That does sound a bit daunting. At least when I played Ultima Online I don't recall it taking that long to skill up and replacing your gear wasn't usually that difficult. The only thing I can recall missing a lot was all the regents that were lost for casting spells and also the materials I spent a lot of time collecting like ore.
I wouldn't want to play a game with a long level grind or a harsh experience penalty and have open world PvP.
It was a while ago, but certainly does it seems like more and more grind before you get to the good parts (Mortal online and Darkfall to mention 2). Then again, it was a long time ago and I don't think we really can trust our memory that much with stuff like that (going back and playing really old games can be rather painful and MMOs that still around is not like they were back then either unless you find a vanilla pirate server.
But yeah, that is a big part of the problem. And it tends to lead to people grouping in larger and larger groups nowadays leading to zergs.
Is there such a thing as a single-player open world sandbox game?
Minecraft?
Thanks! I've always rejected the premise that "open world sandbox" required PVP. I was just making sure that premise was still false.
While I havn't played it personally, friends say that Wurms online doesn't have open world PvP either. It have some kind of PvP though.
And sure, you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox but you need ways to clear the lands of old houses and crap. I guess you could mix in mob barbarians and a need to service any buildings often or they turn into ruins that other players can clear...
The sandbox that failed most mysteriously was Sims online, while it lacked PvP I just can't believe that considering how popular the regular games are and how easy it should be to implement the mechanics in a huge game.
Is there such a thing as a single-player open world sandbox game?
Minecraft?
Thanks! I've always rejected the premise that "open world sandbox" required PVP. I was just making sure that premise was still false.
While I havn't played it personally, friends say that Wurms online doesn't have open world PvP either. It have some kind of PvP though.
And sure, you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox but you need ways to clear the lands of old houses and crap. I guess you could mix in mob barbarians and a need to service any buildings often or they turn into ruins that other players can clear...
The sandbox that failed most mysteriously was Sims online, while it lacked PvP I just can't believe that considering how popular the regular games are and how easy it should be to implement the mechanics in a huge game.
Yeah, the concept of "item decay" has been around for a long time. I also understand in a world where resources are competitive (raw materials, grind spots, etc), there needs to be some way to resolve the inevitable conflicts. PVP is a logical solution, but I resist the suggestion that it is the only solution to say nothing of being 'required'.
Loke666 said:
While I havn't played it personally, friends say that Wurms online doesn't have open world PvP either. It have some kind of PvP though.
And sure, you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox but you need ways to clear the lands of old houses and crap. I guess you could mix in mob barbarians and a need to service any buildings often or they turn into ruins that other players can clear...
The sandbox that failed most mysteriously was Sims online, while it lacked PvP I just can't believe that considering how popular the regular games are and how easy it should be to implement the mechanics in a huge game.
Yeah, the concept of "item decay" has been around for a long time. I also understand in a world where resources are competitive (raw materials, grind spots, etc), there needs to be some way to resolve the inevitable conflicts. PVP is a logical solution, but I resist the suggestion that it is the only solution to say nothing of being 'required'.
It is particularly important for stuff like housing, farms and castles if you don't have PvP, otherwise you get a full ghosttown on the server pretty fast.
For gear it matter if you have a very limited gear selection of stuff that is easy to get. If you focus on gear progression it doesn't work at all, who want to spend months to get a weapon that breaks after a few uses in a PvE game?
The important thing is that players need to get new gear on a regular basis.
One semi PvP version would be to allow players to build dungeons and hire in monsters, take a fee to enter but pay out half the fees of everyone that failed if they complete it.
I like risk vs reward. However we play games to enjoy them. I'm really surprised that more devs don't try middle ground systems like only gold drop, partial loot, etc. I agree that death in the form of a quick teleport to town kind of trivializes it but why do players have to be ground to dust?
Loke666 said:
While I havn't played it personally, friends say that Wurms online doesn't have open world PvP either. It have some kind of PvP though.
And sure, you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox but you need ways to clear the lands of old houses and crap. I guess you could mix in mob barbarians and a need to service any buildings often or they turn into ruins that other players can clear...
The sandbox that failed most mysteriously was Sims online, while it lacked PvP I just can't believe that considering how popular the regular games are and how easy it should be to implement the mechanics in a huge game.
