Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why is it that Themepark MMOs can have many different rules for PvP, but Sandbox MMO can only have F
MMOExposed
Member RarePosts: 7,387
Why is it that Themepark MMOs can have many different rules for PvP, but Sandbox MMO can only have FFA ruleset?
Themepark MMOs can have FFA, or Factions, or not PvP at all.
But Sandbox? It always seem to have FFA PvP.
This is why Sandbox MMO has become synonymous with FFA PvP!
But why is this?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Comments
Well a sandbox MMO is a game where you can do whatever you want to do with the given tools by the devs. So with that said you need to ask yourself a better question. Why would there not be FFA PvP in a sandbox MMO?
This isn't a matter of PvP vs PvE or anything like that I'm just looking at it from a strictly logical standpoint. Let me elaborate how I came to this conclusion.
Lets say you are playing in this sandbox MMO and you can build anything where ever you want, go anywhere you want, be anything you want. Now with that said it sounds pretty awesome.........now what about the guy that wants to be "Evil" or a "Bandit". He/she doesn't want to plow fields and mine ore and craft stuff all day, they prefer looting and pillaging and things like that. Even though you may not agree with this person's play style of choice but you do need to admit that if this person couldn't roam around and be a bad guy wherever he/she wants while you can be able to do anything you want wherever you want that it just isn't fair. Everyone pays the same for the game and should be able to do things that they enjoy.
And they can have different rulesets. It just costs more money to do. Which is something not many of the sandbox devs have. There are sandbox games without pvp at all.
Istaria let's you build your plot and public things. We had to dig it the dungeon for example. And build ask the public bridges. And to max all would take many many years
Atitd rests every once in awhile.
Seeing as we can't get two persons to agree on what classifies as a "sandbox MMO", good luck trying to solve the FFA debate...
But seriously, this is a non argument because sandbox does not have to equal FFA PvP... (In my humble opinion)
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
Too many different interpretations of what a sandbox game is. Some see it as a FFAPVP. Others see as the imaginary solution to all MMO problems, then there are others who see them as empty shells of a game with almost no content but it's okay cause you can be anybody you want.
Then there's the problem that sandbox don't really exists in this genre. Especially since two of the most popular MMOs of all times - WoW and EQ - were themeparks to the core. UO was the sandbox. But then that was abandoned and now we have themepark clones of WoW which got inspired by the themepark EQ.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
You can.
Why we do not have?
Well.. because at the moment most sandbox games are soooooo indy, that they usually have 1 server at all.. and then you have to decide what you prefer. Some are pvp, some are ffa pvp, some are a mix of both and some are pve.
On the other side.. for a good ruleset server, especially for a working sandbox moreso than in a themepark, it is just not enough to turn pvp flag on/off... you have to setup the tools around pvp or pve. Like decay rate, destruction of items on death, full loot and stuff.. with pvp you will have more destruction on death and loot and less decay.. without pvp you need a lot more decay to let the economy running.. and more stuff like that.
By the way.. which themepark game does actually have thought out different ruleset servers? I can't remember one where you actually do have a good faction pvp setup, a good pve setup and a good ffa setup.. the best you get is usually your pvp toggle on/off.. that is barely a different ruleset.
And by the way.. in EvE you have more or less all 3. You do have faction pvp, you do have FFA(null sec), and it is mostly pve only in high sec.
And know name me one themepark with having all three?
*Raises hand
Rule No 1
Most sandbox mmos are not for casuals let me repeat, most sandbox mmos are -not- for casuals
Most sandbox games are supposed to be world simulators, war is part of the world. Themepark mmos are the equivalent of playing jrpgs. They are guided story experiences designed to take you from A-Z with no deviation.
There are non pvp sandboxes. If I'm not mistaken a tale to the desert is not a pvp sandbox, but its old and horribly outdated
AI is not to the level that npcs can be valid enemies. The only game I've seen that has done it well and is a sandbox is The Saga of Ryzom
Western Developers are lazy, they always take the easy way out and basically rob their own budgets
Last but not least the problem is not with open world pvp, the problem is a combination of quick gratification gamers who would never survive in a sandbox just due to not wanting to invest the time and sandbox games where the pvp and pve don't actively support each other. I mean they kind of do in ArcheAge where players need to hire other players to be mercs and guards but the ideal mmo is a sandpark where all the systems actively and OBVIOUSLY support each other. Like an mmo version of an RTS game where people can be pvers as much as they want but you put in systems where the pvers and pvpers need each other directly and without one another and cooperation they will fail. (I have a design like this that would actually work but I don't work in the industry anymore - because Western devs are lazy and don't really want to put in real work to build something new. They like to copycat because its safe and easier)
Until this happens things will continue to be as they are
I am sure EQN will support pve servers,and the AI of that game is suppossed to be something special so wait and see.
