For me, BDO was that game. As everyone knows, they developed it in a poor direction but more importantly, made it grossly pay to win. The first month or two of BDO was up there with SWG/UO for me though. I'm still holding out hope someone puts together a BDO private server that rips out the pearl shop and rebalances the game
Honestly I think that AAA sandbox MMORPGs died with UO Trammel.
We all have our own definition of what "sandbox" means. To me, AAA sandboxes died with SWG...
MMO's tend to be expensive and time-consuming to make. Once WoW hit the scene, most developers realised what the majority of MMO players wanted, and it was clearly not the sandbox model !
"Living in a virtual world" sounds cool, but most players just want to be entertained for an hour or two per day. They simply don't have the time nor desire to deal with the "realities" of inhabiting a virtual world. All they want is the "good bits", neatly packaged and ready to play...
Honestly I think that AAA sandbox MMORPGs died with UO Trammel.
We all have our own definition of what "sandbox" means. To me, AAA sandboxes died with SWG...
MMO's tend to be expensive and time-consuming to make. Once WoW hit the scene, most developers realised what the majority of MMO players wanted, and it was clearly not the sandbox model !
"Living in a virtual world" sounds cool, but most players just want to be entertained for an hour or two per day. They simply don't have the time nor desire to deal with the "realities" of inhabiting a virtual world. All they want is the "good bits", neatly packaged and ready to play...
I'm with you on the whole SWG thing... Disney is looking for a studio to make a AAA game right now. I'm praying for a SWG 2.0 with 35 professions to pick from just like the original. We can only hope...
Oh my that's not going to happen.
The time for large Western mmorpg's is over. Any game they make is going to appeal to the largest mass of people for the most bang for the buck.
Even if they did make an mmorpg it wouldn't have a lot of classes. It would be streamlined.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while.
I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula. This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.
Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.
We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model. People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here.
The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula, like we did for the WoW Clones.
try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized. Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different. Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
Seen plenty of post dissing FFA pvp full loot game(and how it simply don't work)...
Usually it is from themepark players, but some are from SWG players too.
So... FFA PvP is your definition of "sandbox?" The phrase, "Do whetever I want" is unobtainable in a video game. The possibilities are endless and coding can NOT cover it all.
There is no requirement for PVP in a sandbox game, both Eve Online and SWG pre-CU, pvp was/is entirely optional, as for FFA full loot PVP games, its been tried so many times, never really works because the interest in that kind of game is minimal. The best 'sandbox' games tend to have mechanics that punish players who wantonly engage in indescriminate PK'ing or have it as an entirely 'opt-in' feature, and that seems to work pretty well.
Don't forget Wurm Online, it's as sandbox as you can get.
As for FFA OW PvP, it can easily exist in a game without defining it. The developers just need to show a bit of fantasy regarding ideas how to regulate it.
I think believing that is believing in a fantasy, lol
There's only one viable play style if the whole world is FFA-PVP, and that's PVP. Anyone else is just going to be killed and looted, sooner or later, usually on a regular basis. That's why most non-PVP'ers will avoid that rule set, and if they don't realise the implications, they very soon learn them and leave the game. Or become PVP'ers...
EVE walked the middle road by keeping 30% of the game world relatively safe. Not totally safe, but manageable if you were prepared to adapt. CCP vigorously defended that design and modified it whenever the playerbase found "workarounds". A section of the EVE community has endlessly campaigned for the removal or watering-down of the safezone protections, but their arguments have always been ignored by CCP. There's a very good reason why EVE's safezone is by far the highest populated part of that game world !
But PVP still defines everything that happens in EVE, because whatever you do, you have to consider the dangers and calculate the risks.
I cannot believe someone is actually convinced that it is impossible to regulate PVP in a PC game. Something so trivial comparing to things that humans have already achieved.
It's not really that they "can't", but rather the players they built these games for (FFA OW PvP) don't want it and will leave. FFA means "Free For All", which boils down to total anarchy. Once you start "regulating" it, it no longer exists as FFA.
That's why I'll never play an FFA PvP game. It's very nature means no regulations/consequences.
I respectfully disagree with you.
For me, the "FFA" part does not imply anarchy and an absence of regulation. Instead, it is about realism and immersion, for me.