Yeah, the concept of "item decay" has been around for a long time. I also understand in a world where resources are competitive (raw materials, grind spots, etc), there needs to be some way to resolve the inevitable conflicts. PVP is a logical solution, but I resist the suggestion that it is the only solution to say nothing of being 'required'.
It is particularly important for stuff like housing, farms and castles if you don't have PvP, otherwise you get a full ghosttown on the server pretty fast.
For gear it matter if you have a very limited gear selection of stuff that is easy to get. If you focus on gear progression it doesn't work at all, who want to spend months to get a weapon that breaks after a few uses in a PvE game?
The important thing is that players need to get new gear on a regular basis.
One semi PvP version would be to allow players to build dungeons and hire in monsters, take a fee to enter but pay out half the fees of everyone that failed if they complete it.
Yeah, we still have abandoned castles today in real life. Towns will form and become ghost towns as populations rise and fall. Buildings that have not had the periodic 'upkeep' paid can become destructible or even salvageable for raw materials.
The same would be true for gear. Players would periodically visit other players or NPCs to 'repair' their equipment. That would be true for ALL stored and worn equipment. When a player stops paying the upkeep on a piece of equipment, it decays to nothing or becomes salvage.
"The important thing is that players need to get new gear on a regular basis."
Why?
If character progression is gear-based, then I understand. What if the character progression is character based? Getting new gear would still be important, but less important.
Yeah, we still have abandoned castles today in real life. Towns will form and become ghost towns as populations rise and fall. Buildings that have not had the periodic 'upkeep' paid can become destructible or even salvageable for raw materials.
The same would be true for gear. Players would periodically visit other players or NPCs to 'repair' their equipment. That would be true for ALL stored and worn equipment. When a player stops paying the upkeep on a piece of equipment, it decays to nothing or becomes salvage.
"The important thing is that players need to get new gear on a regular basis."
Why?
If character progression is gear-based, then I understand. What if the character progression is character based? Getting new gear would still be important, but less important.
Well, basically so crafters have something to do. If you continue gaining loot but don't need to replace anything you would get hyperinflation in a way the world never seen.
Kinda like the price of gold when Spain plundered south America or the germans used bills for wallpaper in the 20s since it was cheaper, but worse then both cases.
You could of course replace that with huge money-sinks but that isn't very popular either. Another way is to seriously nerf the spawning of mats but that will make crafting close to impossible to rank up and I don't think you'll get many crafters as players.
Sandbox games are never about freedom. They are about creativity, which usually involves the playful handling of restrictions. I suppose that takes away the primary motivation why sandbox games should be about PvP and full loot. Surely there must be other types of sandbox games possible.
I hate that part too, but it seems to be a necessary evil to some degree. The only check I can think of is like what CoE is planning to use: a meta punishment for griefing/murder.
I feel like what Non-PvP Sandbox people want is really just a building/crafting game with PvE for combat. That would be a sweet game, but I feel it could not have enough interesting change to be a good v-world.
Without having an incentive for violence the game would descend into placid peace, which is great for head down grinding, but boring for the virtual history of the game world.
IMO it isn't 100 percent red or 100 percent blue. It doesn't have to be absolute, either the sandbox is pvp centric or the sandbox has no PvP at all. Its all about putting in the right amount, I like to PvP in sandbox mmos but only if its not like the focus of the game but rather a part of it. Because PvP isn't the world, its a part of it.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
As you pointed out, the topic has been raised a thousand times in ten years and my answer is the same.
FFA PvP is forced for all PvP not free for all. I no longer have a choice of do I PvP or don't I? I have a choice of do I offend or defend. Add to this, the MMO aspect and a "fair" fight is gank bait. Sandbox MMO's that have FFA PvP systems become gank games. Use EVE Online as the example. A Titan will melt in under a minute in a "Fair fight" because 400+ people will primary it and zerg it down. 20 frigates can primary down a Battleship in around the same amount of time.
Sandbox becomes mindless PvP murder-fest with nuggets of PvE in the litter box.
Many games have tried to put lipstick on the pig, eye shadow on the pig, dressed up the pig in a pretty little tutu but the pig is still a pig and most people want freedom in a sandbox. Not, who will we gank today? Even the griefers get bored quick when the cow kills leave.
The thing about these games is as you say all about killing and looting each other and little else left.
I sat down and designed my term of sandbox along with another person and was actually building it but the feedback I got was so bad the investors told me no way.
