Sorry but I just do not get it, why is it that hard to create a sandbox MMORPG with open world full loot PVP where the PVP is optional.

You step into the world being neutral, no other player can attack you. Futher ingame while having developed new skills or raised level you get the option to be aligned to a certain faction. At the base game there are only 3 factions, two of them are constantly at war with each other (lets call them F1 and F2). The third will be the neutral faction F3. Align to them and you will not be attacked by other players but enjoy the PVE and all the other social aspects of the game. You might be excluded from gathering precious resources or "loot" but that's simply the price to pay for living at peace.

But even though you aligned yourself with F3 you stil are free to align yourself to F1 or F2, same goes for those in F1 and F2 can place themselfs into F3. Of course it should have a timer, a 24hour timer should suite nice and makes you really think before you might choose your faction.

I personaly still think a sandbox game with full loot pvp in this way will attract far more people who might eventually still get into the pvp part, then most of today's forced open world pvp sandbox/hybrid type of MMO's.

Just be carefull when picking a guild which is a feature that should open up at the level where you can align yourself too a faction cause a guild can choose their alignement and you will be stuck with what ever alignemt the guild decides.Which can be great for those seeking constant pvp actions and great for those who might seek peace just never to be bothered with the pvp aspects of the game.

Perhaps because it doesn't make sense.  Two people standing next to each other, and you can't attack one of them because an hour earlier he aligned himself to some faction.

How about if you have PVP let the players choose how much to risk through the actual actions they take rather than set in stone game mechanics.  In other words, those rare resources you mention, would require adventuring a bit farther from the safety of guards watchful eyes, away from the nearest city.  Also realize that if someone is attacked in the town, they are unlikely to die, but it still could happen.  Just the attackers would be easily apprehended.

I think letting players choose their path using actions and thinking about what they are willing to risk for what they want to gain is far better a practice than just "you aligned to the third faction, safe from all pvp forever"

First thing that popped into my head was to use the third faction to scout for the other two. People will exploit the crap out of everything they can when the stakes are high. That's why the rules should be as few and simple as possible.

It's been done in the past. Many times. Many ways.

DAoC did it best.

Originally posted by kadepsyson

Perhaps because it doesn't make sense.  Two people standing next to each other, and you can't attack one of them because an hour earlier he aligned himself to some faction.

 Even in war there are principles and rules. But shouldn't really matter right, just according to this website there are plenty of people who will align themself full pvp all the time.

How about if you have PVP let the players choose how much to risk through the actual actions they take rather than set in stone game mechanics.  In other words, those rare resources you mention, would require adventuring a bit farther from the safety of guards watchful eyes, away from the nearest city.  Also realize that if someone is attacked in the town, they are unlikely to die, but it still could happen.  Just the attackers would be easily apprehended.

 I'm not against your idea, just when I speak about a sandbox game I want it to have options, forced pvp in a sandbox game does not make much sence to me either.

I think letting players choose their path using actions and thinking about what they are willing to risk for what they want to gain is far better a practice than just "you aligned to the third faction, safe from all pvp forever"

In a full pvp game sure you are right, again in a sandbox game pvp should be optional. We already have seen this type of play DaoC, SWG. The pve part can still compliment those into PVP and also the other way around. Just sharing my opinion..like you ;)

Originally posted by Shadanwolf
Myself...I just don't like the rule that say the only way I can enjoy 3 faction conflict is if i'm willing to get my things looted and myself griefed.Otherwise no fighting.If i want a pve game I have hundreds to choose from.Thats all a game with to OP's ruleset would be for many...for the short while the bothered to even try the game.

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear I don't want a PVE game as you said there is plenty of that around, I want a sandbox game where everything should be optional.

Originally posted by Quirhid

First thing that popped into my head was to use the third faction to scout for the other two. People will exploit the crap out of everything they can when the stakes are high. That's why the rules should be as few and simple as possible.

Well how about having no acces towards the two factions in conflict. Like a real life a civilian doesn't have acces to every military bases. Would it be so wrong to implement something like that in a MMORPG?

