in this way, eve assured that PVE and PVP will simply have to make nice, and (except for hulkageddon!!!!) this arrangement has made it possible for many a so called care bear to step into the pvp sandbox of eve and find a home.
Yet carebearing in EvE isn't really a supported game style. If you're a nullbear, you're also out of your element, because PvP is the prime focus of EvE. It's nice that there is some PvE concepts, but you know full well that miner is prey, thus, your Hulkageddon remark.
EvE isn't a good example of a sandbox game, too many other aspects in it that prevents having a true sandbox. I call EvE sandbox in name only, because the illusion is there of a sandbox (no "!" signs over agent heads [though you're reminded they are there when you dock]; you are free to travel and all), but that illusion ends beyond the safety of high-sec. Then it becomes a EQ style game, with one avatar guild dictating access to content and controlling the server economy. So, truly, it's not truly a sandbox game.
Agents are pure themepark. But you can take it or leave it. And there are more than one way of dealing with the missions. They are simply a crutch to shore up the game play while you figure out what else to do. The game could, in theory, work without any agent missions at all. And, in the past atleast, they have been a source of problems for the in-game economy. But before I skilled up much and before many of the easy mode ships were added, they used to be a real challenge. And they still are to a lesser degree. I was still trying to cut time off my missions or complete them with less ammo spent, when I stopped playing.
A guild asserting control is exactly the sort of emergent game play I expect from a sandbox. And it is what I expected from any MMO when I first started playing. The whole villain/hero dynamic is important to me. I dont think I've been the villain much in my "gaming carreer". Only instances I can think of has been in situations where the pvp was consentual. (I kept beating up on guys that came in looking for a fight and kept comming back for more,)
The sort of control you describe is only a real problem if the game mechanics prevent you from doing anything about it. Like if someone is camping a spawn or someone last hits and ninjas the loot or something.. if you are blocked from doing anything about that, because of some themepark mechanic then it detracts from the quality of the game.
There's a certain sort of gamer (refered to by the OP as 'bullies') that aren't playing the game everyone else is. They're working on making someone behind another keyboard or controller feel bad. Game companies know that those bullies drive off playing (and paying) customers. The more a game allows them to easily do this, the more will show up to partake. But their numbers will never match that of the people they drive off.
And, running a sandbox game is not easy. The UO staff were continually pulling their hair out at bad behavior and exploits that caused the devs constant trouble. Ill prepared 'sandboxy' games will be discovering this once again. Unless they've really done their homework.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Um...without going to refute every single line seperatedly, because pretty much every single line is flawed, I would sum up the fallacy of OP:
The force behind the change is economical, not the demand. There is no rise of people asking sandbox games, it is just development of standard model MMO is way too expensive and some developers are trying out new possible, profitable approach how to make a game.
Quite tiring, repeated ad nausea fallacy of looking at MMO development from "gamer" point of view. Games are not made for nor by "gamers", they are made to make money.
And last, but not least, when a game developer announce a development of "sandbox" game, it can mean basically anything...and people like to fill the holes with wishful thinking.
Going to have to agree with Gdemami here. The OP sets up his own definition of sandbox and his own version of history to base his arguments around, resulting in some really odd and flawed conclusions - which is a shame because there is a decent amount of truth to a good portion of what he presents, especially the overview of the general interests regarding sandbox content.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Agents are pure themepark. But you can take it or leave it. And there are more than one way of dealing with the missions. They are simply a crutch to shore up the game play while you figure out what else to do. The game could, in theory, work without any agent missions at all. And, in the past atleast, they have been a source of problems for the in-game economy. But before I skilled up much and before many of the easy mode ships were added, they used to be a real challenge. And they still are to a lesser degree. I was still trying to cut time off my missions or complete them with less ammo spent, when I stopped playing.
A guild asserting control is exactly the sort of emergent game play I expect from a sandbox. And it is what I expected from any MMO when I first started playing. The whole villain/hero dynamic is important to me. I dont think I've been the villain much in my "gaming carreer". Only instances I can think of has been in situations where the pvp was consentual. (I kept beating up on guys that came in looking for a fight and kept comming back for more,)
The sort of control you describe is only a real problem if the game mechanics prevent you from doing anything about it. Like if someone is camping a spawn or someone last hits and ninjas the loot or something.. if you are blocked from doing anything about that, because of some themepark mechanic then it detracts from the quality of the game.
You are looking at this wrong. Rather than fiddling around with retribution mechanics, why not get rid of all the things that create the need for retribution? Get rid of spawncamping, killstealing and ninja looting.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
A guild asserting control is exactly the sort of emergent game play I expect from a sandbox. And it is what I expected from any MMO when I first started playing. The whole villain/hero dynamic is important to me. I dont think I've been the villain much in my "gaming carreer". Only instances I can think of has been in situations where the pvp was consentual. (I kept beating up on guys that came in looking for a fight and kept comming back for more,)
The sort of control you describe is only a real problem if the game mechanics prevent you from doing anything about it. Like if someone is camping a spawn or someone last hits and ninjas the loot or something.. if you are blocked from doing anything about that, because of some themepark mechanic then it detracts from the quality of the game.
You are looking at this wrong. Rather than fiddling around with retribution mechanics, why not get rid of all the things that create the need for retribution? Get rid of spawncamping, killstealing and ninja looting.
But all of those things are interesting.. They are annoying too, of course, but if you can do something about the situation, then its a game building mechanic. If you cant do anything about it, then its a game breaker.
You should be able to dominate a game resource and monopolize. But at the same time it needs to be allowed to steal it fgrom under your nose or kill you and take it from you.. Its a goal to play for from either side. At least thats the sandboxy way of it. You can have a perfectly good themepark where everyone gets their own private monsters and resources to play with. I just dont go for that single/lan play kind of mmo.
Also I would claim that in many cases it takes just as much effort to fiddle around with protection mechanics.
A guild asserting control is exactly the sort of emergent game play I expect from a sandbox. And it is what I expected from any MMO when I first started playing. The whole villain/hero dynamic is important to me. I dont think I've been the villain much in my "gaming carreer". Only instances I can think of has been in situations where the pvp was consentual. (I kept beating up on guys that came in looking for a fight and kept comming back for more,)
The sort of control you describe is only a real problem if the game mechanics prevent you from doing anything about it. Like if someone is camping a spawn or someone last hits and ninjas the loot or something.. if you are blocked from doing anything about that, because of some themepark mechanic then it detracts from the quality of the game.
You are looking at this wrong. Rather than fiddling around with retribution mechanics, why not get rid of all the things that create the need for retribution? Get rid of spawncamping, killstealing and ninja looting.
But all of those things are interesting.. They are annoying too, of course, but if you can do something about the situation, then its a game building mechanic. If you cant do anything about it, then its a game breaker.
You should be able to dominate a game resource and monopolize. But at the same time it needs to be allowed to steal it fgrom under your nose or kill you and take it from you.. Its a goal to play for from either side. At least thats the sandboxy way of it. You can have a perfectly good themepark where everyone gets their own private monsters and resources to play with. I just dont go for that single/lan play kind of mmo.
Also I would claim that in many cases it takes just as much effort to fiddle around with protection mechanics.
Interesting to one player =/= fun for everyone.
Bottom line: is an action more of a hindrance or an asset?
Annoyances that add up causes player unease, and if that unease becomes too difficult, they leave.
You are looking at this wrong. Rather than fiddling around with retribution mechanics, why not get rid of all the things that create the need for retribution? Get rid of spawncamping, killstealing and ninja looting.
But all of those things are interesting.. They are annoying too, of course, but if you can do something about the situation, then its a game building mechanic. If you cant do anything about it, then its a game breaker.
You should be able to dominate a game resource and monopolize. But at the same time it needs to be allowed to steal it fgrom under your nose or kill you and take it from you.. Its a goal to play for from either side. At least thats the sandboxy way of it. You can have a perfectly good themepark where everyone gets their own private monsters and resources to play with. I just dont go for that single/lan play kind of mmo.
Also I would claim that in many cases it takes just as much effort to fiddle around with protection mechanics.
I thought I would never hear griefing called a "game building mechanic"...
Griefing is not a zero sum situation. The displeasure one gets from being griefed is disproportionate to the pleasure one might get from griefing. And what is the objective of all this griefing? Does the player want to instigate PvP? And if the other player doesn't want to participate, what then? You just get one guy upset, and another slightly less so.
Meanwhile, nothing stops people from picking a game that doesn't have griefing over a game that does. The market for people who want to grief or want to be griefed is marginal at best. It is an unsustainable concept. Fuck everything "what sandboxes should be". It should be about serving the players. If you can't make something work, or it doesn't make sense, get rid of it.
Even if you don't admit it. Nobody has ever played a game specifically because it is an MMORPG or a sandbox or whatever. They play the game because it is fun. The game only happens to be a MMORPG, a sandbox, etc.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You are looking at this wrong. Rather than fiddling around with retribution mechanics, why not get rid of all the things that create the need for retribution? Get rid of spawncamping, killstealing and ninja looting.
But all of those things are interesting.. They are annoying too, of course, but if you can do something about the situation, then its a game building mechanic. If you cant do anything about it, then its a game breaker. You should be able to dominate a game resource and monopolize. But at the same time it needs to be allowed to steal it fgrom under your nose or kill you and take it from you.. Its a goal to play for from either side. At least thats the sandboxy way of it. You can have a perfectly good themepark where everyone gets their own private monsters and resources to play with. I just dont go for that single/lan play kind of mmo. Also I would claim that in many cases it takes just as much effort to fiddle around with protection mechanics.
I thought I would never hear griefing called a "game building mechanic"...
Griefing is not a zero sum situation. The displeasure one gets from being griefed is disproportionate to the pleasure one might get from griefing. And what is the objective of all this griefing? Does the player want to instigate PvP? And if the other player doesn't want to participate, what then? You just get one guy upset, and another slightly less so.
Meanwhile, nothing stops people from picking a game that doesn't have griefing over a game that does. The market for people who want to grief or want to be griefed is marginal at best. It is an unsustainable concept. Fuck everything "what sandboxes should be". It should be about serving the players. If you can't make something work, or it doesn't make sense, get rid of it.
Even if you don't admit it. Nobody has ever played a game specifically because it is an MMORPG or a sandbox or whatever. They play the game because it is fun. The game only happens to be a MMORPG, a sandbox, etc.
Some people find game play that would otherwise be described as "griefing" fun. They are willing to put up with being griefed themselves, as long as they have the option to grief someone else.
Luckily, those people are few in number relative to all the other people, so there are plenty of games where game play that would otherwise be called "griefing" isn't a standard mechanic.
**
Lucky for me. Not for the people who like mechanics otherwise known as "griefing".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
An MMO that lets me do whatever I want will also let other people do whatever they want, and most people aren't good at dealing with that, and will complain like crazy that other people are "abusing" their freedom by "playing the game wrong".
The obvious solution is for MMO developers to create sandbox MMOs which are each sold only to one person; all the other "players" will actually be paid staff who will only play the game in the way in which the purchaser approves of.
Naturally the game will also have to be F2P. Nothing justifies a subscription in this day and age of free developers, electricity, servers, customer service, GMs, tech support and of course those tens of thousands of guys who'd better play the game my way if they don't want to be fired from their unpaid job.
You try to better the avatar (space ship), not by doing Raids but by crafting and playing in its economy.
Of course it is different enough to warrant an exclusive public, but in the end it is the same:
Try to better the stats of parts of your avatar.
The rest is blablabla sandbox blablabla theme park and ..." I am more intelligent since I play a game that needs a spreadsheet".
End of story.
Give me Diablo 3 hardcore/resource economy over EVE any time. At least I can fight mobs there.
You're dead wrong. The "best" ship in the game, a Titan, is dead meat if you're caught in one alone. The quality of the group you belong to matters massively more than your personal gear in EVE.
considering nearly everything in eve is crafted by players you can see how important CCP have made the ever belittled care bear to their game's economy.
in this way, eve assured that PVE and PVP will simply have to make nice, and (except for hulkageddon!!!!) this arrangement has made it possible for many a so called care bear to step into the pvp sandbox of eve and find a home.
this is the economic engine of eve but (and here i am nodding to the OP) what systems are in place to assure that pvp/ pve relationship is maintained? the High-sec / low-sec / nullsec system. in it, some places are delineated by the game as safer from ill wishing pvp'ers than others. the only 100% time a player is safe is when they are docked, but in high sec one has a very good deal of protection, mostly in the form of very swift punishment that CONCORD (in game police) will dish out to outlaws.
to me this is just what the doctor ordered when the OP expressed their concerns for any game in which griefing is allowed to turn lots of folks away from a sandbox MMO. "a safe place". as much as I love eve and CCP i don't think for a second that it would have survived this long without the sec system.
lets compare this to Darkfall (current iteration). in darkfall there are actual small corners of the map where pvp cannot occur whatsoever. however everywhere else, people are free game and no punishment exists to prevent someone from ruining a peaceful player's harvesting run, etc. I personally dont mind this approach to the point of excluding the game (i played it for a while and only quit because it had adverse effects on my CPU temperature... funny for an 8 core CPU but that's for another thread aint it). but it does a whole lot to make the sandbox mmo experience more shallow for pve players and therefore, as pve players leave, more shallow overall. for example, to play darkfall without getting frustrated to the point of pulling hair out, one NEEDS to acquire the mindset that gear is completely throwaway and you don't need to sweat the loss of your gear at all. in eve your "gear" (space ship) is also destructable but the nature of eve's security systems allow for gear to be introduced into the game that takes great endeavors to produce, the loss of which would be a DRAMATIC blow not just to a player but to a whole alliance of players (eve players know i'm talking about titans). emotional bonds to a game are part of what keeps a gamer coming back to a game; I know that i would be upset if i lost my PVE dominix that has served me in 0.0 unharmed by other players for 2 years. that's a good thing for ccp. i have an emotional bond to their game. When i lost a set of gear in darkfall that i had actually crafted myself i simply went to my bank and got an identical set of gear and equipped it.
i guess this is my long winded way of pretty much (but not exactly) agreeing with the OP. though it should be reaffirmed that EQN can very easily be a sandbox MMO with no pvp whatsoever or (this is my preference) exist in multiple PVP states on multiple servers with different rulesets.
Well certainly PVEers are required by EVE's gameplay. In that respect, "carebears" are thrown a small bone although they have to submit to one of the most boring PVE games ever in order to participate, so there's that (but just because EVE's PVE is ultra boring doesn't make your point less true.)
But it really doesn't justify the big piece PVEers don't want, which is wholly negative to them, in being forced to PVP occasionally (even in high-sec.) While it fits in EVE's overall systems design, it really isn't the type of fun PVEers are looking for at all.
Especially since it's shallow PVP. Personally I only PVE in MMORPGs. But I PVP a lot. In other games. Because PVP in MMORPG involves so many non-skill factors like population (zerging) and progression (gear/level advantages) that it's very casual, shallow PVP. While casual PVP works for some, my standards are higher than that. (Though tragically I'm playing Planetside 2 right now. PS2 involves both those non-skill factors which I feel almost cripple the game beyond playability. But in absence of another deeper FPS lately, it feels like my only option.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you buy a PvP game, create a character, and log into the game then the act of someone killing you, despite the fact you had a bad day at work, isn't 'griefing' in any meaningful sense of the word. It isn't any more 'griefing' then a Rook taking your Pawn in a game of chess.
For too many people the term 'griefing' means: "I didn't win the encounter" - and that is nonsense.
When I first started playing these games 'griefing' was things like teleporting someone to a 1 square island in Ultima Online, stealing their reagents, and leaving them stranded there for hours with no way to escape or play the game. A game master had to intervene or the character would be there forever. Another example might be in early LOTRO where is was possible to root an enemy player indefinitely - the spell could be recast before the root would break - you could hold a player, helpless, in place all evening long.
Now some players consider it 'griefing' if you beat them to a node and harvest it before they do.
Those sorts of players should be banned from the game as quickly as real 'griefers'.
Griefing only occurs when one side is helpless. Only a developer can make that happen.
Otherwise it would be called gameplay instead of griefing.
Cheating is breaking the rules. That's what you're describing.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Consider an alternative explanation: it's not about freedom. It's about meaning. Or rather the illusion of meaning, as we're still talking about a virtual world, not the real one.
A sandbox MMO gives players tools to play the game in a way that makes their actions meaningful to the other players around them, as opposed to a themepark game where the existence of other players means little to nothing to you, and your own influence over others vanishes once you log off.
You're dead wrong. The "best" ship in the game, a Titan, is dead meat if you're caught in one alone. The quality of the group you belong to matters massively more than your personal gear in EVE.
Good to know. I don't depend on others for my fun. Now i have one more reason to avoid Eve (the first one is that it is easy-mode boring pve missions).
I think your views are old ideas that have created this current crappy situation in mmorpgs today.
Since you mentioned minecraft... Minecraft has crappy graphics but many new players enjoy the freedom to play as they like. You have one of the most harsh death penalties I ever seen. But kids, moms and teens are addicted to this game. On private servers people enjoy pvping and exploring new areas with the sense of danger being every where.
The idea of having a game were you decide how to play has come full circle. I do beleive that any successful game should have dedicated pvp worlds as well ass your standard carebear world options.