In my game, the world is one big pre-made terrain with all objects salvageable or harvestable except a few cities and some areas which are predefined as government owned (dungeon entrances, dungeons story quest land, etc) everything else is public so renewable resources respawn at a low rate. The terrain is not modifiable however. Items salvaged in public areas never respawn but the renewable resources will at a very low rate.
There are markers across the map that player can obtain through purchase by clicking on said marker (the first small area is free but very small and on first come first server basis. One can maybe build a small house or pitch a tent which is required in order to set up a crafting area). If one does not have a house then they have to use the public benches which are not as fast or high quality as crafted workbenches, forges, labs, and crafted tools.
Player gains levels in their skill by harvesting resources and assembling objects in their professions which they can sell back to NPC or put on the market. Markets are not shared so one must travel to different markets. One can buy in one market and sell in another at a higher rate so there is a trade of marketing.
Objects on their property they buy can be salvaged into craftable material and once they are consumed they no longer exist in the world. Once a marker is purchased the area is no longer public and all items on this property are owned by the purchaser. They can use said materials to further build on the property but eventually will have to buy or harvest on public lands. A farmer can plant seeds and make renewable resources. A hunter get pelts and meat, bone and random dropped body parts needed for other processes(rare).
The game world consists of four main factions and are interlinked to the player so players actions against other players and NPC of same faction affect the players. The world is open free for all player verses player but indiscriminately killing anyone can lead to complete isolation where only living with bandits and being hunted by all is a standard of existence. But then bandits can have a very lucrative life because the player who is a bandit can steal wares form others.
There is one faction that is pure PvE but players can not enter war zones. War zones contain rare materials that respawn at a higher respawn rare so controlling them as a nation is vital since weapons, armor and war machines break and are not repairable and all resources in these areas are highest quality.
Nope no one even wanted to support it even after I proved it with videos of the functions. HOWEVER they were more willing to throw money at kickstarter projects than bother with a project privately funded.
I still work on it as a hobby but as a commercial game? NFW
That said a few reoccurring themes in this thread seem to be amiss. #1 in EVE low end ships ganking in high sec is the low end economy. Without it these is a HUGE power gap for new industrialists to overcome. #2 I played darkfall both as a high end raid group and a solo player. As a solo player I was able to "real stealth"(no game mechanic) out of most unwanted PvP encounters and use terrain(trees hills rocks) if spotted to make a decent living in game. And conversely if a smaller group or solo player wasnt oblivious they could out maneuver most unwanted PvP by scouting and being aware.
And it is true. As some one pointed out that the games tools/skills should play to the defender. weather that be escape(Kal Ort Por) or added situation awareness such as camp security measures such as enhancing radar over a duration.
Not double damage on you back(even with that terrain can and has made the difference for me)
That said a few reoccurring themes in this thread seem to be amiss. #1 in EVE low end ships ganking in high sec is the low end economy. Without it these is a HUGE power gap for new industrialists to overcome. #2 I played darkfall both as a high end raid group and a solo player. As a solo player I was able to "real stealth"(no game mechanic) out of most unwanted PvP encounters and use terrain(trees hills rocks) if spotted to make a decent living in game. And conversely if a smaller group or solo player wasnt oblivious they could out maneuver most unwanted PvP by scouting and being aware.
And it is true. As some one pointed out that the games tools/skills should play to the defender. weather that be escape(Kal Ort Por) or added situation awareness such as camp security measures such as enhancing radar over a duration.
Not double damage on you back(even with that terrain can and has made the difference for me)
Of course you can sneak around and kill a few lonely players now and then but there are rather few players who like that type of gameplay, Darkfall doesn't exactly have impressive subscription numbers and neither does any similar game.
Eve is a rather special case though, but as someone said earlier is it easy to avoid other players most of the time, the game is just so much larger then a fantasy MMO.
I am certainly not saying that you can't have open world PvP sandboxes that get large numbers of players but I am saying that similar MMOs to MO and DFO will always be really small.
Now, faction based PvP/RvR, looting of gold but not gear and a far smaller powergap is another matter, if you want more then 50K players (and that is me being generous) in a none space setting I think that is the way to go.