When I cannot interact with an ingame character, may it be another player or an NPC, because of some artificial ingame mechanic, it reminds me that it is just a game. I am the type of player for whom the illusion of being in a virtual world is important.
I am primarily a PVE player yet I prefer the FFA OW PVP setting for that reason. However, it has to be properly regulated to avoid turning the game into a fantasy arena.
The FFA PvP MMORPG have been utter crap by most standards. It is not even worth defending the concept. Only FFA PvP types are supposed to play crap because it's FFA pvp. If games like Mortal or Darkfall were PvE they would not play them.
Case in point, if you been on these forums for a while, think back to the wars here on these very forums on how Darkfall Online was definately the next WoW killer. That raged for years because it took that company so long to develop their game. When it finally released, the game was gone and done in no time flat. It was absolutely brutal being the "entertainment" in Darkfall Online.
That's not really a great example though perhaps it's a typical example?
People didn't play Darkfall because it was just so "indy" so unfinished and unpolished.
And while I do agree that most people would rather not be taken out by the whim of their fellow players, we haven't seen many polished, very professional ffa pvp games.
Also, I disagree with Phry about EVE being a by choice pvp experience. My first moments of mining, in what I thought was a save space, was me being taken out by someone. I think it was some loophole having to do with mining. Was killed a few times then I was out.
In Lineage 2 I had a different experience where the pk'ers were close to my level and in some cases I could successfully fight back. This was close to the beginning though and obviously players tried to outlevel the pack as quickly as possible in order to give themselves the upper hand.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
For me, the key advantage of the feature is realism and immersion. Real world and pretty much every single fantasy universe is ffa pvp enabled. Even Talkien's Middle Earth is ffa pvp .
Middle Earth was mostly PvE if you consider the orcs as NPCs. It's not like a GOOD orc was ever shown. Also, amongst the PCs, there was very little team-killing that would imply FFA PvP.
Honestly I think that AAA sandbox MMORPGs died with UO Trammel.
We all have our own definition of what "sandbox" means. To me, AAA sandboxes died with SWG...
MMO's tend to be expensive and time-consuming to make. Once WoW hit the scene, most developers realised what the majority of MMO players wanted, and it was clearly not the sandbox model !
"Living in a virtual world" sounds cool, but most players just want to be entertained for an hour or two per day. They simply don't have the time nor desire to deal with the "realities" of inhabiting a virtual world. All they want is the "good bits", neatly packaged and ready to play...
I'm with you on the whole SWG thing... Disney is looking for a studio to make a AAA game right now. I'm praying for a SWG 2.0 with 35 professions to pick from just like the original. We can only hope...
As much as i would like to see a SWG 2, nothing good is ever going to come out of Disney, they are fare too woke these days.
As for FFA OW PvP, it can easily exist in a game without defining it. The developers just need to show a bit of fantasy regarding ideas how to regulate it.
I think believing that is believing in a fantasy, lol
There's only one viable play style if the whole world is FFA-PVP, and that's PVP. Anyone else is just going to be killed and looted, sooner or later, usually on a regular basis. That's why most non-PVP'ers will avoid that rule set, and if they don't realise the implications, they very soon learn them and leave the game. Or become PVP'ers...
EVE walked the middle road by keeping 30% of the game world relatively safe. Not totally safe, but manageable if you were prepared to adapt. CCP vigorously defended that design and modified it whenever the playerbase found "workarounds". A section of the EVE community has endlessly campaigned for the removal or watering-down of the safezone protections, but their arguments have always been ignored by CCP. There's a very good reason why EVE's safezone is by far the highest populated part of that game world !
But PVP still defines everything that happens in EVE, because whatever you do, you have to consider the dangers and calculate the risks.
I cannot believe someone is actually convinced that it is impossible to regulate PVP in a PC game. Something so trivial comparing to things that humans have already achieved.
It's not really that they "can't", but rather the players they built these games for (FFA OW PvP) don't want it and will leave. FFA means "Free For All", which boils down to total anarchy. Once you start "regulating" it, it no longer exists as FFA.
That's why I'll never play an FFA PvP game. It's very nature means no regulations/consequences.
I respectfully disagree with you.
For me, the "FFA" part does not imply anarchy and an absence of regulation. Instead, it is about realism and immersion, for me.
When I cannot interact with an ingame character, may it be another player or an NPC, because of some artificial ingame mechanic, it reminds me that it is just a game. I am the type of player for whom the illusion of being in a virtual world is important.
