Originally posted by Vanpry

Originally posted by bustaj

Imo, you do need PVP and looting to be a "true" sandbox because the murderer types have to be catered to as well.

With that being said, I think the problem these days is that devs do not make sandbox games with multiple viable options to shape the game world whether it be PVE, PVP, crafting, trading, exploring, etc..( all those little things UO has).  Instead they make a FFA pvp game with some of these things tacked on effectively making the "world" shaped by only PVP and nothing else to any significance.

So you can't have pvp zones and be true pvp?  Or is it you need to kill unwilling people to kill to make it a true pvp?  Sorry but post trammel UO was still a great sandbox game.  In it's current state it has lost some of it sandbox goodness but it is still one of the best sandbox games out.

What you OMFG pvp rules you carebear people need to realize is no sandbox game featuring ffa pvp will ever gain any traction.  Wouldn't it be better to have a sandbox game with pvp zones or flags then no sandbox game at all?  I don't understand the sandbox pvper mentality.  Look at the other good sandbox game Eve.  It does not allow people to act like asses throughout the entire game either.

Sigh... way to make a bunch of assumptions about me and what I meant....

I guess it's my fault for not giving details.

I'm not advocating in any way, form, or fashion FFA PVP with no real consequences.  Nor am I saying that post trammel UO is a crappy sandbox.  All I'm saying is that a "true" (by true I mean for everyone) sandbox offers a viable play-style for all types of people, including hardcore Pvpers.  Why should we (yes I like crafting and trading much more than pvp) be catered too and not the the hardcore pvp people?  Why keep someone from playing a shifty murdering bandit that is constantly running from the laws?  Why keep bounty hunters from hunting these types down for cash?  To me  this adds another dimension and substance to a game world as much as a robust crafting and trading system, or a game map with many secrets and goodies to be found.

I guess all I'm saying is that we non-pk types shouldn't outright deny the notion of open PVP because we are scared of griefing.

I think harsher but still fun consequences should be implemented.

Maybe something like if you kill a innocent person you are marked as a murder and there is no getting out of it and people  that do dealings with this person in this state will be marked as an accomplice.  Also have the laws chase him across the land (or specific territory of a faction, who knows) and randomly spawn every now and then to keep the murderer on their toes.  Lastly once they are caught they are sent to some island penal colony where they not only have to fight like-minded individuals to be the "alpha" but also have to find a way to breakout of the place and jack the daily supply boat back to he main land... or serve their time like a good prisoner and be set free innocent.. Lol

I could imagine griefers not liking this because they will spend far more time in the penal colony killing each other than killing the "sheep".  Not only that but their alts can't interact with the murderer character without becoming accomplices.  This does reinforce the player that wants to be that shady person that's looking for a challenge and is not necessarily trying to ruin someones playing experience.

Sorry the ideas started to flow for a second. Lol

The goal should be to discourage griefing, which adds nothing to the world but tons of annoyances, but leave the role or play-style of a murderer intact.

Originally posted by Inzra

Originally posted by Vanpry

So you can't have pvp zones and be true pvp?  Or is it you need to kill unwilling people to kill to make it a true pvp?  Sorry but post trammel UO was still a great sandbox game.  In it's current state it has lost some of it sandbox goodness but it is still one of the best sandbox games out.

What you OMFG pvp rules you carebear people need to realize is no sandbox game featuring ffa pvp will ever gain any traction.  Wouldn't it be better to have a sandbox game with pvp zones or flags then no sandbox game at all?  I don't understand the sandbox pvper mentality.  Look at the other good sandbox game Eve.  It does not allow people to act like asses throughout the entire game either.

 

Well it's certainly not full PvP, and I don't think there too many that are "willing" to die in a fight, so usually dieing in PvP will be unwilling. 

And I don't care how popular a game is, or the graphics quality, or animation, - I'l choose my game based on the gameplay first of all. Yes cause someone is going to spend millions of dollars designing and building a game just for you.  Think, if you design a niche game then focus on a niche in that niche your projected audience is very very small.  I know you don't care if a company makes money or not but the people footing the bill do.  