But if you claim to enjoy the freedom of emoting in a field you should respect another players freedom to gang bang you back to town until you can raise a force to take back your emote area.
But if you claim to enjoy the freedom of emoting in a field you should respect another players freedom to gang bang you back to town until you can raise a force to take back your emote area.
nah .. i can simply not play such a game. Having others spoiling my fun is .. well .. not fun to me.
But it really doesn't justify the big piece PVEers don't want, which is wholly negative to them, in being forced to PVP occasionally (even in high-sec.) While it fits in EVE's overall systems design, it really isn't the type of fun PVEers are looking for at all. Especially since it's shallow PVP. Personally I only PVE in MMORPGs. But I PVP a lot. In other games. Because PVP in MMORPG involves so many non-skill factors like population (zerging) and progression (gear/level advantages) that it's very casual, shallow PVP. While casual PVP works for some, my standards are higher than that. (Though tragically I'm playing Planetside 2 right now. PS2 involves both those non-skill factors which I feel almost cripple the game beyond playability. But in absence of another deeper FPS lately, it feels like my only option.)
That's the thing I really don't understand in all of this. It isn't that PvErs would shun PvP in itself (leveled my main in WoW through the BGs, and if Horde shows up, out there healing my allies), but PvP centric games pigeonhole PvE players to a corner for their activities, then make them the prey. It's the prey part that sucks. The PvPers will claim that's a consequence for choice, but the choice is the PvE aspect, not being prey.
EvE is a great example of it. Like the trade side of the game? You are prey. The hunters don't even need to be terribly geared, because the PvEr is even handicapped so the hunters can have easier kills (PvE activity ships like a mining barge are totally defense, you couldn't even shoot back. The Procurer has some tank, but what is a tank if you're being blasted by a cheap throw away Destroyer with Ion weapons? See? Their 2mil ISK ship will always destroy your 30mil ship). It's cheap kills in a game that gets off on it. They will claim, "mine in a fleet for protection", but they know the PvPers hate babysitting like that, which is why so many solo mine. They have their excuses all lined up in a row, yet the overall gameplay IS griefing -- the prey is 100% defense (no weapons) in a higher cost/fit/skill ship and the hunter is in a 100% offensive ship that can be cheaper than 1mil ISK to fit, requires a couple days of training, and it'll blow it apart. Designed top down for pure griefing.
I would play EvE more if the game wasn't so one sided in gameplay, and IF I had a fighting chance. A healer in WoW has more offensive abilities than a miner in EvE. That's what off, to make it where 30mil ISK mining ship will have to be attacked by a 30+mil ISK fighting ship, so some griefer can't brag he's some pro hunting 100% sitting ducks (the game is full of that gameplay...zero skill PvP). Even the skill time to PvE is longer than to PvP. O.o
But if you claim to enjoy the freedom of emoting in a field you should respect another players freedom to gang bang you back to town until you can raise a force to take back your emote area.
nah .. i can simply not play such a game. Having others spoiling my fun is .. well .. not fun to me.
But if you claim to enjoy the freedom of emoting in a field you should respect another players freedom to gang bang you back to town until you can raise a force to take back your emote area.
nah .. i can simply not play such a game. Having others spoiling my fun is .. well .. not fun to me.
lol then a open game world is not for you.
No. It is not. I don't mind an open world, but it is certainly not required for a game to be fun to me.
Comments
No, no one in particular. Just when it comes to sandbox games/pvp discussions logic pretty much flies out the window.
Agents are pure themepark. But you can take it or leave it. And there are more than one way of dealing with the missions. They are simply a crutch to shore up the game play while you figure out what else to do. The game could, in theory, work without any agent missions at all. And, in the past atleast, they have been a source of problems for the in-game economy. But before I skilled up much and before many of the easy mode ships were added, they used to be a real challenge. And they still are to a lesser degree. I was still trying to cut time off my missions or complete them with less ammo spent, when I stopped playing.
A guild asserting control is exactly the sort of emergent game play I expect from a sandbox. And it is what I expected from any MMO when I first started playing. The whole villain/hero dynamic is important to me. I dont think I've been the villain much in my "gaming carreer". Only instances I can think of has been in situations where the pvp was consentual. (I kept beating up on guys that came in looking for a fight and kept comming back for more,)
The sort of control you describe is only a real problem if the game mechanics prevent you from doing anything about it. Like if someone is camping a spawn or someone last hits and ninjas the loot or something.. if you are blocked from doing anything about that, because of some themepark mechanic then it detracts from the quality of the game.
