Originally posted by Smirch

I couldn't agree more. I love pvp but pvp shouldn't be an all or nothing situation. Anyone that says they want full loot pvp isn't gets disregarded in my book. There's always some mental defective that thinks whatever random game you're both playing is too  carebear because when someone kills you there isn't a character destroying event.

There were a few games that did this in the past simply because they didn't know better. You won't see another successful game utilize this system. Honestly, not a single one. The genre has matured from that primitive BS and has learned from the mistakes of the past.

If you want to be severely penalized for playing a game how about you send me your address and if you're within driving distance I'll kill you in pvp combat then promptly  drive over to your house, punch you in the face, take your wallet, kick your dog, and pack your computer into the back of my car before leaving.

Well two things...

1) Companies make games based on what they think will make a profit.  Thus the number of full loot games is pretty much... a vast minority.  Can argue about it all we want on forums.. developers don't make the games based off of forum posts.  They are looking at some kind of metric that tells them they won't make money.

2) Full loot in pvp does actually work.  The problem is you need to design the game so that it works.  Its like the idea of item decay or item loss in a pve game.  You can do it.. in a game based on player crafting..    That was Ultima Online for me.  I mean its the same either way (full loot or item decay).  Most games are based on raids/uber loot and nobody wants to lose their precious.

1 and 2 tie together... because game developers have decided to pretty much stick with what I call the EQ1 core mechanic.  As opposed to the UO player economy idea.  It was easy for me to craft in UO... I could put out a ton of gear daily and I did.  I ran a vendor for 5 years and my prices were low yet I made a ton of profit.

So my perspective is that its a kind of weird mix..  of things.

I don't really think a full open pvp game works in todays market.  I like the idea of "settled lands" and "wasteland" where there is an area beyond "the law".  In that sense I don't like murder systems because if you died in a wasteland how would anyone know who killed you...  You also need a company that is going to fully enforce the ToS/Eula and act on it quickly.  The "cheat" base will quickly drive people out of any game with full loot or even just pvp in general.

Still comes back to the same thing.  They follow a certain design and it tells them the "core" and the "profit" are not open pvp with full loot.  If they change the core design...  /shrug

*edited*  I have been up about 36 hours on a business project and I tried to make the post into something that made sense.  Not sure if I did... but bed time.

Originally posted by JGMIII

It's still a sandbox but admittingly I am a bit sad that FFA looting was taken out.

This in no way makes the game a non-sandbox however.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people think that "full loot, open PvP" is any way related to the definition of "sandbox."

You can have full loot and open PvP in themepark games, too.

you can, but you will not get the big population numbers which equal money.

Originally posted by Horusra

you can, but you will not get the big population numbers which equal money.

I wasn't debating the merits of FFA PvP. I was stating that FFA PvP is an independent factor, and isn't associated with either sandbox or theme park games in particular. It can be implemented in any type of MMORPG.

What a good sandbox game need is exactly NOT full loot PvP.

That is what EVE does so brilliantly; when you destroy your opponent the most of his assets are destroyed (two thirds of his equiped modules and cargo hold content and of course his ship) so the gains for the victorious are minimal. This ensures that while dying is harsh you can not progress fast by running around killing randomly. Sure some people do that still, but it is rarely their main way of income.

More importantly, this kind of system is what drives a functional market and THAT is much more important for a sandbox MMO. What is important for Fallen Earth is if it has item deterioration/destruction or not.

Originally posted by Hrothmund

Nobody is aiming for what EVE did. The game started at way below 50k subs and has slowly but steadily gained subscribers. Seems most decision makers are aiming for the 'WoW jackpot', which is extremely difficult and unlikely for most games to accomplish.

Don't forget that the only thing that saved Eve is that it was developed by a smaller company who "stuck it out" until its base grew. What Eve players convieniently ignore when comparing the success of Eve with the success of other games is that, had Eve been developed by one of the larger game houses, it would have been canned years ago for lack of subs.

Today, its is all about the "WoW jackpot", as you say...

Comparing a todate sandbox game to a todate them park is not a good comparason at all so saying that theme park s better because of that  is not a good faq. Why?

EQ2 for exemple, i dont know about his developement, but i bet it had been made by an indi company. I never heard of it before, so it might not had been popular. Maybe we can put it at the same lvl as Eve, AC, and the old UO the day EQ 2 was out when wow was not here yet.

Blizzard is a very rich company and it was before wow. They had the money to make the perfect mmorpg. No matter how they decided to do it, it would had still been popular. So they decided to make it like EQ2 and they put all their money in hope that wow will be succeful The wacraft IP is already succeful enough so many will atempt to try. With their money, they can fix really fast any kind of stuff and add new stuff really fast. Balancing, wow devs are very good at this.

Then, we have what? ummm... Darkfall online for exemple. Its an indi company with not much money to maintain an mmorpg. It was popular before it was out, the most anticipate because we all thought it would be more like oblivion, but as an mmorpg with full loot, casual grind and whatever. When it was out, many feature that Tasos said it would be there was not there. So many players like me quitted. The fighting system sux. Melee are weaker then bows and magic. Fighting in melee is like the second option of taking a knife in counter strike while the guns are bows and magic.

Did you ever saw one mmorpg none indi? UO dont count since it had been made by an indi company and EA buy it and ruined it. I dont think so, so thats why we cannot compar them. The day a rich company will think about making a perfect mmorpg with full loot, open pvp and flagging system if it need some, this game will also have the chance to shine like the today sandbox games.