I am primarily a PVE player yet I prefer the FFA OW PVP setting for that reason. However, it has to be properly regulated to avoid turning the game into a fantasy arena.
It's OK to disagree
I just don't think a game should call itself FFA if there are restrictions and rules. Of course, other's will disagree. "Free For All" to me indicates freedom to do whatever one wishes with no consequences. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what my brain thinks of when I see FFA. "RPvP" (restricted PvP) would be a much better term.
But getting people to try to be clear in communicating is like slamming into a brick wall at 100 miles per hour
- 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
Honestly I think that AAA sandbox MMORPGs died with UO Trammel.
We all have our own definition of what "sandbox" means. To me, AAA sandboxes died with SWG...
MMO's tend to be expensive and time-consuming to make. Once WoW hit the scene, most developers realised what the majority of MMO players wanted, and it was clearly not the sandbox model !
"Living in a virtual world" sounds cool, but most players just want to be entertained for an hour or two per day. They simply don't have the time nor desire to deal with the "realities" of inhabiting a virtual world. All they want is the "good bits", neatly packaged and ready to play...
Give me the good bad and the ugly. The lows make the highs that much better.
No wonder a lot of these people keep getting these quests dungeons and raids (all scripted) they ask for then are bored in 3 weeks. Smh
As for FFA OW PvP, it can easily exist in a game without defining it. The developers just need to show a bit of fantasy regarding ideas how to regulate it.
I think believing that is believing in a fantasy, lol
There's only one viable play style if the whole world is FFA-PVP, and that's PVP. Anyone else is just going to be killed and looted, sooner or later, usually on a regular basis. That's why most non-PVP'ers will avoid that rule set, and if they don't realise the implications, they very soon learn them and leave the game. Or become PVP'ers...
EVE walked the middle road by keeping 30% of the game world relatively safe. Not totally safe, but manageable if you were prepared to adapt. CCP vigorously defended that design and modified it whenever the playerbase found "workarounds". A section of the EVE community has endlessly campaigned for the removal or watering-down of the safezone protections, but their arguments have always been ignored by CCP. There's a very good reason why EVE's safezone is by far the highest populated part of that game world !
But PVP still defines everything that happens in EVE, because whatever you do, you have to consider the dangers and calculate the risks.
I cannot believe someone is actually convinced that it is impossible to regulate PVP in a PC game. Something so trivial comparing to things that humans have already achieved.
It's not really that they "can't", but rather the players they built these games for (FFA OW PvP) don't want it and will leave. FFA means "Free For All", which boils down to total anarchy. Once you start "regulating" it, it no longer exists as FFA.
That's why I'll never play an FFA PvP game. It's very nature means no regulations/consequences.
I respectfully disagree with you.
For me, the "FFA" part does not imply anarchy and an absence of regulation. Instead, it is about realism and immersion, for me.
When I cannot interact with an ingame character, may it be another player or an NPC, because of some artificial ingame mechanic, it reminds me that it is just a game. I am the type of player for whom the illusion of being in a virtual world is important.
I am primarily a PVE player yet I prefer the FFA OW PVP setting for that reason. However, it has to be properly regulated to avoid turning the game into a fantasy arena.
It's OK to disagree
I just don't think a game should call itself FFA if there are restrictions and rules. Of course, other's will disagree. "Free For All" to me indicates freedom to do whatever one wishes with no consequences. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what my brain thinks of when I see FFA. "RPvP" (restricted PvP) would be a much better term.
But getting people to try to be clear in communicating is like slamming into a brick wall at 100 miles per hour
FFA just means you can kill anyone. Doesn't mean there are no consequences.
This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while.
I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula. This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.
Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.
We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model. People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here.
The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula, like we did for the WoW Clones.
What sandbox game has been released, though? Just a few Asian MMOs that were pretty outstanding, yet destroyed by the horrid bot population / pay 2 win sass.
There hasn't been a West-developed Sandbox game since SWG.
This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while.
I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula. This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.
Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.
We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model. People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here.
The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula, like we did for the WoW Clones.
try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized. Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different. Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
Seen plenty of post dissing FFA pvp full loot game(and how it simply don't work)...
Usually it is from themepark players, but some are from SWG players too.