Originally posted by DavisFlight

It's been done in the past. Many times. Many ways.

 

DAoC did it best.

To little experiance with DaoC myself but have the experiance with SWG which to me was the perfect way to have this, perhaps if I played DaoC more I might feel the same about that game.

You had neutral, covert and overt, best thing with this system you still needed eachother regardless what alignement.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

It's been done in the past. Many times. Many ways.

DAoC did it best.

 DaoC was crap and it wasnt sandbox like the OP is talking about, it was the start of PvP becoming meaningless zergs, PvPing for rank and or items and removing PvP from the actual game world, placed into a seperate area and it became nothing more than just another themepark attraction.

It was PvP for people who couldnt handle PvP before it, for those that needed a carrot to do things. It made PvP an extention of PvE and removed most of the skill games before it REQUIRED for you to be even remotely decent. Oh and CCs jebus christ that game blew when it came to PvP.

Hell, SWG added ranks to PvP but it didnt force people to zerg and it left it in an OPEN WORLD SANDBOX. not the cheap feature DaoC turned it into.

Originally posted by Reklaw

Sorry but I just do not get it, why is it that hard to create a sandbox MMORPG with open world full loot PVP where the PVP is optional.

You confuse between "hard" and "undesirable". Nothing is hard .. but are you going to get enough  players to worth the dev's while? That is a totally different story.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Reklaw

Sorry but I just do not get it, why is it that hard to create a sandbox MMORPG with open world full loot PVP where the PVP is optional.

You confuse between "hard" and "undesirable". Nothing is hard .. but are you going to get enough  players to worth the dev's while? That is a totally different story.

Fully understandable you say highlighted red and I have thought of that aswell, not in the sence of a sollution, but just thought would there be enough people that really want to pvp. I do feel the PVE player base if larger atleast in MMO's then the PVP player base.

But I also feel that the PVE crowed could have a meaningfull experiance in a sandbox game, but I also feel that a sandbox game should have PVP. It might take another type of thinking that not everything should revolve around you (commonly speaking) but that your action actually can have consequences either by your alignement or by the guild you choose to join.

Sorry it's just my personal experiance how much I loved the system SWG had and wished there would be newer games that would improve on that concept and not limit it or as certain sandbox games offer it forced only.

Perhaps it's also that I can't imagine that even a full loot pvp player wouldn't likes to have some sort of ingame down time, so still enjoying much of the game but just to do other things for example gather base resources, crafting, socializing, trading etc..etc.

It might be pure personal as I love the rush in FPS multiplayer games but with a MMORPG it should go far beyond the game experiance I already get from other genre's without the being forced but have the freedom to choose which is what a sandbox MMORPG should be for me.

Originally posted by Reklaw

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Reklaw

Sorry but I just do not get it, why is it that hard to create a sandbox MMORPG with open world full loot PVP where the PVP is optional.

You confuse between "hard" and "undesirable". Nothing is hard .. but are you going to get enough  players to worth the dev's while? That is a totally different story.

Fully understandable you say highlighted red and I have thought of that aswell, not in the sence of a sollution, but just thought would there be enough people that really want to pvp. I do feel the PVE player base if larger atleast in MMO's then the PVP player base.

But I also feel that the PVE crowed could have a meaningfull experiance in a sandbox game, but I also feel that a sandbox game should have PVP. It might take another type of thinking that not everything should revolve around you (commonly speaking) but that your action actually can have consequences either by your alignement or by the guild you choose to join.

Sorry it's just my personal experiance how much I loved the system SWG had and wished there would be newer games that would improve on that concept and not limit it or as certain sandbox games offer it forced only.

Perhaps it's also that I can't imagine that even a full loot pvp player wouldn't likes to have some sort of ingame down time, so still enjoying much of the game but just to do other things for example gather base resources, crafting, socializing, trading etc..etc.

It might be pure personal as I love the rush in FPS multiplayer games but with a MMORPG it should go far beyond the game experiance I already get from other genre's without the being forced but have the freedom to choose which is what a sandbox MMORPG should be for me.

