Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by nariusseldon

ILLUSION of danger is the salt.

Dying again, again and again frustrates the player and he will go play another game.

 

Dying again, again and again for the SAME reason frustrates the POOR player. Ones who do not take dying as an opportunity for learning.

 It depends on what the reason he's dying is.  If it's because he's too low level to stand a chance, then maybe he does take it as an opportunity to learn--learn to quit and go play some other game.

Sorry but that victim mentality has gotten really old.  We all started at the bottom.  Its ashame that some games cater to that promising victory all the time.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by nariusseldon

ILLUSION of danger is the salt.

Dying again, again and again frustrates the player and he will go play another game.

 

Dying again, again and again for the SAME reason frustrates the POOR player. Ones who do not take dying as an opportunity for learning.

 

So "POOR" players should not have fun? What elitist attitude. Are you also those who yell at random PUG players who cannot perform? Do you require everyone who plays with you knows the optimal dps rotation, memorized all the boss moves from youtube?

A MMO is an entertainment product, not a lesson to life.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by nariusseldon

ILLUSION of danger is the salt.

Dying again, again and again frustrates the player and he will go play another game.

 

Dying again, again and again for the SAME reason frustrates the POOR player. Ones who do not take dying as an opportunity for learning.

 

 

So "POOR" players should not have fun? What elitist attitude. Are you also those who yell at random PUG players who cannot perform? Do you require everyone who plays with you knows the optimal dps rotation, memorized all the boss moves from youtube?

A MMO is an entertainment product, not a lesson to life.

Originally posted by RefMinor

 

 

No, I don't play any games that have a PUG and certainly not any where the boss has a scripted move. Not every game should be dumbed down so that poor players succeed, no one ever beat space invaders, every one finds their level. If no one loses in comparison to others then no one wins.

So you won't play FPSes like COD, action adventure like Dead Space, and RPG like Skyrim?

If the last level of space invador costs $20M to make, i am sure the developers will put in an "easy" difficulty so everyone can see it.

On second thought, you probably want to keep on playing space invader, a design from a few decades ago. That suits you.

And I prefers games with bosses with interesting scripted mechanics. I have not yet seen an interesting fun boss without scripting. Glad that we won't be playing the same game anytime soon.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by RefMinor

 

 

No, I don't play any games that have a PUG and certainly not any where the boss has a scripted move. Not every game should be dumbed down so that poor players succeed, no one ever beat space invaders, every one finds their level. If no one loses in comparison to others then no one wins.

So you won't play FPSes like COD, action adventure like Dead Space, and RPG like Skyrim?

If the last level of space invador costs $20M to make, i am sure the developers will put in an "easy" difficulty so everyone can see it.

On second thought, you probably want to keep on playing space invader, a design from a few decades ago. That suits you.

Getting back to sandbox:

1. PvP must be included to allow choice -> every player has volitional decisions -> provides meaningful actions in game and consequences eg bounty/war/justice etc... Secondly player interactions are the most complex gameplay in mmorpgs ie AI.

2. Death or at least death penalty -> adds value to an avatar and by that token more individuality for each player. 

3. Hence why griefing is such a rewarding past time hence why allowing for the motivation but also designing suitable demotivation just as much is very necessary.

4. Tangent re crafting -> resource "source" from the environment? (finite or not?) can be 100% pve but as soon as it is "used"/valued" as economoical measure then can be part of pvp as well? /2 cents

Originally posted by RefMinor

 

 

For your first point I was referring to MMORPGs they should be in my opinion different from FPSs or SPRPGs.

 

For the second you are probably correct, developers would dumb it down and then add "endgame" and perpetual progression.

 

Lots of newer things are better than older things and lots of older things are better than newer things, personally I try to take each on its individual merits.

1) They are different. You can group. There is a AH. There are persistent cities. How different? That obviously is up to your personal opinion. I think MMOs can use more FPS, CRPG features & elements. Obviously you do not agree.

2) No argument. If a dungeon is expensive to make, it is silly to have it entertain only 2% of your players.

3) That i agree. However, in this case, new MMOs >>>> old MMOs for ME. It is my personal opinion that new modern MMOs are better, more fun games. Now, since the market of MMOs are also growing in the last 2 years, i assume many others like modern MMOs too.