Not sure where people are getting the idea that sandbox = full loot pvp.  EVE doesn't even have full loot all of the time.  Pre-CU SWG, one of the best sandboxes ever made, wasn't full loot (hell it wasn't even open pvp unless you TEF'd yourself).

Sandbox, very generally, is a game where players can advance however they want, without the restrictions of a level curve.  They can even choose not to advance at all, as sandboxes typically have fully developed social gaming elements and allow players to create their own content.

A sandbox can definitely include full loot pvp, but it certainly isn't a staple of the genre.

Originally posted by Realbigdeal

Comparing a todate sandbox game to a todate them park is not a good comparason at all so saying that theme park s better because of that  is not a good faq. Why?

EQ2 for exemple, i dont know about his developement, but i bet it had been made by an indi company. I never heard of it before, so it might not had been popular. Maybe we can put it at the same lvl as Eve, AC, and the old UO the day EQ 2 was out when wow was not here yet.

Blizzard is a very rich company and it was before wow. They had the money to make the perfect mmorpg. No matter how they decided to do it, it would had still been popular. So they decided to make it like EQ2 and they put all their money in hope that wow will be succeful The wacraft IP is already succeful enough so many will atempt to try. With their money, they can fix really fast any kind of stuff and add new stuff really fast. Balancing, wow devs are very good at this.

Then, we have what? ummm... Darkfall online for exemple. Its an indi company with not much money to maintain an mmorpg. It was popular before it was out, the most anticipate because we all thought it would be more like oblivion, but as an mmorpg with full loot, casual grind and whatever. When it was out, many feature that Tasos said it would be there was not there. So many players like me quitted. The fighting system sux. Melee are weaker then bows and magic. Fighting in melee is like the second option of taking a knife in counter strike while the guns are bows and magic.

Did you ever saw one mmorpg none indi? UO dont count since it had been made by an indi company and EA buy it and ruined it. I dont think so, so thats why we cannot compar them. The day a rich company will think about making a perfect mmorpg with full loot, open pvp and flagging system if it need some, this game will also have the chance to shine like the today sandbox games.

Please tell me English isn't your primary language...

Haven't been following Fallen Earth much.

But I don't need full loot to have a good sandbox experience. SWG pre-cu-nge and Ryzom showed me this.

That does not mean I am opposed to it either, but it has to be implemented well, like in EVE Online. EVE Online is not full loot either, because some items get destroyed in the kill and you are payed out insurance money when you loose your ship ( if you fly something expensive it is peanuts, but still )

Originally posted by Majinash

Originally posted by SaintViktor

Full loot pvp is awful for business.  The previous poster summed it up nicely.

 

EVE disproved this statement.  full loot when done right has been successful.  its just done wrong most of the time.

Just limit it to part of the game world. Even EVE has its safe Empire space where the carebears live. Without that, it might be less successful. 

But that is fine, you always can head to unregulated space when you feel like it. Just don't whine when you get gatecamped...

ummm.. I do not think  devs ever intended to have FFA full loot PVP in the game.  Last time I checked, pvp was only at conflict towns which effectively made it consensual. 

Originally posted by bustaj

ummm.. I do not think  devs ever intended to have FFA full loot PVP in the game.  Last time I checked, pvp was only at conflict towns which effectively made it consensual. 

I have been following this game for more than 2 years, and followed every dev announcement and Question of the Week for a long while.

This game was NEVER going to be full loot PvP. The devs never wanted it, the people in the community by and large never wanted it. Was NEVER going to be. There was some talk of limited looting of comsumables for PvP kills, but even that is still not fully determined.

The OP must have been reading about another Fallen Earth.

People that want that can stay in Darkfall and away from everyone else.

In your opinion, you mean. 

Most of the people that I know that are going to play this, do not care for full loot.

Originally posted by Burntvet

Originally posted by bustaj

ummm.. I do not think  devs ever intended to have FFA full loot PVP in the game.  Last time I checked, pvp was only at conflict towns which effectively made it consensual. 

 

I have been following this game for more than 2 years, and followed every dev announcement and Question of the Week for a long while.

This game was NEVER going to be full loot PvP. The devs never wanted it, the people in the community by and large never wanted it. Was NEVER going to be. There was some talk of limited looting of comsumables for PvP kills, but even that is still not fully determined.

The OP must have been reading about another Fallen Earth.

People that want that can stay in Darkfall and away from everyone else.

You do know you are preaching to the choir right?

I know that FE was never supposed to have FFA full loot hence why I said the devs never intended to have such PVP.  I guess the misunderstanding comes when I did not specify exactly what kind of pvp that occurs in conflict towns.  I should have said it's consensual and not full loot (or any type of looting for that matter) not just the former.

Originally posted by bustaj

Originally posted by Burntvet

Originally posted by bustaj

ummm.. I do not think  devs ever intended to have FFA full loot PVP in the game.  Last time I checked, pvp was only at conflict towns which effectively made it consensual. 

 

I have been following this game for more than 2 years, and followed every dev announcement and Question of the Week for a long while.

This game was NEVER going to be full loot PvP. The devs never wanted it, the people in the community by and large never wanted it. Was NEVER going to be. There was some talk of limited looting of comsumables for PvP kills, but even that is still not fully determined.

The OP must have been reading about another Fallen Earth.

People that want that can stay in Darkfall and away from everyone else.

 

You do know you are preaching to the choir right?

I know that FE was never supposed to have FFA full loot hence why I said the devs never intended to have such PVP.  I guess the misunderstanding comes when I did not specify exactly what kind of pvp that occurs in conflict towns.  I should have said it's consensual and not full loot (or any type of looting for that matter) not just the former.

No offense taken, I was more or less talking to the OP.....