Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

1246

Comments

  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,538
    edited May 2019

    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.
    AlBQuirkyGdemamibcbullySteelhelm
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,889
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


    bcbully
  • VinterkrigVinterkrig Member UncommonPosts: 1,882
    7 Days to Die,
    It seems to me is what popularized the sandbox.  It seems to be the WoW of sandbox games.

    I just wanted to highlight this amazing comment
    Hatefull
  • HatefullHatefull Member EpicPosts: 2,336
    7 Days to Die,
    It seems to me is what popularized the sandbox.  It seems to be the WoW of sandbox games.

    I just wanted to highlight this amazing comment
    Yeah, another groundbreaking piece by that guy.
    Vinterkrig

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

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,430
    edited May 2019
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

    Sam wouldn't hit Frodo not because of some invisible wall, but because of something called character, which most video game players lack, thus the need to "hard code" it in, introducing invisible walls, as it were.
    GdemamiScotPhryjimmywolfbcbullySteelhelm

    - 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


  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,889
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


    AmarantharAlBQuirkybcbullySteelhelm
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,122
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


    Consequences would have to be harsh.  Many killers would complain because most of don't want consequences.  We want kill or be killed to rule the day.  Problem is that MMORPG players generally don't like being murdered.  You so can't die perm so players are unable to defend themselves from the threat.  Even if you win they come right back and your time is being enganged dealing with them.
    AmarantharAlBQuirkyjimmywolfbcbully
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,889
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    In this scenario, I dont think anyone would worry too much if the people who are only or mostly interested in killing other players were not interested in the game and would simply leave. 
    AlBQuirky
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,256
    edited May 2019
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    coretex666AlBQuirkyPhryjimmywolfSteelhelm

    Once upon a time....

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,997
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    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.
    coretex666Amaranthar
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,256
    edited May 2019
    Sovrath said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    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.

    Once upon a time....

  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,889
    Sovrath said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    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.
    I like your ideas, guys. The Warfare System sounds like it could work well for the purpose of allowing the players interested in PVP to avoid the consequences. As I said earlier, I am not very creative myself, so I do not attempt to come up with specific game systems and mechanics.

    I used to play early Lineage 2 (FFA OW PVP game) for several years and the politics, wars of guilds, alliances, etc. were a huge part of the game. The feature unlocked a completely new dimension of the game. I liked the way PVP was regulated there, but I think it probably still was not harsh enough for purely PVE players to fully enjoy it.
    Vermillion_Raventhal
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,256
    edited May 2019
    Sovrath said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    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.
    I like your ideas, guys. The Warfare System sounds like it could work well for the purpose of allowing the players interested in PVP to avoid the consequences. As I said earlier, I am not very creative myself, so I do not attempt to come up with specific game systems and mechanics.

    I used to play early Lineage 2 (FFA OW PVP game) for several years and the politics, wars of guilds, alliances, etc. were a huge part of the game. The feature unlocked a completely new dimension of the game. I liked the way PVP was regulated there, but I think it probably still was not harsh enough for purely PVE players to fully enjoy it.
    Yeah, this is a way for PvPers to finally have a hugely successful game to play in.
    It also adds something for non-PvPers in that they can support the PvPers, and reap some benefits in doing so.
    And it brings players of all types together, for a change. Making for a truly great game (if all else is great).
    coretex666

    Once upon a time....

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,430
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    You could call it "Guild Wars"... oh wait...

    I do like that basic idea, though. I wonder what the motivations for these wars would be. I don't think any server-wide consequences would good for the non pvp folks :)
    obii

    - 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


  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,256
    AlBQuirky said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    You could call it "Guild Wars"... oh wait...

    I do like that basic idea, though. I wonder what the motivations for these wars would be. I don't think any server-wide consequences would good for the non pvp folks :)
    Server wide consequences of wars...kind of sucks.
    It's gamey, most players feel like they are being penalized without representation.

    I believe guilds should be able to go out in the world and find rich resource centers, and then build a fortification nearby, and "Claim" said rich resource centers. Then be able to increase production of those resources through means of player skills and magics, just by a little. And then they should be able to tax a percentage of those EXTRA resources. So players can go there and gather resources, getting a slight bump in harvest, and the guild gets a percentage of that bump in harvest.

    This is what guild wars should be fought over.
    It doesn't affect the non-PvPers at all in any negative sense. But they do get those slight bumps left over after the tax rate of extra resource harvests, so it's a bonus to them no matter who wins the war.

    ...Continued...
    AlBQuirkyTorval

    Once upon a time....

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,256
    edited June 2019
    AlBQuirky said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:
    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.


    You could call it "Guild Wars"... oh wait...

    I do like that basic idea, though. I wonder what the motivations for these wars would be. I don't think any server-wide consequences would good for the non pvp folks :)
    Server wide consequences of wars...kind of sucks.
    It's gamey, most players feel like they are being penalized without representation.

    I believe guilds should be able to go out in the world and find rich resource centers, and then build a fortification nearby, and "Claim" said rich resource centers. Then be able to increase production of those resources through means of player skills and magics, just by a little. And then they should be able to tax a percentage of those EXTRA resources. So players can go there and gather resources, getting a slight bump in harvest, and the guild gets a percentage of that bump in harvest.