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Getting back to sandbox:

1. PvP must be included to allow choice -> every player has volitional decisions -> provides meaningful actions in game and consequences eg bounty/war/justice etc... Secondly player interactions are the most complex gameplay in mmorpgs ie AI.

2. Death or at least death penalty -> adds value to an avatar and by that token more individuality for each player. 

3. Hence why griefing is such a rewarding past time hence why allowing for the motivation but also designing suitable demotivation just as much is very necessary.

4. Tangent re crafting -> resource "source" from the environment? (finite or not?) can be 100% pve but as soon as it is "used"/valued" as economoical measure then can be part of pvp as well? /2 cents

 

1) If choices are allowed, then there must be an option NOT to participate in PvP. You cannot argue for choice and force players to pvp.

2) Death penalty has nothing to do with individuality.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by RefMinor

Originally posted by nariusseldon

ILLUSION of danger is the salt.

Dying again, again and again frustrates the player and he will go play another game.

 

Dying again, again and again for the SAME reason frustrates the POOR player. Ones who do not take dying as an opportunity for learning.

 

 

So "POOR" players should not have fun? What elitist attitude. Are you also those who yell at random PUG players who cannot perform? Do you require everyone who plays with you knows the optimal dps rotation, memorized all the boss moves from youtube?

A MMO is an entertainment product, not a lesson to life.

I agree

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Getting back to sandbox:

1. PvP must be included to allow choice -> every player has volitional decisions -> provides meaningful actions in game and consequences eg bounty/war/justice etc... Secondly player interactions are the most complex gameplay in mmorpgs ie AI.

2. Death or at least death penalty -> adds value to an avatar and by that token more individuality for each player. 

3. Hence why griefing is such a rewarding past time hence why allowing for the motivation but also designing suitable demotivation just as much is very necessary.

4. Tangent re crafting -> resource "source" from the environment? (finite or not?) can be 100% pve but as soon as it is "used"/valued" as economoical measure then can be part of pvp as well? /2 cents

 

1) If choices are allowed, then there must be an option NOT to participate in PvP. You cannot argue for choice and force players to pvp.

2) Death penalty has nothing to do with individuality.

Well it'd be good to go into the phillosophy of this for fun (or mental masturbation "hrmph!*) as it's at the heart of what a sandbox is (ideally).

A true sandbox should have PVP. It should also be open world. However, there shold be some restrictions and/or some structure.

Just like in our society, you can't simply walk into Walmart and blow away the cashier because they were too slow in moving the people ahead of you through. Well, I mean, OK, you physically can do this. But if you do, there are concequences.

There should be times and places where PVP is acceptable and other times and places it is not. And maybe even gray areas where, it's accepted but discouraged. And PVP should always have some action/reaction...I mean from the game. Sometimes you are rewarded, sometimes...not so much.

So, yea, in a Sandbox, if someoen pisses you off, you can go kill them. But the game should have mechenics in place that recognize griefing and/or dishonorable actions (picking on the weak for no valid reason) and such. So if you start acting like an ass, you end up on some wanted list somewhere and now YOU are going to be the farmed content for a while.

What it boils down to is this

Stop whining about lack of quality sandox games if you insist it must have FFA PvP. You will never have both mark my words

Originally posted by ElderRat

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by ElderRat

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by sullivanj69

Originally posted by Cuathon

I don't think PvP is necessary for a sandbox, so long as the PvE takes its place by being dangerous and dynamic.

I don't really get it, what is the point of having a sandbox if you aren't going to interact with other players on a meaningful level?  When has PVE ever been dangerous or dynamic?  Players make the best enemies and the main reason to play online games is for the added challenge of going up against a player rather than some dumb AI.

 Since when is PvP the only meaningfull interaction between players.  Players can make the best enemiesl, often they are annoying.  Your right there hasn't really been any dangerous or dynamic pve.  Other players are definately low on my list of requirements for added challenge though.  Personally I think puzzles are more challenging than players.

Originally posted by ElderRat

Originally posted by sullivanj69

Originally posted by Cuathon

I don't think PvP is necessary for a sandbox, so long as the PvE takes its place by being dangerous and dynamic.

I don't really get it, what is the point of having a sandbox if you aren't going to interact with other players on a meaningful level? When has PVE ever been dangerous or dynamic? Players make the best enemies and the main reason to play online games is for the added challenge of going up against a player rather than some dumb AI.