Until then expect to see devs cointinue to use the "poor mans AI" which is pvp. Sorry
Any mmo worth its salt should be like a good prostitute when it comes to its game world- One hell of a faker, and a damn good shaker!
Often don't and never does are not the same thing.
It's very common for them to have that rule set but they don't all have it or have to have it.
They don't have to but Sandbox Is about player content. That's why PvP is there. But UO was pretty much the first and last mainstream western developed FFAPVP game.
That said there are no universal rules for MMORPGs. You could have had ESO sized content and hand crafted area inside of a huge procedurally created sandbox rule continent. I hope you will see more SWG like games with themeparks, attractive opt in open world faction PvP and Sandbox base.
- Because sandbox in general seeks realism, creating a "world simulator" that allow players to interact with it and with each other with the most freedom possible. Themeparks dont have that "compromise".
- Because in sandbox, the main "content" (challenges and amusements) to keep players entertained is created by the players themselves, not the developers. FFA PVP opens a huge range of metagame possibilities: political disputes, intrigues, diplomacy, social and economical challenges and so on. By not relying in developer created content, sandbox almost always cant afford decline this rich source of "content".
- Because the target public of sandboxes and themeparks are different. The former wants freedom, realism and likes to handle challenges, are more sociable and like to figure things on their own. The later wants a more "safer" , "cozy" and more or less predictable/controlable experience, like to play only to distraction or relaxing purpose, like more to solo and need guiding and be hand held through the mmo. They need to have the "ilusion" of challenge, strength and importance without their price.
OW/FFA PvP is not realistic. "Realism" would involve far more than simply allowing PvP.
If sandbox games offer "freedom", why are the descriptions of the ideal game play so similar sounding? It seems to be if sandbox games offered "freedom", the game play from game to game would be very different. Instead, it's nearly identical, with the only different being the quality of the game's production. Except...
SWG PvP was by choice. People flagged or didn't. A Tale In The Desert doesn't even have combat. Fully half the people in Eve are not engaging in PvP. The population of people in High Sec space combined with the bulk of people lurking in Low Sec space amount to a lot of people who don't kill anyone.
It seems like the game mechanics other than OW or FFA PvP are far more important to a game's population and health than the PvP itself. The most popular sandbox games, SWG, UO and Eve, have all given players a choice about PvP, and they have all given players something to do other than PvP. It seems like PvP isn't the most important feature of MMORPGs, even if they are sandboxes.
**
The reason why is because it's much easier to setup a sandbox game and have the primary mechanic be OW PvP than to setup a sandbox game where the primary mechanic is something else to keep people entertained. Easier = cheaper.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
This statement seems so anti sandbox.
The definition and meaning of a sandbox is being changed and corrupted by people who have never even played in one.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
following that logic player A can do whatever he wants with the tools given by the devs, including killing player B and full looting him. However, since player B also has all the tools given by the devs he can fully prevent being killed and looted by player A. So to me.... that logic doesn't make much sense. I don't think FFA PvP is a "sandbox" signature feature, players who like both make it sound like that. My opinion of course.
Because people like the idea of large, organized battles. Unfortunately, people also seem to never realize that FFA just ends up being a zerg fest. It's a case of "looks good on paper" deal, where we just keep doing the same thing hoping for different results.
Probably doesn't help that the sandbox crowd is largely unforgiving and opinionated, so any deviation from their existing expectations generally resorts in predictions of failure and "carebare" name calling.
You make me like charity
Exactly. Too many FFA PvP 'sandbox' games want to attract the instant gratification PvPers who are just looking to kill other player and do not want to put the time and effort into actually building anything lasting in the game world.
SWG had player cities where players could cooperate to build something that changed how they played the game and let them make a significant impact on the way people played.
A Tale in The Desert is based on having groups of players come together to work on projects that then affect how everyone else in the game plays.
FFA PvP games in contrast tend to lack such positive achievements and instead focus on negatives.
This is correct and the answer to the OP questions.
This is not the answer to the OP's question... however, he speaks the truth.
One could say that it's the developers lack of imagination creating these MMO's mostly geared toward combat. Sandboxes do need to exercise other ways to progress plus explore more "non-combat" content. The "realism" is as good as it gets provided the tools given in-game... and that's the problem.
I have no idea why as many of them did NOT have it.
UO started out with FFA but then changed it. Asherons Call had PvE servers with the option to flag for PvP while providing a FFA PvP server, just 1. SWG did the same, PvE servers with the ability to flag and offered FFA PvP server.
Basically, the genre turned into durp with the game makers pushing clones of a clone of a clone and suddenly many, not all but many, players lost the ability to think on their own.