EVE is not a sandbox.
EVE is a gear grind just like WOW.
You try to better the avatar (space ship), not by doing Raids but by crafting and playing in its economy.
Of course it is different enough to warrant an exclusive public, but in the end it is the same:
Try to better the stats of parts of your avatar.
The rest is blablabla sandbox blablabla theme park and ..." I am more intelligent since I play a game that needs a spreadsheet".
End of story.
Give me Diablo 3 hardcore/resource economy over EVE any time. At least I can fight mobs there.
There's a certain sort of gamer (refered to by the OP as 'bullies') that aren't playing the game everyone else is. They're working on making someone behind another keyboard or controller feel bad. Game companies know that those bullies drive off playing (and paying) customers. The more a game allows them to easily do this, the more will show up to partake. But their numbers will never match that of the people they drive off.
And, running a sandbox game is not easy. The UO staff were continually pulling their hair out at bad behavior and exploits that caused the devs constant trouble. Ill prepared 'sandboxy' games will be discovering this once again. Unless they've really done their homework.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Going to have to agree with Gdemami here. The OP sets up his own definition of sandbox and his own version of history to base his arguments around, resulting in some really odd and flawed conclusions - which is a shame because there is a decent amount of truth to a good portion of what he presents, especially the overview of the general interests regarding sandbox content.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
That isn't sandbox, that's EQ/EQII and they're definitely not sandbox games.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
You are looking at this wrong. Rather than fiddling around with retribution mechanics, why not get rid of all the things that create the need for retribution? Get rid of spawncamping, killstealing and ninja looting.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But all of those things are interesting.. They are annoying too, of course, but if you can do something about the situation, then its a game building mechanic. If you cant do anything about it, then its a game breaker.
You should be able to dominate a game resource and monopolize. But at the same time it needs to be allowed to steal it fgrom under your nose or kill you and take it from you.. Its a goal to play for from either side. At least thats the sandboxy way of it. You can have a perfectly good themepark where everyone gets their own private monsters and resources to play with. I just dont go for that single/lan play kind of mmo.
Also I would claim that in many cases it takes just as much effort to fiddle around with protection mechanics.
It is. And while I wouldnt call EQ or EQ2 sandbox games, they certainly had sandbox elements, this is just one of those.
I shouldnt really put out claims about EQ2, though, since I only tried it for like 15 minutes. But I recon Im on safe ground with my point above.
Interesting to one player =/= fun for everyone.
Bottom line: is an action more of a hindrance or an asset?
Annoyances that add up causes player unease, and if that unease becomes too difficult, they leave.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
I thought I would never hear griefing called a "game building mechanic"...
Griefing is not a zero sum situation. The displeasure one gets from being griefed is disproportionate to the pleasure one might get from griefing. And what is the objective of all this griefing? Does the player want to instigate PvP? And if the other player doesn't want to participate, what then? You just get one guy upset, and another slightly less so.
Meanwhile, nothing stops people from picking a game that doesn't have griefing over a game that does. The market for people who want to grief or want to be griefed is marginal at best. It is an unsustainable concept. Fuck everything "what sandboxes should be". It should be about serving the players. If you can't make something work, or it doesn't make sense, get rid of it.
Even if you don't admit it. Nobody has ever played a game specifically because it is an MMORPG or a sandbox or whatever. They play the game because it is fun. The game only happens to be a MMORPG, a sandbox, etc.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Some people find game play that would otherwise be described as "griefing" fun. They are willing to put up with being griefed themselves, as long as they have the option to grief someone else.
Luckily, those people are few in number relative to all the other people, so there are plenty of games where game play that would otherwise be called "griefing" isn't a standard mechanic.
**
Lucky for me. Not for the people who like mechanics otherwise known as "griefing".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
So the tl;dr of the OP is:
An MMO that lets me do whatever I want will also let other people do whatever they want, and most people aren't good at dealing with that, and will complain like crazy that other people are "abusing" their freedom by "playing the game wrong".
The obvious solution is for MMO developers to create sandbox MMOs which are each sold only to one person; all the other "players" will actually be paid staff who will only play the game in the way in which the purchaser approves of.
