why?
Why is it that there is such a concerted effort by such a very very small oral minority here on the forums in regards to optional pvp hatred? I am glad you have an opinion, everyone is entitled one, even if they are the dumbest opinions ever, cough. Sandbox, as defined by the way things have been going, has never been defined as pvp. Cry all you guys want, if you want a TRUE SANDBOX GAME, you'll have optional pvp as it give choice. If you want the ability to gank, and grief, there's games for you Llready. If you want to attack anyone anywhere any time looks like that's happening as wel. Point is this, you all need to settle on a term and not just decide sandbox means what you want it to. /facepalm
Right back at you. It has never meant pvp... ever. Some of them had it, some didn't, some had optional. They were still considered sandbox
Did you not read a word he put down?
Removing one features does not turn a sandbox game into a themepark.
Or one can think of it the other way; adding ffa pvp to any themepark doesn't automatically make that game a sandbox. So therefore there has to be more to it than that.
You might think that pvp is the crux of a sandbox but removing something that no one wants and leaving everything that they do want doesn't really cause an issue.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo