There is this notion among players that free-for-all PvP is a necessary and, indeed critical, component of the mythical "sandbox" game. In today's Devil's Advocate, we take a look at that notion and analyze whether or not that's a fair expectation. Check it out!

The question is: does it always have to remain this way for the future of the sandbox MMORPG? Let's look at some of the constructive criticisms leveled towards the FFA PVP sandbox and see if something can be done to disconnect the notion of the two requiring each other in future games.

Read more Victor Barreiro Jr.'s The Devil's Advocate: FFA PVP and the Sandbox MMO.

I remember being so excited for the development of Darkfall online then all of a sudden I kept hearing this phrase from some other fans "FFA PVP" at the time I wasn't sure what people were talking about. After a few weeks of back and forth about what should be in and what shouldn't I learned from the attitude of fans of the idea what it meant and that was all I needed to learn that regardless of all the other cool things that seemed to be a part of the games plan this was going to be something that kept me away from playing the game.

From there the conversation was never again about anything remotely sandbox it was strictly about FFA PVP and it's hard to blame the devs for taking up those peoples cause because they were such the vocal group of people.

Let me end by saying this those who advocate and fight for FFA PVP are rarey if ever the people who praise other features of sandbox gameplay.  My experience is those who want FFA PVP don't care about anything other than FFA PVP they don['t care aboout community involvment (unless we are talking about guilld runs of ganking/war) they don't care about crafting,building, or community relations for that matter.

To me FFA PVP is a feature unto itself that has little to nothing to do with actual sandbox gameplay.

Great little article, I enjoyed reading it.

I think there are very simple ways to improve the full loot PvP that makes it fun for both sides. One solution I have always preferred is a token for defeating a foe. The token would be of a certainl level based on the game skill (not person skill) and gear score of the defeated player. Trading these tokens in for gear or PvP bonuses still gives good and experienced players a bonus without neutering the new characters.  There could also be a penalty associated with fragging a significantly lower power player, but I am not in as much favor of this. It would be simpler and more fair simply not to reward people for killing the new or low powered players.

There are definitely not enough sandbox games and I think there would be more if companies could find investors who grokked the idea of 100000 player base being successful instead of need 1 million.

When you consider that one of the best sandbox games ever, SWG pre NGE, did not have ffa full loot pvp, that pretty much proves your theory.  IMO UO became a much better game with the addition of trammel.  Those that did not want the pvp aspect could avoid or lessen their exposure to it.  Even in Eve you can somewhat avoid the pvp aspect of the game if you so desire.

That is what has basically doomed the current crop of full loot ffa pvp games like Darkfall, Mortal Online and killed Shadowbane.  Populations are small because most people don't want to constantly deal with some of the asshats that always gravitate to such games.

The Sandbox definition has never required a ffa pvp aspect ever.  It was present in some of the early sandbox games, but those developers had to make changes to the game's pvp to keep them popular.

full loot pvp is fully ok in huge pvp zones like the EVE 0.0 space. open persistent territorial pvp rueld by players and with player build and owned structures is one of the best endgames you can have in a MMO.

but EVE also has a huge safe zone called Empire. its easy to avoid any pvp in this huge area. some people play EVE since years and never made PvP.

but in other indie games, you walk out of the starter city and you get ganked. this does not work. such games did all fail. you need to implement a co-existence of pvp and pve, so that non-consensual pvp is nearly impossible in most areas. if darkfall would have 2 continents of its size, one for pvp and one pve-only. i would play it. well, at least if they would fix their bot-friendly skillsystem.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

When you consider that one of the best sandbox games ever, SWG pre NGE, did not have ffa full loot pvp, that pretty much proves your theory.  IMO UO became a much better game with the addition of trammel.  Those that did not want the pvp aspect could avoid or lessen their exposure to it.  Even in Eve you can somewhat avoid the pvp aspect of the game if you so desire.

That is what has basically doomed the current crop of full loot ffa pvp games like Darkfall, Mortal Online and killed Shadowbane.  Populations are small because most people don't want to constantly deal with some of the asshats that always gravitate to such games.

The Sandbox definition has never required a ffa pvp aspect ever.  It was present in some of the early sandbox games, but those developers had to make changes to the game's pvp to keep them popular.

SWG was a hybrid. There were Themeparks.

I think the problem with FFA pvp is the cheating and exploiting more than the actual looting.

There is no sandbox definition that ppl on this board agree on. Imo the only guideline for a sandbox MMO is that character progress is not lineair. Beyond that anything goes. PVP or not PVP, PVE  questhubs or not, skill system or not, anything can be used in a sandbox MMO.

If ppl come up with a list of required features for a sandbox, they are just listing their preferences.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

When you consider that one of the best sandbox games ever, SWG pre NGE, did not have ffa full loot pvp, that pretty much proves your theory.  IMO UO became a much better game with the addition of trammel.  Those that did not want the pvp aspect could avoid or lessen their exposure to it.  Even in Eve you can somewhat avoid the pvp aspect of the game if you so desire.

That is what has basically doomed the current crop of full loot ffa pvp games like Darkfall, Mortal Online and killed Shadowbane.  Populations are small because most people don't want to constantly deal with some of the asshats that always gravitate to such games.

The Sandbox definition has never required a ffa pvp aspect ever.  It was present in some of the early sandbox games, but those developers had to make changes to the game's pvp to keep them popular.

I disagree on your point with SWG. SWG's economy was wreck almost 2 months into the game because it's lack on constant need to fill build request, yet people still gathered their asses of. SWG felt more like Evony...when every spot on the map was consumed with empty houses, you had to deal with it. In fact, the thing objects that could be destroyed by opposite factions were built with faction points, not resources. There has to be a balance. Items weren't being destroyed or decayed fast enough to support the mass amount of harvestors...not to mention the catastrophe it had when people stop building houses.

That why EvE's economy worked better with its ffapvp. Every single item in that game takes resources to build and can be destroyed. When a Titan or a POS is destroyed which took TIME and RESOURCES, miners and manufactures rejoice.

Darkfall and Mortall Online are poor examples, because it is evident that economy was not their goal, but rather the joys of PvP, which is fine if you want to go tahat route.

Originally posted by raistlinm

I remember being so excited for the development of Darkfall online then all of a sudden I kept hearing this phrase from some other fans "FFA PVP" at the time I wasn't sure what people were talking about. After a few weeks of back and forth about what should be in and what shouldn't I learned from the attitude of fans of the idea what it meant and that was all I needed to learn that regardless of all the other cool things that seemed to be a part of the games plan this was going to be something that kept me away from playing the game.

From there the conversation was never again about anything remotely sandbox it was strictly about FFA PVP and it's hard to blame the devs for taking up those peoples cause because they were such the vocal group of people.

Let me end by saying this those who advocate and fight for FFA PVP are rarey if ever the people who praise other features of sandbox gameplay.  My experience is those who want FFA PVP don't care about anything other than FFA PVP they don['t care aboout community involvment (unless we are talking about guilld runs of ganking/war) they don't care about crafting,building, or community relations for that matter.

To me FFA PVP is a feature unto itself that has little to nothing to do with actual sandbox gameplay.

 

You summed it up really good. Thanks :)

The OP raises a 'sort of' interesting point.

However, there is little point wasting time in discussing hypothetical issues.

Basically, the short answer is that there are no 'sandbox PvE' games because 'AI' is not good enough for unscripted events.

I think the big mistake current indie devs have made is the assumption that Sandbox and Full Loot FFA PvP are mutually inclusive. There's no reason why a sandbox has to have PvP at all, never mind FFA PvP.

The fact is that fans of FFA Full Loot systems are the minority, but a very vocal one. Proof of this is the current state of games already mentioned, i.e. Darkfall Online and Mortal Online. We constantly see threads encouraging new players to join these games by existing players (probably because they want new players to gank). Why do new players not sub to these games? They know they'll get  ganked and guess what? That's not the kind of game they want to play.

These FFA fans are their own worst enemy. They want new blood to join the game and then spend their days griefing low lvl players, scaring them off. It's hardly surprising that these games have such low numbers.

I think the biggest problem isn't the FFA PvP but the Full Loot. Nobody wants to work for hours so some dickhead who thinks it's funny can come along and ruin their day just because that's how he gets his jollies.

It would be interesting to see if a Dev house could get serious funding for a sandbox MMO if they just faced the fact that they don't need the PvP to be so hardcore.

my only issue is full loot, with that on people will do things to prevent it or avoid it all together, also no death penalty means death have no meaning, and in some cases a easy way to get back to a town, I say you will drop something random from your bag and some money is enough, making people a little afraid but not enough to explore and do things.

shadow bane was like that before they closed it for good, full bag loot, but anyone who palyed a longer time could just pass over and start a fight when you was farming making all that hour or so uselees, so you most of time would impose a 30 min limit of grind so you could recall withn a scroll, bank it all, sell grabage, store resources, and run back, it would make it even worse in case if you don't have a guild because most of towns are player build(with is good) but since it can be sieged anytime, most of guilds make rules like if not from a allyed guild (with most cases a mother guild had several lower guilds using his stores and services) would be on KOS, and with a high req for guilds, make any new player burned and with no growth.

from what archeage promise till now(and if live for that promise) it should make a win for sandbox line, with hope it can be the new base for future games

To me, the biggest problem with FFA, Fulll Loot,  PVP  is the inherent LONG TERM imbalance in risk v reward.

There is the argument that in the short term, the risk between the hunter and the prey is equal, both can kill each other, and both can take the other's stuff.  But the reality is that this isn't right as well.

• 
  The prey often are chosen from the non - ganker group.  Those who spend their time hunting instead of killing each other.  This means they are loaded up with loot from hunting.


• 
  The hunter on the other hand hunts near a banking source, and keeps himself as lightly geared/stocked as possible.  After a kill, where he reaps all the benefits the other guy spent more time to rank up, he can quickly bank and save all that loot.  The hunter also tends to choose his targets carefully, waiting until they are in the middle of another fight, he has numerical superiority, etc.  All of this goes to lessen his short term risk as well.


• 
  In the long run, these actions result in very little long-term risk for the hunter, as even his short term setbacks are merely bumps in the roads compared to the hauls he gets on successful kills.

In Real Life^tm, This sort of lifestyle comes with a very high risk that simply doesn't exist in most MMO's.  This risk, of course is death or long term incarceration.  Those who chose the life of crime often ended living high on the hog for a very short time.  John Dillenger ended up shot in the back of the head.  Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down in their car, etc.  Al Capone ended up spending the latter part of his life in Alcatraz.

I'm not sure what sort of heavy consequences could be had for in-game criminals that could make the playstyle fun, but also very high risk.  But I think finding that right balance would go a lont way towards making FFA PVP a much more interesting option that only a few choose to pick up.

Originally posted by someforumguy

There is no sandbox definition that ppl on this board agree on. Imo the only guideline for a sandbox MMO is that character progress is not lineair. Beyond that anything goes. PVP or not PVP, PVE  questhubs or not, skill system or not, anything can be used in a sandbox MMO.

If ppl come up with a list of required features for a sandbox, they are just listing their preferences.

Lol. You may be right, even in the comments in the reference article they get bogged down discussing EvE/sandbox etc... *chuckles*.

This should be somewhere accessible on MMORPG.com: MMORPGs in diagrams

• Sandbox: Every set nested within the super-set -> Simulation of a complex system
• Themepark: Separate sets with some "items" intersecting with other sets; usually PvE main game with modes/modules of other game types attached in various amounts and positions of relationship.

Plug in for mmorpgs the 3 main features (imo: I'd include craftin/economy in OWI as derives from in game assets sources/sinks somewhere): Emphasis only:

• Sandbox {OWI {PvE n PvP}}
• Themepark {owi, PVE, PvP} ; variations of.

For Sandbox vs FFA PvP: In sandbox, design is intended for all to have some interaction, not all items in eg PvP need to intersect with PvE! Otherwise PvE becomes a set FULLY nested within PvP,because pvp players will gank any pve'ers! That's the difference between Sandbox-FFA-pvp & Sandbox + pvp surely? Needs to be explained in a lot of mmorpgs a lot more clearly!

TL;DR:

I like the idea of FFA-pvp in some items of the PvP set but not in all, where they don't intersect or phase out and into another set.... ie castle of the good emperor is free because the good emperor raised a city guard/militia to deal with the trouble. It can happen but in this area the pvp griefer is taking their chances - stacked against them/ punishable if caught etc.

So Sandbox should have pvp and should have some ffa-pvp (loot robbing etc) and some non-pvp.

Originally posted by robert4818

To me, the biggest problem with FFA, Fulll Loot,  PVP  is the inherent LONG TERM imbalance in risk v reward.

There is the argument that in the short term, the risk between the hunter and the prey is equal, both can kill each other, and both can take the other's stuff.  But the reality is that this isn't right as well.

• 
  The prey often are chosen from the non - ganker group.  Those who spend their time hunting instead of killing each other.  This means they are loaded up with loot from hunting.


• 
  The hunter on the other hand hunts near a banking source, and keeps himself as lightly geared/stocked as possible.  After a kill, where he reaps all the benefits the other guy spent more time to rank up, he can quickly bank and save all that loot.  The hunter also tends to choose his targets carefully, waiting until they are in the middle of another fight, he has numerical superiority, etc.  All of this goes to lessen his short term risk as well.


• 
  In the long run, these actions result in very little long-term risk for the hunter, as even his short term setbacks are merely bumps in the roads compared to the hauls he gets on successful kills.

In Real Life^tm, This sort of lifestyle comes with a very high risk that simply doesn't exist in most MMO's.  This risk, of course is death or long term incarceration.  Those who chose the life of crime often ended living high on the hog for a very short time.  John Dillenger ended up shot in the back of the head.  Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down in their car, etc.  Al Capone ended up spending the latter part of his life in Alcatraz.

I'm not sure what sort of heavy consequences could be had for in-game criminals that could make the playstyle fun, but also very high risk.  But I think finding that right balance would go a lont way towards making FFA PVP a much more interesting option that only a few choose to pick up.

 

Predators don't tend to hunt eachother.

The problem with a "sandbox PvP game with no looting" is that you would end up with a strange version of Battlefield 3.

Perhaps there is though - World Of Tanks?

In best sandboxes (Post-trammel UO, SWG and Eve) PvP plays big part but is easily avoidable. The vocal minority wanting game-wide FFA-pvp are the niche market of sandboxes...Ganking and PKing was possible in pre-trammel UO because prey had no place else to go, nowadays PKing simply wont happen because non-masochist prey will just stay away from game-wide ffapvp games.

Originally posted by robert4818

To me, the biggest problem with FFA, Fulll Loot,  PVP  is the inherent LONG TERM imbalance in risk v reward.

There is the argument that in the short term, the risk between the hunter and the prey is equal, both can kill each other, and both can take the other's stuff.  But the reality is that this isn't right as well.

• 
  The prey often are chosen from the non - ganker group.  Those who spend their time hunting instead of killing each other.  This means they are loaded up with loot from hunting.


• 
  The hunter on the other hand hunts near a banking source, and keeps himself as lightly geared/stocked as possible.  After a kill, where he reaps all the benefits the other guy spent more time to rank up, he can quickly bank and save all that loot.  The hunter also tends to choose his targets carefully, waiting until they are in the middle of another fight, he has numerical superiority, etc.  All of this goes to lessen his short term risk as well.


• 
  In the long run, these actions result in very little long-term risk for the hunter, as even his short term setbacks are merely bumps in the roads compared to the hauls he gets on successful kills.

In Real Life^tm, This sort of lifestyle comes with a very high risk that simply doesn't exist in most MMO's.  This risk, of course is death or long term incarceration.  Those who chose the life of crime often ended living high on the hog for a very short time.  John Dillenger ended up shot in the back of the head.  Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down in their car, etc.  Al Capone ended up spending the latter part of his life in Alcatraz.

I'm not sure what sort of heavy consequences could be had for in-game criminals that could make the playstyle fun, but also very high risk.  But I think finding that right balance would go a lont way towards making FFA PVP a much more interesting option that only a few choose to pick up.

QFT - this is a great post.

The biggest problem with FFA PvP games is that it is too easy to be the bad guy - the negatives are inconsequential when compared to the positives.

-UO: red healers, Bucs Den, personal housing - no true "risk" involved in being a PK.

-EvE: low sec/null sec - PoS , alts for moving goods between high/low and null, etc. No real risk for being a PK.

Friend of mine plays EvE a lot - null sec corp, always telling me about these great battles and camping gates and blowing people up. Says he doesn't care if he loses 500 million in ships/parts in a night, easily makes that back in industry and null sec ratting. Or just buys Plex.

Where is the risk there?

The risk is all, 100% on the newbie who doesn't have the skills/connections to make that kind of isk.

Losing a 100 million battleship is nothing when you can make 100 million in an hour.

Losing a 2 million crusier is EVERYTHING when you have to grind L2 missions for a few days to make that 2 mil back.

sandbox doesn't need PVP.  at all.

players should have a choice to fight other players or not..  

PVP is great in real life skills based games.  with little or no vertical char progression.  but there should always be either a PVE  server with opt-in PVP, or significant PVE-only sections of the gameworld.

factions should never be of a pre-decided quantity or size.  factions should always allow as many as players care to create.

PVP does not need full loot.  AT ALL.

i'd be fine with none whatsoever.  if a reward needed to be given to killers it could just generate some goodies as if you were a mob.   where you don't lose anything, but the killer still gains something.   altho most killers don't need any other incentive other than to kill/dominate you.

however, the potential losses and gains from full loot does add alot of heart pounding excitement.  TOO MUCH for me personally.  but i think a great compromise might be that you never lose any equipped items/reagents/food, but will drop all your other carried stuff.

the worst aspect of losing all my shit in Darkfall is not so much the loss of items, but the loss of time & the boring frustration with constantly fiddling around dragging shit in and out of the bank to re/un-equip, and manage a bunch of sets of backup gear bags, etc., waiting for progress bars to change armours, etc.    not just when dying, but also to switch modes between different risk levels of fighting, or just crafting/skilling/whatever.