Naturally the game will also have to be F2P. Nothing justifies a subscription in this day and age of free developers, electricity, servers, customer service, GMs, tech support and of course those tens of thousands of guys who'd better play the game my way if they don't want to be fired from their unpaid job.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
You're dead wrong. The "best" ship in the game, a Titan, is dead meat if you're caught in one alone. The quality of the group you belong to matters massively more than your personal gear in EVE.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
Well certainly PVEers are required by EVE's gameplay. In that respect, "carebears" are thrown a small bone although they have to submit to one of the most boring PVE games ever in order to participate, so there's that (but just because EVE's PVE is ultra boring doesn't make your point less true.)
But it really doesn't justify the big piece PVEers don't want, which is wholly negative to them, in being forced to PVP occasionally (even in high-sec.) While it fits in EVE's overall systems design, it really isn't the type of fun PVEers are looking for at all.
Especially since it's shallow PVP. Personally I only PVE in MMORPGs. But I PVP a lot. In other games. Because PVP in MMORPG involves so many non-skill factors like population (zerging) and progression (gear/level advantages) that it's very casual, shallow PVP. While casual PVP works for some, my standards are higher than that. (Though tragically I'm playing Planetside 2 right now. PS2 involves both those non-skill factors which I feel almost cripple the game beyond playability. But in absence of another deeper FPS lately, it feels like my only option.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Griefing only occurs when one side is helpless. Only a developer can make that happen.
Otherwise it would be called gameplay instead of griefing.
Cheating is breaking the rules. That's what you're describing.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Consider an alternative explanation: it's not about freedom. It's about meaning. Or rather the illusion of meaning, as we're still talking about a virtual world, not the real one.
A sandbox MMO gives players tools to play the game in a way that makes their actions meaningful to the other players around them, as opposed to a themepark game where the existence of other players means little to nothing to you, and your own influence over others vanishes once you log off.
Good to know. I don't depend on others for my fun. Now i have one more reason to avoid Eve (the first one is that it is easy-mode boring pve missions).
I think your views are old ideas that have created this current crappy situation in mmorpgs today.
Since you mentioned minecraft... Minecraft has crappy graphics but many new players enjoy the freedom to play as they like. You have one of the most harsh death penalties I ever seen. But kids, moms and teens are addicted to this game. On private servers people enjoy pvping and exploring new areas with the sense of danger being every where.
The idea of having a game were you decide how to play has come full circle. I do beleive that any successful game should have dedicated pvp worlds as well ass your standard carebear world options.
But if you claim to enjoy the freedom of emoting in a field you should respect another players freedom to gang bang you back to town until you can raise a force to take back your emote area.
nah .. i can simply not play such a game. Having others spoiling my fun is .. well .. not fun to me.
That's the thing I really don't understand in all of this. It isn't that PvErs would shun PvP in itself (leveled my main in WoW through the BGs, and if Horde shows up, out there healing my allies), but PvP centric games pigeonhole PvE players to a corner for their activities, then make them the prey. It's the prey part that sucks. The PvPers will claim that's a consequence for choice, but the choice is the PvE aspect, not being prey.
EvE is a great example of it. Like the trade side of the game? You are prey. The hunters don't even need to be terribly geared, because the PvEr is even handicapped so the hunters can have easier kills (PvE activity ships like a mining barge are totally defense, you couldn't even shoot back. The Procurer has some tank, but what is a tank if you're being blasted by a cheap throw away Destroyer with Ion weapons? See? Their 2mil ISK ship will always destroy your 30mil ship). It's cheap kills in a game that gets off on it. They will claim, "mine in a fleet for protection", but they know the PvPers hate babysitting like that, which is why so many solo mine. They have their excuses all lined up in a row, yet the overall gameplay IS griefing -- the prey is 100% defense (no weapons) in a higher cost/fit/skill ship and the hunter is in a 100% offensive ship that can be cheaper than 1mil ISK to fit, requires a couple days of training, and it'll blow it apart. Designed top down for pure griefing.
I would play EvE more if the game wasn't so one sided in gameplay, and IF I had a fighting chance. A healer in WoW has more offensive abilities than a miner in EvE. That's what off, to make it where 30mil ISK mining ship will have to be attacked by a 30+mil ISK fighting ship, so some griefer can't brag he's some pro hunting 100% sitting ducks (the game is full of that gameplay...zero skill PvP). Even the skill time to PvE is longer than to PvP. O.o
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
lol then a open game world is not for you.
No. It is not. I don't mind an open world, but it is certainly not required for a game to be fun to me.