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

124

Comments

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,785
    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).
    [Deleted User]

    Once upon a time....

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,432
    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: 5,785
    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...
    AlBQuirky[Deleted User]

    Once upon a time....

  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,785
    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."
    AlBQuirky[Deleted User]

    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: 8,914
    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
    [Deleted User]
  • ScorchienScorchien Member LegendaryPosts: 8,914
    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
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member LegendaryPosts: 9,739
    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: 4,198
    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: 5,785
    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_Raventhal[Deleted User]

    Once upon a time....

  • HatefullHatefull Member EpicPosts: 2,502
    edited June 2019
    PvPers wouldn't like a pvp optional sandbox MMO because then they'd have no noobs to gank and they could only gank themselves and then Johhny depp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmVzDXe1sN4 they'd need an actual challenge so would whine and whine and whine
    You really need to shut up. You have no idea what you are on about.

    One example would be SWG, the PvP there was wildly popular and guess what? Yes, it was consensual. Again, just one example.

    This notion that people only pvp in order to gank people much lower level or with less skill is asinine. As a matter of fact, I do now know anyone personally that does enjoy punishing lower level players like that. I know they exist, but not nearly in the numbers people want to believe.

    Getting killed in a PvP game is NOT griefing, it is playing the game. Taking advantage of mechanics that are in said game and working as designed, is not cheating. Using these things to deny others fun playing the game, is, however, that is highly subjective.

    If you log into eve, go to null sec space and then bitch because someone blew you up when you only wanted to mine asteroids, you are the blithering idiot. The other person is just playing a game.
    Gyva02

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

    In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,838
    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.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,785
    bcbully 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.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
    Now that's funny.
    I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

    Once upon a time....

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,838
    edited June 2019
    bcbully 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.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
    Now that's funny.
    I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

    Oh what sever did you play on? Why don’t you tell us what you remember?
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,785
    bcbully said:
    bcbully 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.


    Omg just DL age of Wushu and play for a day. Just read up on it hell..

    The best system to date.
    Now that's funny.
    I didn't know you had a sense of humor.

    Oh what sever did you play on? Why don’t you tell us what you remember?
    I didn't. It's one of those things where I knew I didn't want to play it so I didn't.
    Beyond that, I don't have to explain myself to you. Not in this situation.
    Had the the topic been that game, I might have had some comments on it.
    But this is a case of you just trying to live up to you namesake. And I'm not going to cooperate with you. ;)
    Gdemami

    Once upon a time....

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,838
    edited June 2019
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • AmarantharAmaranthar Member EpicPosts: 5,785
    bcbully said:
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
    Well Mr. Bully, what makes you think that the PvP is the reason I don't want to play that game?

    Why would you assume that my posts indicated that any game without rampant PKing would be ok in my book? (And frankly, I have my doubts that that's the reality.)

    Why would you throw out a PtW game as if that's the answer for me?

    Why would you ignore the posts I made, which you are responding to, and INSTRUCT me to play a game that doesn't have what I posted about?

    bcbullyGdemami

    Once upon a time....

  • TillerTiller Member LegendaryPosts: 11,125
    edited June 2019
    Hatefull said:
    PvPers wouldn't like a pvp optional sandbox MMO because then they'd have no noobs to gank and they could only gank themselves and then Johhny depp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmVzDXe1sN4 they'd need an actual challenge so would whine and whine and whine
    You really need to shut up. You have no idea what you are on about.

    One example would be SWG, the PvP there was wildly popular and guess what? Yes, it was consensual. Again, just one example.

    This notion that people only pvp in order to gank people much lower level or with less skill is asinine. As a matter of fact, I do now know anyone personally that does enjoy punishing lower level players like that. I know they exist, but not nearly in the numbers people want to believe.

    Getting killed in a PvP game is NOT griefing, it is playing the game. Taking advantage of mechanics that are in said game and working as designed, is not cheating. Using these things to deny others fun playing the game, is, however, that is highly subjective.

    If you log into eve, go to null sec space and then bitch because someone blew you up when you only wanted to mine asteroids, you are the blithering idiot. The other person is just playing a game.
    Actually what he said isn't entirely wrong. I remember reading that exact argument in the earlier days of the BDO forums. Many folks actually wanted the forced level 49 PvP to stay because they felt the game was more fun ganking unsuspecting people.  Eventually they locked it behind the level level 49 quest giving folks the option to opt out of PvP like the Korean servers, but it is a thing.

    Hell even swg had it's problems in the early days. I don't know if you ever read the old SWG forums back in the day but I remember a story of some dancer named Combat Biscuit who was quitting the game over a tef gank she got while buffing someone.

    Some PvPers even complained about the TEF system sometimes because it made it hard to 1v1 when anyone could just TEF ride anyone by healing them. Next thing you know it was 1v10.  I remember lots of large scale battles starting over a gank. On my server, Bloodfin the guild DREAD (which later became AXIS) used to role large gank squads of people between Bestine and Anchohead looking for afkers, Jedi, anyone who was red. Was it fun? yeah, but people complained.

    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter
     
  • Vermillion_RaventhalVermillion_Raventhal Member EpicPosts: 4,198
    bcbully said:
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
    Sounds fun honestly.  Is the game still active.  I played for awhile.  Don't remember why I stopped.  
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 11,838
    bcbully said:
    No this is me responding to a trollish response to my honest contribution to this thread. I didn’t think you played or knew anything about the game.

    Nothing about being in jail online for 5 hours. Nothing about bounty hunter guilds. Nothing about your guild breaking you out of prison just in time for the alliance war. Nothing about throwing tomatoes at a guy who’s been locked in the gallos for 20 some hours before his execution. Nothing about trying to make it back to your school to mediate you infamy off before the bounty hunters find you, even though you killed those people for a damn good reason.

    man I’m just scratching the surface. No one was killing lowbies “for the lulz”. If the reward (principle) didn’t match the risk. It made no sense.
    Sounds fun honestly.  Is the game still active.  I played for awhile.  Don't remember why I stopped.  
    As far as I know it still is.
    "We see fundamentals and we ape in"
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    The developmental irony is that it is more difficult to create an engaging game with less prefabricated content than it is to create a game with more prefabricated content. 
    SovrathGdemamiAmarantharbcbully

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342
    edited June 2019
    Amathe said:
    The developmental irony is that it is more difficult to create an engaging game with less prefabricated content than it is to create a game with more prefabricated content. 
    ...is it? Where did you get that from?
Sign In or Register to comment.