So... FFA PvP is your definition of "sandbox?" The phrase, "Do whetever I want" is unobtainable in a video game. The possibilities are endless and coding can NOT cover it all.
There is no requirement for PVP in a sandbox game, both Eve Online and SWG pre-CU, pvp was/is entirely optional, as for FFA full loot PVP games, its been tried so many times, never really works because the interest in that kind of game is minimal. The best 'sandbox' games tend to have mechanics that punish players who wantonly engage in indescriminate PK'ing or have it as an entirely 'opt-in' feature, and that seems to work pretty well.
Don't forget Wurm Online, it's as sandbox as you can get.
Ryzom had zero Pvp. A tale in the desert? Not sure.
Typical sandbox games are less popular because fewer players actually want to think for themselves. They're more interested in following a predetermined story.
This something that bothers me to this day. I been around this forum for a while.
I been here with Sandbox was all the hype and themepark was frowned upon publicly. But one thing I noticed, all the sandbox mmos that were released over the decade pretty much all follow the same formula. This is the same general complaint the MMO community had regarding the age of Themepark WoW Clones which all follow the same EQ/WoW formula over and over.
Pretty much all the hyped up Sandbox games that came out during all of this all were some kind of a grindy unbalance FFA open world death match with little group focused pve elements. They all pretty much PvP MMOs.
We just didnt have a name for this back then like we did for games using the WoW model. People here were more coded on talking about these Sandbox mmos as well. We all knew they were just PvP focused MMOs, but those words would never be whispered or denied outright by the most vigilant sandbox mmo fans. But again we all knew the reality here.
The thing is these games always failed as well. But we never saw an outcry against developers using that same formula, like we did for the WoW Clones.
try again when sandbox games stop using cash shop on it to sell things, and you know wow cloned a old game formula, its just made mainstream because it was blizzard, but the game per see had nothing new
I said that in the post you quoted. Thing is WoW clone was already stigmatized. Yet Sandbox clones do the same thing over and over flopping as well yet never got that same stigma of being clones of each other and never really doing anything different. Same complaint people have about the themepark WoW clones.
Seen plenty of post dissing FFA pvp full loot game(and how it simply don't work)...
Usually it is from themepark players, but some are from SWG players too.
So... FFA PvP is your definition of "sandbox?" The phrase, "Do whetever I want" is unobtainable in a video game. The possibilities are endless and coding can NOT cover it all.
There is no requirement for PVP in a sandbox game, both Eve Online and SWG pre-CU, pvp was/is entirely optional, as for FFA full loot PVP games, its been tried so many times, never really works because the interest in that kind of game is minimal. The best 'sandbox' games tend to have mechanics that punish players who wantonly engage in indescriminate PK'ing or have it as an entirely 'opt-in' feature, and that seems to work pretty well.
Don't forget Wurm Online, it's as sandbox as you can get.
Ryzom had zero Pvp. A tale in the desert? Not sure.
Typical sandbox games are less popular because fewer players actually want to think for themselves. They're more interested in following a predetermined story.
That's probably true (outside of PvP considerations). In Themepark, everyone is handed "win." In Sandbox, you have to think and plan and carry it out in order to "win." That goes back to the point that many players just want to be able to be entertained for a few hours. And "win" is definitely part of being entertained.
That's a big thing to consider in designing a Sandbox. There has to be both kinds of "win" if you want it to be a huge success, numbers wise. And that's a hard thing to do when Themepark players expect to "win" just as much as the next guy.
My feeling is that the Sandbox part of "win" would be in the Lore, and discovery of ancient knowledge and Artifacts that are hidden in the game world. My thinking is that the Themepark types would be satisfied with being the party help for the Sandbox types in going out and attaining those things.
The only thing the Themepark players would have to give up is the huge Power Gaps that can't be in a Sandbox World. The rest can be pretty much the same. The problem with that is that the game has to have both the deep questing system AND the deep Exploration and Discovery system (which we have never seen yet in MMORPGs). That's a lot of costs in development. Too much to be practical, to do both right.
Honestly...you didn't hear the sound of the outcry? It was the sound of millions of wallets clapping shut tighter than my hinnie at the mention of "colonoscopy."
Like someone else said, there was a lot of small companies tryna chase after the Eve money (and Eve has more than just sand in it), but certainly not anything compared to the wow clone gold rush. How much noise do you expect a handful of disgruntled DF players to make?