Sandbox the way I see it is to have as little restrictions from the game as possible, then the "restrictions" from the players have to be able to be coped with.

Since PvP can be coped with, I see no reason to restrict it by denying PvP in certain areas.

As for carebear... You got tons of games with PvP restrictions, not that many games with open real PvP... Here is a question for you to think about.  Why are there so few ffa pvp games out there and of the few that are how is their quality?

 

Reset of your comments I won't comment on because I can't tell if you are trying to be thick or not.

A sandbox does not force you to do anything so it does not require wide open PVP and loot, it can however be a option people choose to participate in as that could be something added to a sandbox experiance.

Originally posted by bustaj

Originally posted by Vanpry

Originally posted by bustaj

Imo, you do need PVP and looting to be a "true" sandbox because the murderer types have to be catered to as well.

With that being said, I think the problem these days is that devs do not make sandbox games with multiple viable options to shape the game world whether it be PVE, PVP, crafting, trading, exploring, etc..( all those little things UO has).  Instead they make a FFA pvp game with some of these things tacked on effectively making the "world" shaped by only PVP and nothing else to any significance.

So you can't have pvp zones and be true pvp?  Or is it you need to kill unwilling people to kill to make it a true pvp?  Sorry but post trammel UO was still a great sandbox game.  In it's current state it has lost some of it sandbox goodness but it is still one of the best sandbox games out.

What you OMFG pvp rules you carebear people need to realize is no sandbox game featuring ffa pvp will ever gain any traction.  Wouldn't it be better to have a sandbox game with pvp zones or flags then no sandbox game at all?  I don't understand the sandbox pvper mentality.  Look at the other good sandbox game Eve.  It does not allow people to act like asses throughout the entire game either.

Sigh... way to make a bunch of assumptions about me and what I meant....

I guess it's my fault for not giving details.

I'm not advocating in any way, form, or fashion FFA PVP with no real consequences.  Nor am I saying that post trammel UO is a crappy sandbox.  All I'm saying is that a "true" (by true I mean for everyone) sandbox offers a viable play-style for all types of people, including hardcore Pvpers.  Why should we (yes I like crafting and trading much more than pvp) be catered too and not the the hardcore pvp people?  Why keep someone from playing a shifty murdering bandit that is constantly running from the laws?  Why keep bounty hunters from hunting these types down for cash?  To me  this adds another dimension and substance to a game world as much as a robust crafting and trading system, or a game map with many secrets and goodies to be found.

I guess all I'm saying is that we non-pk types shouldn't outright deny the notion of open PVP because we are scared of griefing.

I think harsher but still fun consequences should be implemented.

Maybe something like if you kill a innocent person you are marked as a murder and there is no getting out of it and people  that do dealings with this person in this state will be marked as an accomplice.  Also have the laws chase him across the land (or specific territory of a faction, who knows) and randomly spawn every now and then to keep the murderer on their toes.  Lastly once they are caught they are sent to some island penal colony where they not only have to fight like-minded individuals to be the "alpha" but also have to find a way to breakout of the place and jack the daily supply boat back to he main land... or serve their time like a good prisoner and be set free innocent.. Lol

I could imagine griefers not liking this because they will spend far more time in the penal colony killing each other than killing the "sheep".  Not only that but their alts can't interact with the murderer character without becoming accomplices.  This does reinforce the player that wants to be that shady person that's looking for a challenge and is not necessarily trying to ruin someones playing experience.

Sorry the ideas started to flow for a second. Lol

The goal should be to discourage griefing, which adds nothing to the world but tons of annoyances, but leave the role or play-style of a murderer intact.

 

 

Sorry but you did sound like my assumptions.  As far as all your comments and ideas they aren't bad.  I have kicked similar ideas myself, but they will never happen.  Before trammel was created they kicked around different ideas to lessen the ramped pking and all the manly pkers cried like little girls.  They don't want a system where they have as much risk as a pver.

The reason that UO PvP worked and all other developers fail is because UO developers understood that PvP was a FRACTION of what their world had to offer, not a FACTOR. The sooner that mmo players can get over this infactuation with the place of PvP in the greater scheme of building a better MMO world, the sooner we'll see better MMO offerings.