    This is what guild wars should be fought over.
    It doesn't affect the non-PvPers at all in any negative sense. But they do get those slight bumps left over after the tax rate of extra resource harvests, so it's a bonus to them no matter who wins the war.

    ...Continued...
    ...Continued from above...

    Non-PvPers that belong to the guild owning a "Claim" such as this get an extra incentive, because their guild will be doing things with their resources (the taxed rate of that extra bump), accumulated from all players who go there.
    That could be Production Contracts, primarily, using guild resources.

    On top of that, the game can add Caravans and Shipping of resources for use in Trade, not just between players, but also Guilds.
    And Guilds can build into Cities, expanding it all even more.

    This makes Cities a playable commodity, too. Wars can be fought over even them, under the same type of rules where non-PvPers lose nothing, but gain in participation (in the economics end of things), no matter who wins the wars.

    Add alliances, Politics in a real sense, etc.

    Open World Warfare that matters, great for PvPers, doesn't affect the non-PvPers.
    And feels "realistic."
    AlBQuirkyTorval

    Once upon a time....

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    AlBQuirky said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:
    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.


    You could call it "Guild Wars"... oh wait...

    I do like that basic idea, though. I wonder what the motivations for these wars would be. I don't think any server-wide consequences would good for the non pvp folks :)
    Server wide consequences of wars...kind of sucks.
    It's gamey, most players feel like they are being penalized without representation.

    I believe guilds should be able to go out in the world and find rich resource centers, and then build a fortification nearby, and "Claim" said rich resource centers. Then be able to increase production of those resources through means of player skills and magics, just by a little. And then they should be able to tax a percentage of those EXTRA resources. So players can go there and gather resources, getting a slight bump in harvest, and the guild gets a percentage of that bump in harvest.

    This is what guild wars should be fought over.
    It doesn't affect the non-PvPers at all in any negative sense. But they do get those slight bumps left over after the tax rate of extra resource harvests, so it's a bonus to them no matter who wins the war.

    ...Continued...
    ...Continued from above...

    Non-PvPers that belong to the guild owning a "Claim" such as this get an extra incentive, because their guild will be doing things with their resources (the taxed rate of that extra bump), accumulated from all players who go there.
    That could be Production Contracts, primarily, using guild resources.

    On top of that, the game can add Caravans and Shipping of resources for use in Trade, not just between players, but also Guilds.
    And Guilds can build into Cities, expanding it all even more.

    This makes Cities a playable commodity, too. Wars can be fought over even them, under the same type of rules where non-PvPers lose nothing, but gain in participation (in the economics end of things), no matter who wins the wars.

    Add alliances, Politics in a real sense, etc.

    Open World Warfare that matters, great for PvPers, doesn't affect the non-PvPers.
    And feels "realistic."
    So, a bit like DAoC.. honestly if they could remaster DAoC with modern graphics, ideally BDO level of graphics, that would be .. probably my main game. ;)
    AlBQuirky
  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,527
    Robokapp said:
    sandboxes require a certain game pace that's not appropriate for arpg generation. most good sandboxes are slow paced and tactical ,not twitchy. 

    Asheron's Call was hardly slow paced.  You killed TONS of monsters and sorted through TONS of loot, some of which was useful in many different ways.
    AlBQuirky
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,447
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Warfare system have been done before in several games and exploited to nauseum in each , they dont work
    Torval
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 7,447
    centkin said:
    Robokapp said:
    sandboxes require a certain game pace that's not appropriate for arpg generation. most good sandboxes are slow paced and tactical ,not twitchy. 

    Asheron's Call was hardly slow paced.  You killed TONS of monsters and sorted through TONS of loot, some of which was useful in many different ways.
    UO also is a very very fast paced game
    Amaranthar
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,889
    Scorchien said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Warfare system have been done before in several games and exploited to nauseum in each , they dont work
    They dont work because they were not properly implemented in several games? I am not sure you can make such a conclusion.
    AlBQuirkyAmaranthar
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,806
    If a game says FFA PVP then I'm out...I don't care how great everything else is...So when sandbox games go this route, they lose me and many others like me right off the bat.
    AlBQuirkybcbully
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,122
    If a game says FFA PVP then I'm out...I don't care how great everything else is...So when sandbox games go this route, they lose me and many others like me right off the bat.
    Yeah we all have preferences.  When there is P2W it kills games like Archeage even though I liked the game in beta.
    AlBQuirky
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 4,256
    Scorchien said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Tiamat64 said:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Boromir later died trying to save that same Frodo.

    Saruman just died.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Warfare system have been done before in several games and exploited to nauseum in each , they dont work
    Hey, Scorch, did you see my last two posts?
    They were posted after this one that you replied to.
    They have more details, and answer to how to make PvP and PvE "separate but together" in one game. And feel "realistic" to one world, too.


    Vermillion_RaventhalTorval

    Once upon a time....

Sign In or Register to comment.