I think Bartles gamer type tests got us a lot closer to actually understand what's going on. The test seperated gamers into several types, like Explorer, Socializer, Killer and Achiever. While I don't think it was the end of the story, it's important for us to understand the different kinds of games and the different kidns of players htey attract. -I-, for example, like very mcuh survival mechanics in whatever game I play. I also like open worlds. I've liked RPGs. I've liked first-person shooters like Tribes (specifically I loved building bases). I've loved simulations (heck, for several years straight I nearly played military simulations exclusively). I enjoyed strategy games--but I disliked campaigns, preferring to play skirmish randomly generated maps. Therer'e many other things I like. If these things were never understood, how could I ever hope to find something I like, or how could a developer ever hope to understand the size or type of audience for their game?
My hope is sandbox MMORPGs hybridize away from strict controlled developer-made content, toward simulated procedurally generated AI content. What I want to see is NPCs reproducing and having their own lives, religions, wars, famines, friendships, politics, families and so on. When players enter into the mix, the simulation adjusts to give room.
My dream is that all the different kidns of players can find the game they want. I don't think it's wise for us to put everyone in teh same game world. I think different players follow a different drummer. We shouldn't try t omake MMO's the same. We should keep trying to figure out who's who and what's what. We should give room for some developers to be free from the institution because the institution isn't going to always be right. And by using the term instituion, I'm specifically referring to common sense game design, as well the business people who'd like to only clone the biggest most succesfull MMO's.
I seem to be the sort of player who has and always will prefer FFA PvP in open world MMO's with large amounts of RPG content and sandbox freedom. I've always been able to accept and relish in the existence of griefers, as well grindy and extremely frustrating gameplay. I don't fit the common mold. I follow my own drummer. Truth is, the normal MMO's, mostly defined by safety and fun factor and numerous shiny loots, are extremely boring to me. I'm drawn to the opposte kind of MMO's, the chaotic unfun frustrating ones. I can't seem to enjoy anything else longterm.
Honestly I think that AAA sandbox MMORPGs died with UO Trammel.
We all have our own definition of what "sandbox" means. To me, AAA sandboxes died with SWG...
MMO's tend to be expensive and time-consuming to make. Once WoW hit the scene, most developers realised what the majority of MMO players wanted, and it was clearly not the sandbox model !
"Living in a virtual world" sounds cool, but most players just want to be entertained for an hour or two per day. They simply don't have the time nor desire to deal with the "realities" of inhabiting a virtual world. All they want is the "good bits", neatly packaged and ready to play...
You're so right. A "living world" is more chaotic. It's not as strictly controlled. The reason ddesigners strictly control content and gameplay pacing is to keep these kidns of players playing. It's almost exactly like a food machine squirting out a pellet for a rat to keep it coming back. It has to be controlled to ensure the rat will return. By contrast, a chaotic world can't make this gaurantee. One day the rat will press the lever and gets zapped. Or it will come back repeatedly and there's no pellet. After getting hurt, the rat might not return. DEsigners know this and design specifically so the rat will come back. Yet it's this exactly sort of designing that bores me and causes me to search for more chaotic worlds. If I don't get hurt or feel thrills and spills, if I don't feel there're actual conseequences, or there's no PvP (because usually PvE fails to be a threat), then I lose interest fast. I get the memo they just want me to be a rat on their machine.
Bottom line, we're not all the same. While it's true a lot of us can be similar or even the same, we're not alll going to be happy campers together. We shouldn't all be crammed into the same game. AS a result, there should be many kidns of games, many kinds of worlds and a high tolerance for different opinions in forums.ONe thing I've learned after so many years as a gamer and a forum watcher, as well a person in world in general, is that therer'e many kidns of peope.
I'm feeling badf about posting this already. I really don't want to **** anybody off by what I write. But truth is, if I"m being really honest, this reflects some of what I've experienced as a gamer. If I hide delete it, it's lying. I want to say if you happen to like "safe, fun and shiny loot" that's fine. Iv'e played some of those kidns of games too. I have a lot in common with you. I'm sorry for all the things I say here. I'm not trying to be inflammatory or trying to insinuate no other kind of game is legitimate.
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.
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.
- 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
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.
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.
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.