That said a few reoccurring themes in this thread seem to be amiss. #1 in EVE low end ships ganking in high sec is the low end economy. Without it these is a HUGE power gap for new industrialists to overcome. #2 I played darkfall both as a high end raid group and a solo player. As a solo player I was able to "real stealth"(no game mechanic) out of most unwanted PvP encounters and use terrain(trees hills rocks) if spotted to make a decent living in game. And conversely if a smaller group or solo player wasnt oblivious they could out maneuver most unwanted PvP by scouting and being aware.
And it is true. As some one pointed out that the games tools/skills should play to the defender. weather that be escape(Kal Ort Por) or added situation awareness such as camp security measures such as enhancing radar over a duration.
Not double damage on you back(even with that terrain can and has made the difference for me)
Of course you can sneak around and kill a few lonely players now and then but there are rather few players who like that type of gameplay, Darkfall doesn't exactly have impressive subscription numbers and neither does any similar game.
Eve is a rather special case though, but as someone said earlier is it easy to avoid other players most of the time, the game is just so much larger then a fantasy MMO.
I am certainly not saying that you can't have open world PvP sandboxes that get large numbers of players but I am saying that similar MMOs to MO and DFO will always be really small.
Now, faction based PvP/RvR, looting of gold but not gear and a far smaller powergap is another matter, if you want more then 50K players (and that is me being generous) in a none space setting I think that is the way to go.
Well Look at planetside2. Fairly standard factional PvP where the currency is kills/objectives/points
Plain and simple: since Everquest, and that is since the very beginning of online gaming, everyone knows the ratio of players on PvE : PvP servers is roughly 10 : 1. In other words, open full scale pvp is usually not only superfluous but actually a guarantee for a failed open world MMO, if thats the only mode offered.
On Day 1 with a healthy population you're totally right. On Day Y the hype sheep have left the game and the die-hard "wolves" are left. On Day Z the wolves found out there are better pvp-ers out there and have left too, because they got their asses handed to them.
EVE survived these years, because there are other things to do then kill each other. The universe is a big place, you can find a quiet spot to do your own thing. Plus the monitored zones are a nice example vs reward. Kill some one in high sec and the space police will demolish your ship.
Naw, they're too slow to arrive, and a high powered PC can kill all the noobs in the spots where they congregate and get out before security arrives.
A sandbox never meant you could interrupt the other players. No more than a kid in the playground should be able to kick other kids out of the sandbox.
Risk vs Reward? So I can count on one hand the times I've been attacked in what might be termed a fair fight in PVP. On the other hand, I've been ganked in totally one sided ambushes with high level groups when I've been a low level noob more times than I can count, and that's a LOT!
Also, it seems that 'sandboxs' with pvp anywhere also seem to be lacking much else most of the time. So once you've finished the noob training quests, you're pretty much left with nothing to do but twiddle your mouse and go fight someone. Pretty piss-poor design there. Kind of like building a house with an entryway and one big bonus room and nothing else. Sure, some have done better, but not that many.
Killemall&loottheirass has been done many times already, and the games tank. Word gets around and nobody new that's heard about them joins. Many of those that tried it, get sick of the b.s. and quit. Sure, there are plenty of them that just sucked anyway, but as it's being a very negative experience for a lot of the players, even if the rest is good, they'll still go find something fun.
Penalties for killing PCs without provocation? Yeah, most of the pvpers that scream for open world full loot pvp would hate that, even if they won't say it in public. But honestly, there's very little you can do that will deter them. Make them unable to go into towns, they'll set up an alt mule. Lock their PC up, they'll have an alt killer to play while that one is out of action. Ban their account, funny how they already made 3 accounts, just in case. Yeah sure, there may be something you can do that will actually have an effect, but I haven't seen one implemented yet that'll work. I hope someone finds one, but I'm not holding my breath. The most tolerable ones I've seen so far are either PVP is separate servers, or there is a flag that has to be intentionally changed by the user to allow pvp with them. (And not the stupid do something wrong and you automatically become pvp because that gets abused by people getting tricked into it, and then ambushed by a group before they even know their flag got changed. Seen it a thousand times in WoW. Hope they fixed that exploit by now.) And no, you shouldn't be able to just turn off PVP. Either make it a permanent change, or force it to take a lot of time and some additional penalties to fix it. (Maybe character has to pray at temple for multiple days, and pay off an amount equal to twice their bounty or something. Would vary by game, so that's just a general concept example.)
I myself prefer cooperative groups. I also love exploring and delving into the lore. I even go for crafting, though I'm not a hardcore crafter. Of course, I've found that in non-consensual pvp games, all that is about worthless. Even more so if the gankers can steal my hard earned stuff. So these days I don't even waste my time. I've had decades of dealing with this kind of b.s. and it's not worth my time. I game for enjoyment, not to be staring at an unavoidable "You Died" screen a significant portion of the time.
Plain and simple: since Everquest, and that is since the very beginning of online gaming, everyone knows the ratio of players on PvE : PvP servers is roughly 10 : 1. In other words, open full scale pvp is usually not only superfluous but actually a guarantee for a failed open world MMO, if thats the only mode offered.
I don't think it is the PvP in itself that is the problem though, the second largest subscription MMORPG (Lineage with over 3M paying subscribers) have a rather higher percentage then that on the PvP server and even the PvE server have (or at least it had when I played it way back) plenty of none instanced PvP areas (like the elves crafting place, the docks to board the ships and so on). Not to mention that there are plenty of pledgewars between different bloodpledges on the PvE server as well. But as I said, it was a while since I played (like 2001) so I am not sure exactly what have changed.
I think that means that Lineage just did PvP better then most MMOs, I don't think a single MMO have had more PvPers then Lineage. But it does point to that the PvP in itself is not really the problem but the basic mechanics.
For instance, any game with full loot tend to fail rather badly, Lineage at least used to have mechanics so you drop a single random item about every third time you died or so, still enough to make people scared of dying but not enough to be forced to start from the beginning just because you get ganked once.
I am sure you can make a popular PvP MMORPG, you just can't take a PvE game and add PvP servers to it and have that super popular, or copy and paste from UO and assume those mechanics will still work today.
But then, you do need to create new mechanics specially for your game and that will take a lot of playtesting and wont be cheap at all. PvE MMOs are far easier to make, you can just compare the number of successful PvE games with the rather limited number of successful PvP games (Eve is probably in second place but there been a few games that have an acceptable PvP population besides those like DaoC, Pre-CU SWG and a few others).
Open world PvP in not a guaranteed fail, it is just harder to succeed with.
Open world PvP adds some excitement and risk to a degree that can only come from the opponents being real people as opposed to AI. To me, it is a vital aspect of a game, but it needs to be done right. Eve Online got it right because of its safe zones and incentives to hold dangerous territory. There are plenty of things to do in Eve's protected areas, but if you want the best resources, you need to venture out into unprotected space with some buddies. Open world PvP can't merely be a meat grinder of enter, kill, die, respawn at graveyard, repeat over and over. Incentives need to be provided to make the risk worth it. The "thrill of PVP" just isn't enough in the long term. It doesn't make cautious people want to venture forth and provides no incentive for groups to hold space or provide order. Eventually, people realize that there has to be a reason to engage in long-term open world PVP. It is a means to an end rather than a end in itself. You PVP to hold territory, gain resources, "win," defeat your enemies, and have fun knowing that you are doing battle with real people to accomplish these goals.
Eve Online's format of safe and unsafe space accommodates a wide array of play styles. Unless you wanted to bank sit all day, 1999 UO didn't have this.
Additional game mechanics like RvR, factions, guilds, etc provide an additional layer of safety and order. Due to these mechanics, if I venture forth into a dangerous area, it probably won't be a complete chaotic free for all.
A "sandbox" is about freedom. Therefore, players should have the freedom to kill other players (and loot them because risk v reward).
A Sandbox is about freedom so players are free to behave like dicks. It make perfect sense.......
Everytime I hear about mandatory OWPvP in sandboxes because of "freedom" I always think, freedom for whom? True freedom is that for all, not just some. A sandbox with consentual or toggle-able PvP would be a sandbox with true freedom.
Comments
Thanks! I've always rejected the premise that "open world sandbox" required PVP. I was just making sure that premise was still false.
But yeah, that is a big part of the problem. And it tends to lead to people grouping in larger and larger groups nowadays leading to zergs.
While I havn't played it personally, friends say that Wurms online doesn't have open world PvP either. It have some kind of PvP though.
And sure, you don't have to have PvP in a sandbox but you need ways to clear the lands of old houses and crap. I guess you could mix in mob barbarians and a need to service any buildings often or they turn into ruins that other players can clear...
The sandbox that failed most mysteriously was Sims online, while it lacked PvP I just can't believe that considering how popular the regular games are and how easy it should be to implement the mechanics in a huge game.