There is obviously a big market for pvp. LOL and WOT are good examples of pure pvp games doing very well. PS2 shows that a world pvp game is also viable.

However, it is not clear that world pvp is a desirabe feature in a pve game. In fact, WOW took it away in the early part of its growth curve, and i think that is good enough evidence to say that it is not that desirable.

the only mmo i have played that did the full loot open world pvp right is called Metin2, the game is crappy but have some of the best pvp features ever, like arena guild vs guild (also open world 3 faction pvp, but sadly the game is horribly pay to win so its not worth the time anymore)

Anyways, the way this game made open world loot pvp is fantastic. There is a guardian vs criminal system. Everyone in the same faction is neutral, but you can switch pk mode on and kill others within your faction. If you kill a neutral or a good player you start gaining negative points towards criminal rank. If you kill a bad person you gain positive points towards guardian rank. Only criminals can be looted after killed but if you are criminal you can work towards neutral by killing other criminals and even in pve killing mobs. Also you get a random loot from the criminals body even if its an epic piece of gear or weapon, not full loot.

in my personal opinion thats how opwn world pvp with loot should work. Whether its full loot or just random loot, with a good criminal / guardian system well implemented its the way to go.

Originally posted by maplestone
In my experience, as soon as there are PvPers on the map, it's a PvP game.  Even if they can't attack your hp, there will be some who still do their utmost to troll, pester or interfere.  It's just an incompatable mindset in the way the two playstyles react to another person being on the map.

Not if it is an instanced map, and you can quit and join another one.

And game design can eliminate more and more of this "griefing" problems. For example, in WOW LFR or D3, loot drop is private. It is designed so that no one can ninja anything. You have an independent draw of loot, and it is only for you. The other person won't even see it unless you show him.

Originally posted by Reklaw

Originally posted by kadepsyson

Perhaps because it doesn't make sense.  Two people standing next to each other, and you can't attack one of them because an hour earlier he aligned himself to some faction.

 Even in war there are principles and rules. But shouldn't really matter right, just according to this website there are plenty of people who will align themself full pvp all the time.

How about if you have PVP let the players choose how much to risk through the actual actions they take rather than set in stone game mechanics.  In other words, those rare resources you mention, would require adventuring a bit farther from the safety of guards watchful eyes, away from the nearest city.  Also realize that if someone is attacked in the town, they are unlikely to die, but it still could happen.  Just the attackers would be easily apprehended.

 I'm not against your idea, just when I speak about a sandbox game I want it to have options, forced pvp in a sandbox game does not make much sence to me either.

I think letting players choose their path using actions and thinking about what they are willing to risk for what they want to gain is far better a practice than just "you aligned to the third faction, safe from all pvp forever"

In a full pvp game sure you are right, again in a sandbox game pvp should be optional. We already have seen this type of play DaoC, SWG. The pve part can still compliment those into PVP and also the other way around. Just sharing my opinion..like you ;)

 

Even in war, a person can kill someone if they decide to.  It is a choice.  It may not be correct, legal, or advised, but they can choose to do it.  With your system, they can rip someone to shreds, but the guy next to him you can't even bring yourself to attack at all.

That would be "divine intervention" rather than sandbox player choice stuff

Originally posted by kadepsyson

 

Even in war, a person can kill someone if they decide to.  It is a choice.  It may not be correct, legal, or advised, but they can choose to do it.  With your system, they can rip someone to shreds, but the guy next to him you can't even bring yourself to attack at all.

That would be "divine intervention" rather than sandbox player choice stuff

But in the said war, the person on the receving end of a bullet has no choice not to die, do they?

In a game, with a pvp toggle, they can choose not to be harmed. Isn't that also a choice?

Well, for a fantasy game it could be done.

The neutral "faction" can be members protected by (for the sake of example) the goddess Danu and all her subjects do not take part/and are protected from those who seek to do them harm.

BUT...

The god Mercur and the Goddess, Deth, are constantly waging war on each other and their subjects seek the annhilation of each other and those they side with.

boom, a lore reason to create the systme and you allow people to pvp or not pvp.

And don't make it so that people can change their character's affiliations.