I don't disagree, but there seems to be a sizable amount of today's players that want an easy game where there is no risk. I do not pretend to understand that but it is there.

 No pvp does not mean no risk.

Originally posted by ElderRat

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by sullivanj69

Originally posted by Cuathon

I don't think PvP is necessary for a sandbox, so long as the PvE takes its place by being dangerous and dynamic.

I don't really get it, what is the point of having a sandbox if you aren't going to interact with other players on a meaningful level? When has PVE ever been dangerous or dynamic? Players make the best enemies and the main reason to play online games is for the added challenge of going up against a player rather than some dumb AI.

You can make PvE dangerous and dynamic. Just modern MMO players have no interest in that. They don't like to lose.

You can interact with other players on a meaningful level without trying to kill each other.

Yes but there are already countless PvE games. PVE players need to let the Sandbox PVP crowd have a game or 2 to themselves that remains that way.

 I think there are more PvP sandbox games than Pve.  So how about the Sandbox PvP crowd players give the sandbox PVe crowd another game or two?

sandbox pvp = Eve, darkfall, MO, Wurm?*. Haven and Heath?*, Runescape?*, UWO?* and coming out ArchAge and many more.

sandbox pve - ryzom (although very limited), Istaria, Atitd (although very limited)

* - means I haven't tried them but a simple search stated they were sandbox and pvp.  I'll let you guys correct me if they are not.

maybe pve'rs should enjoy the themeparks made just for them and leave sandboxes alone.  Just to counter your argument.

 

  Why can't pvp'rs enjoy the themepark made for them.

which themepark is made just for pvp'rs?

 

The themepark MMO's that have pvp \.  They are made for pvp'rs just as much as themeparks are made for pve'rs.

Originally posted by Starpower

What it boils down to is this

 

Stop whining about lack of quality sandox games if you insist it must have FFA PvP. You will never have both mark my words

What quality sandbox games do we have besides EvE at all? ATITD doesn't have anything but crafting and gathering, DFO and MO are glitchy and FFA PvP.

I love EvE but its the only one really.

Istaria doesn't have very many bugs or issues anymore.  Just low population

I don't know about FFA loot. But Open PVP? Sure. But jus tto open up PVP for it's own sake brings nothing. It has to be dangerous but also meaningful. Meaningless PVP is for griefing and that's what WoW has. And that is not PVP, it's just griefing. And while I won't say it shouldn't be allowed, there should be something in the game that makes people say..."Is this really a good idea?" "Do I really want to behaive like this?"

Have guilds officially at war with each other.

Have contested content that is valuable to control oe own.

Have rewards in place for PVP that actually accomplishes something in the game.

Have punnishements for griefing. 

Etc.

Originally posted by ElderRat

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

  Why can't pvp'rs enjoy the themepark made for them.

which themepark is made just for pvp'rs?

AOC, Allods Online, Perfect World, Lineage 2, Aika, Rohan...just to name a few.

Sandbox is about the sand.  The world is manipulated or co-authored by players.

That's what makes it different from themeparks which aren't manipulated, and have static "rides", and are only authored by the developer.

That's why games like Skyrim aren't sandboxes, since the player barely alters the world (apart from buying a few houses and placing trivial items around.)

But yeah, PVP isn't necessarily part of it.   In fact the only sandbox (MMOs) I ended up liking effectively has zero PVP (ATITD and H&H)

PVP in a sandbox tends to suck unless implemented in a fairly controlled manner (King Arthur's Gold was fun apart from being tragically laggy.)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Sandbox is about the sand.  The world is manipulated or co-authored by players.

That's what makes it different from themeparks which aren't manipulated, and have static "rides", and are only authored by the developer.

That's why games like Skyrim aren't sandboxes, since the player barely alters the world (apart from buying a few houses and placing trivial items around.)

But yeah, PVP isn't necessarily part of it.   In fact the only sandbox (MMOs) I ended up liking effectively has zero PVP (ATITD and H&H)

PVP in a sandbox tends to suck unless implemented in a fairly controlled manner (King Arthur's Gold was fun apart from being tragically laggy.)

Pathfinder Online looks to be a very fine offering! You can read the blogs here http://goblinworks.com/blog/.

The game is still under development but you and anyone one else interested in sandbox games should keep an eye out.