---

Originally posted by Vanpry

Sorry but you did sound like my assumptions.  As far as all your comments and ideas they aren't bad.  I have kicked similar ideas myself, but they will never happen.  Before trammel was created they kicked around different ideas to lessen the ramped pking and all the manly pkers cried like little girls.  They don't want a system where they have as much risk as a pver.

---

I doubt it will ever happen as well but we are not talking about that, we are debating whether a true sandbox requires open PvP and loot or not. =P
I think it does because of the people that have a murderer-like play-style. This should be just as viable as everything else. The problems is those griefer carebears that want to kill everyone with no consequences.

Originally posted by bustaj

 

---

Originally posted by Vanpry

 

Sorry but you did sound like my assumptions.  As far as all your comments and ideas they aren't bad.  I have kicked similar ideas myself, but they will never happen.  Before trammel was created they kicked around different ideas to lessen the ramped pking and all the manly pkers cried like little girls.  They don't want a system where they have as much risk as a pver.

---

 

I doubt it will ever happen as well but we are not talking about that, we are debating whether a true sandbox requires open PvP and loot or not. =P
I think it does because of the people that have a murderer-like play-style. This should be just as viable as everything else. The problems is those griefer carebears that want to kill everyone with no consequences.

Ok I'll give you that point.  In a perfect world a perfect sandbox would have ffa pvp with consequences for both sides.

A "true sandbox" (whatever that actually means) should ofc have FFA combat and full loot. But to be a "true" sandbox it should also have equal development emphasis on non-combat activities. It's all very well the devs saying "you're free to do anything you like" if there are only tools present to do a few categories of activity.

As for "consequences", ie: NPC/Game mechanic inflicted penalties, they should be consistent with the theme of the game. Is the game set in a highly developed, technically advanced, politically unified civilisation? Consequences for law breaking should be severe and difficult to evade. Is the game set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland infested with roaming cannibal plague-zombies? NPC consequences should be minimal. However whatever those consequences are, they should be consequences. They should be applied after the fact; players wherever possbile should not be prevented by the game from actually doing something.

People who dont like the idea of maximum player freedom of action - including being horrible to other players - shouldn't be playing a sandbox game to start with.

Originally posted by Malcanis

A "true sandbox" (whatever that actually means) should ofc have FFA combat and full loot. But to be a "true" sandbox it should also have equal development emphasis on non-combat activities. It's all very well the devs saying "you're free to do anything you like" if there are only tools present to do a few categories of activity.

As for "consequences", ie: NPC/Game mechanic inflicted penalties, they should be consistent with the theme of the game. Is the game set in a highly developed, technically advanced, politically unified civilisation? Consequences for law breaking should be severe and difficult to evade. Is the game set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland infested with roaming cannibal plague-zombies? NPC consequences should be minimal. However whatever those consequences are, they should be consequences. They should be applied after the fact; players wherever possbile should not be prevented by the game from actually doing something.

People who dont like the idea of maximum player freedom of action - including being horrible to other players - shouldn't be playing a sandbox game to start with.

Well a true sandbox to me is a sandbox game that allows for all types of play equally within the scope of the game world.  I agree with you statement for the most part except the consequences and the maximum freedom.

Is the "true sandbox" still worthy of being called "true" if the aspects of one person's play-style totally disrupts and breaksdown the play-style of another?  To me it doesn't because now someone's play-style loses viability. They lose room in the "world" to fulfill the role they had in mind successfully.  Obviously I'm talking mainly about pking with little to no consequences.  I think that the non-PK people should expect to be pked every now and then in the "true" sandbox but not so much that they have to be watching their back constantly nor have to invest in tons of fighting skills to survive.  If they did then it would be more of a FFA PVP sandbox and not the "true" sandbox.  That's not to say that there shouldn't be places for true anarchy in the game world, but the whole world should not be this way.

Also consequences for PvP are needed for the griefers that have a play-style beyond the scope of the game world.  What do I mean by this?