Yeah, the concept of "item decay" has been around for a long time. I also understand in a world where resources are competitive (raw materials, grind spots, etc), there needs to be some way to resolve the inevitable conflicts. PVP is a logical solution, but I resist the suggestion that it is the only solution to say nothing of being 'required'.
For gear it matter if you have a very limited gear selection of stuff that is easy to get. If you focus on gear progression it doesn't work at all, who want to spend months to get a weapon that breaks after a few uses in a PvE game?
The important thing is that players need to get new gear on a regular basis.
One semi PvP version would be to allow players to build dungeons and hire in monsters, take a fee to enter but pay out half the fees of everyone that failed if they complete it.
Yeah, we still have abandoned castles today in real life. Towns will form and become ghost towns as populations rise and fall. Buildings that have not had the periodic 'upkeep' paid can become destructible or even salvageable for raw materials.
The same would be true for gear. Players would periodically visit other players or NPCs to 'repair' their equipment. That would be true for ALL stored and worn equipment. When a player stops paying the upkeep on a piece of equipment, it decays to nothing or becomes salvage.
"The important thing is that players need to get new gear on a regular basis."
Why?
If character progression is gear-based, then I understand. What if the character progression is character based? Getting new gear would still be important, but less important.
Kinda like the price of gold when Spain plundered south America or the germans used bills for wallpaper in the 20s since it was cheaper, but worse then both cases.
You could of course replace that with huge money-sinks but that isn't very popular either. Another way is to seriously nerf the spawning of mats but that will make crafting close to impossible to rank up and I don't think you'll get many crafters as players.
I suppose that takes away the primary motivation why sandbox games should be about PvP and full loot.
Surely there must be other types of sandbox games possible.
It takes one to know one.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
FFA PvP is forced for all PvP not free for all. I no longer have a choice of do I PvP or don't I? I have a choice of do I offend or defend. Add to this, the MMO aspect and a "fair" fight is gank bait. Sandbox MMO's that have FFA PvP systems become gank games. Use EVE Online as the example. A Titan will melt in under a minute in a "Fair fight" because 400+ people will primary it and zerg it down. 20 frigates can primary down a Battleship in around the same amount of time.
Sandbox becomes mindless PvP murder-fest with nuggets of PvE in the litter box.
Many games have tried to put lipstick on the pig, eye shadow on the pig, dressed up the pig in a pretty little tutu but the pig is still a pig and most people want freedom in a sandbox. Not, who will we gank today? Even the griefers get bored quick when the cow kills leave.
I sat down and designed my term of sandbox along with another person and was actually building it but the feedback I got was so bad the investors told me no way.
In my game, the world is one big pre-made terrain with all objects salvageable or harvestable except a few cities and some areas which are predefined as government owned (dungeon entrances, dungeons story quest land, etc) everything else is public so renewable resources respawn at a low rate. The terrain is not modifiable however. Items salvaged in public areas never respawn but the renewable resources will at a very low rate.
Nope no one even wanted to support it even after I proved it with videos of the functions. HOWEVER they were more willing to throw money at kickstarter projects than bother with a project privately funded.
I still work on it as a hobby but as a commercial game? NFW
If you are interested in making a MMO maybe visit my page to get a free open source engine.
That said a few reoccurring themes in this thread seem to be amiss.
#1 in EVE low end ships ganking in high sec is the low end economy. Without it these is a HUGE power gap for new industrialists to overcome.
#2 I played darkfall both as a high end raid group and a solo player. As a solo player I was able to "real stealth"(no game mechanic) out of most unwanted PvP encounters and use terrain(trees hills rocks) if spotted to make a decent living in game. And conversely if a smaller group or solo player wasnt oblivious they could out maneuver most unwanted PvP by scouting and being aware.
And it is true. As some one pointed out that the games tools/skills should play to the defender. weather that be escape(Kal Ort Por) or added situation awareness such as camp security measures such as enhancing radar over a duration.
Not double damage on you back(even with that terrain can and has made the difference for me)
Eve is a rather special case though, but as someone said earlier is it easy to avoid other players most of the time, the game is just so much larger then a fantasy MMO.
I am certainly not saying that you can't have open world PvP sandboxes that get large numbers of players but I am saying that similar MMOs to MO and DFO will always be really small.
Now, faction based PvP/RvR, looting of gold but not gear and a far smaller powergap is another matter, if you want more then 50K players (and that is me being generous) in a none space setting I think that is the way to go.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Risk vs Reward? So I can count on one hand the times I've been attacked in what might be termed a fair fight in PVP. On the other hand, I've been ganked in totally one sided ambushes with high level groups when I've been a low level noob more times than I can count, and that's a LOT!
Also, it seems that 'sandboxs' with pvp anywhere also seem to be lacking much else most of the time. So once you've finished the noob training quests, you're pretty much left with nothing to do but twiddle your mouse and go fight someone. Pretty piss-poor design there. Kind of like building a house with an entryway and one big bonus room and nothing else. Sure, some have done better, but not that many.
Killemall&loottheirass has been done many times already, and the games tank. Word gets around and nobody new that's heard about them joins. Many of those that tried it, get sick of the b.s. and quit. Sure, there are plenty of them that just sucked anyway, but as it's being a very negative experience for a lot of the players, even if the rest is good, they'll still go find something fun.
Penalties for killing PCs without provocation? Yeah, most of the pvpers that scream for open world full loot pvp would hate that, even if they won't say it in public. But honestly, there's very little you can do that will deter them. Make them unable to go into towns, they'll set up an alt mule. Lock their PC up, they'll have an alt killer to play while that one is out of action. Ban their account, funny how they already made 3 accounts, just in case.
Yeah sure, there may be something you can do that will actually have an effect, but I haven't seen one implemented yet that'll work. I hope someone finds one, but I'm not holding my breath.
The most tolerable ones I've seen so far are either PVP is separate servers, or there is a flag that has to be intentionally changed by the user to allow pvp with them. (And not the stupid do something wrong and you automatically become pvp because that gets abused by people getting tricked into it, and then ambushed by a group before they even know their flag got changed. Seen it a thousand times in WoW. Hope they fixed that exploit by now.) And no, you shouldn't be able to just turn off PVP. Either make it a permanent change, or force it to take a lot of time and some additional penalties to fix it. (Maybe character has to pray at temple for multiple days, and pay off an amount equal to twice their bounty or something. Would vary by game, so that's just a general concept example.)
I myself prefer cooperative groups. I also love exploring and delving into the lore. I even go for crafting, though I'm not a hardcore crafter. Of course, I've found that in non-consensual pvp games, all that is about worthless. Even more so if the gankers can steal my hard earned stuff. So these days I don't even waste my time. I've had decades of dealing with this kind of b.s. and it's not worth my time. I game for enjoyment, not to be staring at an unavoidable "You Died" screen a significant portion of the time.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
I think that means that Lineage just did PvP better then most MMOs, I don't think a single MMO have had more PvPers then Lineage. But it does point to that the PvP in itself is not really the problem but the basic mechanics.
For instance, any game with full loot tend to fail rather badly, Lineage at least used to have mechanics so you drop a single random item about every third time you died or so, still enough to make people scared of dying but not enough to be forced to start from the beginning just because you get ganked once.
I am sure you can make a popular PvP MMORPG, you just can't take a PvE game and add PvP servers to it and have that super popular, or copy and paste from UO and assume those mechanics will still work today.
But then, you do need to create new mechanics specially for your game and that will take a lot of playtesting and wont be cheap at all. PvE MMOs are far easier to make, you can just compare the number of successful PvE games with the rather limited number of successful PvP games (Eve is probably in second place but there been a few games that have an acceptable PvP population besides those like DaoC, Pre-CU SWG and a few others).
Open world PvP in not a guaranteed fail, it is just harder to succeed with.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Eve Online's format of safe and unsafe space accommodates a wide array of play styles. Unless you wanted to bank sit all day, 1999 UO didn't have this.
Additional game mechanics like RvR, factions, guilds, etc provide an additional layer of safety and order. Due to these mechanics, if I venture forth into a dangerous area, it probably won't be a complete chaotic free for all.
Current game: Pillars of Eternity
Played: UO, AC, Eve, Fallen Earth, Aion, GW, GW2
Tried: WOW, Rift, SWTOR, ESO
Future: Camelot Unchained? Crowfall? Bless?
Everytime I hear about mandatory OWPvP in sandboxes because of "freedom" I always think, freedom for whom? True freedom is that for all, not just some. A sandbox with consentual or toggle-able PvP would be a sandbox with true freedom.