I actually like that. In some ways it's like Black Desert in that you have to have money for warfare. I also like that it's about the guild's "army." If a guild is finding that they don't have enough warriors then they will have to recruit accordingly. I'm also "for" a "war" only ending when both agree on terms and a "win/lose or draw" scenario is agreed upon.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
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.
I actually like that. In some ways it's like Black Desert in that you have to have money for warfare. I also like that it's about the guild's "army." If a guild is finding that they don't have enough warriors then they will have to recruit accordingly. I'm also "for" a "war" only ending when both agree on terms and a "win/lose or draw" scenario is agreed upon.
You don't know how happy I am to finally get an agreement on this idea. lol
Now let me add something here. 1. If a guild doesn't want to participate in PvP at all, they can simply not have an Army. Or they can have one, but simply not "registered" for Warfare. 2. If the game allows open world PvP on anyone, but with the harsh deterrents mentioned above, then this non-PvP, non Army guild's members are protected to a large degree through that Justice System the same as anyone else.
Comments
MMO's tend to be expensive and time-consuming to make. Once WoW hit the scene, most developers realised what the majority of MMO players wanted, and it was clearly not the sandbox model !
"Living in a virtual world" sounds cool, but most players just want to be entertained for an hour or two per day. They simply don't have the time nor desire to deal with the "realities" of inhabiting a virtual world. All they want is the "good bits", neatly packaged and ready to play...
The time for large Western mmorpg's is over. Any game they make is going to appeal to the largest mass of people for the most bang for the buck.
Even if they did make an mmorpg it wouldn't have a lot of classes. It would be streamlined.
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
Don't forget Wurm Online, it's as sandbox as you can get.
People didn't play Darkfall because it was just so "indy" so unfinished and unpolished.
And while I do agree that most people would rather not be taken out by the whim of their fellow players, we haven't seen many polished, very professional ffa pvp games.
Also, I disagree with Phry about EVE being a by choice pvp experience. My first moments of mining, in what I thought was a save space, was me being taken out by someone. I think it was some loophole having to do with mining. Was killed a few times then I was out.
In Lineage 2 I had a different experience where the pk'ers were close to my level and in some cases I could successfully fight back. This was close to the beginning though and obviously players tried to outlevel the pack as quickly as possible in order to give themselves the upper hand.
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
I just don't think a game should call itself FFA if there are restrictions and rules. Of course, other's will disagree. "Free For All" to me indicates freedom to do whatever one wishes with no consequences. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what my brain thinks of when I see FFA. "RPvP" (restricted PvP) would be a much better term.
But getting people to try to be clear in communicating is like slamming into a brick wall at 100 miles per hour
- 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
No wonder a lot of these people keep getting these quests dungeons and raids (all scripted) they ask for then are bored in 3 weeks. Smh
Typical sandbox games are less popular because fewer players actually want to think for themselves. They're more interested in following a predetermined story.
It also had guild and factional.
https://en.wiki.ryzom.com/wiki/Player_versus_Player
In Themepark, everyone is handed "win."
In Sandbox, you have to think and plan and carry it out in order to "win."
That goes back to the point that many players just want to be able to be entertained for a few hours. And "win" is definitely part of being entertained.
That's a big thing to consider in designing a Sandbox. There has to be both kinds of "win" if you want it to be a huge success, numbers wise.
And that's a hard thing to do when Themepark players expect to "win" just as much as the next guy.
My feeling is that the Sandbox part of "win" would be in the Lore, and discovery of ancient knowledge and Artifacts that are hidden in the game world.
My thinking is that the Themepark types would be satisfied with being the party help for the Sandbox types in going out and attaining those things.
The only thing the Themepark players would have to give up is the huge Power Gaps that can't be in a Sandbox World. The rest can be pretty much the same.
The problem with that is that the game has to have both the deep questing system AND the deep Exploration and Discovery system (which we have never seen yet in MMORPGs).
That's a lot of costs in development. Too much to be practical, to do both right.
Once upon a time....
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
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.
- 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
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.
Once upon a time....
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
Now let me add something here.
1. If a guild doesn't want to participate in PvP at all, they can simply not have an Army. Or they can have one, but simply not "registered" for Warfare.
2. If the game allows open world PvP on anyone, but with the harsh deterrents mentioned above, then this non-PvP, non Army guild's members are protected to a large degree through that Justice System the same as anyone else.
Once upon a time....