Simply put, griefers are not killing for the loot, or that this person killed their clan mate; they are killing people just to annoy them as a player.  They just want to annoy and in essence attempt to make someone's play-style not viable anymore.  That's not playing the game, that's a personal attack to the individual.

I'll end by saying that I do not think the "true" sandbox  allows "maximum player freedom of action" but rather maximum play-style viability across the board.

Originally posted by Malcanis

People who dont like the idea of maximum player freedom of action - including being horrible to other players - shouldn't be playing a sandbox game to start with.

Keep that open minded thinking and we will never see a quality sandbox game.  It's a shame people would rather keep playing these theme park mmo or nothing at all  instead of giving a little bit to create a sandbox game with wider appeal.

PvP has nothing to do with a game being sandbox..

No. Only people who think that gaming is all about killing people and taking their stuff require open pvp and full looting. Truthfully all a sandbox requires is non-linear gameplay. A sandbox doesn't even require complete freedom to do as one pleases. as long as wha they are able to do is non-linear. At the end of the day a sand box is a box filled with sand. The edges of that box outlay the restrictions and the sand is there for the player to shape as one sees fit, throw in a few handy tools and you will have a recipe for some fun IMO.

PvP is a style of play, sandbox is a style of MMO. I think we have some confusion from the OP here.

How can dying or lost inventory not be a risk?

Permadeath is a risk, definetly. No one stops you from not role-playing this, there are some guilds in L2 or DDO (and others I guess) that play this way.

If you have a lot of time and simply don't mind,then yes, it isn't a risk to loose your stuff. For me, with limited time, if I need to invest a week or more to replace my stuff, now that would be a great "risk". Wouldn't have time, nor nerves to do that.

Dying is the same. Loosing XP which has to be replaced e.g., again a time-factor only, but if you don't have it... You might think the death-run in WoW is carebear, but running for 5 or 10 minutes to your corpse isn't my idea of fun really. Sure, it's not like UO where you have to corpse run, and you need to get your gear back. WoW is more hardcore than Warhammer in that aspect, no corpse run, only little gear damage.

You want sandbox and pvp? go to Mortal Online. but if it is enough for the OP, I wonder....

Originally posted by Scot

PvP is a style of play, sandbox is a style of MMO. I think we have some confusion from the OP here.

No confusion at all, Scot.

Originally posted by docminus

How can dying or lost inventory not be a risk?

Permadeath is a risk, definetly. No one stops you from not role-playing this, there are some guilds in L2 or DDO (and others I guess) that play this way.

If you have a lot of time and simply don't mind,then yes, it isn't a risk to loose your stuff. For me, with limited time, if I need to invest a week or more to replace my stuff, now that would be a great "risk". Wouldn't have time, nor nerves to do that.

Dying is the same. Loosing XP which has to be replaced e.g., again a time-factor only, but if you don't have it... You might think the death-run in WoW is carebear, but running for 5 or 10 minutes to your corpse isn't my idea of fun really. Sure, it's not like UO where you have to corpse run, and you need to get your gear back. WoW is more hardcore than Warhammer in that aspect, no corpse run, only little gear damage.

You want sandbox and pvp? go to Mortal Online. but if it is enough for the OP, I wonder....

Docminus, my comment about risk was for the PKer. You, acting as a harvester/tradesman, certainly have risk of losing the fruits of your labors. To the PKers, acting as a PKer, there is no downside. Death means nothing and lost loot is easily replaced from the loot they've taken from players like you.

 Mortal online does have a penalty for PKing. At least at this point, it may change and at least one of their developers wants to reduce it. If you go red for PKing, you lose 10% of stats (whatever they mean by that as in stats vs. skills) if you resurrect withing 5 hours of the PKing act. The 5 hours accumulate with each act of PKing, 3 acts of this nature means they have to wait 15 hours to res or lose the 10% stats. Uncertain if those are real hours or game play hours. Depending on how exactly they do this, it may be some deterrent or may be none at all. But that's not "wide open" in the way most of us take that to mean.

"True Sandbox requires wide open PvP and loot? "

No, a true sandbox is the sum of its end user tools. Anything else, is irrelevant.