The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.
-
I love being the underdog side.
I think people with similar mentalities will help keep the competitiveness going.
-
@Roccandil War taxes (there will be amount limits depending on different factors) will be decided before the battle, also allowing a peace levy if one of the sides is weaker.
-
@Gothix Sandbox doesn't mean no rules. It means open world with no linear path. You are allowed to go where you want and do what you want. UO is a sandbox and there are plenty of rules governing pvp and other player interactions. The game will crash and burn if there are not rules in place that control griefing.
I was playing Outlands free UO server which started off as fun. But then the pks and thieves started invading and the devs gave in to those same arguments; that the blues just needed to play better. Needless to say the pop of the server plummeted. I personally find players whose only course of gameplay is to hinder other players and laugh as a scourge.
-
I'm just saying that "setting too many rules and limitations" would make the game not fun anymore.
If someone placed an effort, was smart about how to organise and do things, and as consequence he gained advantage over others... he should be allowed to reap the rewards of his smart play... and not pushed back with the message "hey, others are weak so we will now limit you so others can feel successful too".
Smart game design will, of course, give some tools to weaker players (groups) to allow them to learn, to get better by learning and to be able to fight as underdogs, but those tools should never directly limit those players (groups) that worked to be successful and earned it by smart play.
Tools need to be designed so they can aid players in need with options and with an opportunity to improve, but should never be designed in such way so that balance is achieved by "taking away the success" of players that earned it.
TLDR:
- yes, design the game so that it helps weaker players to learn so they could become better, give them different playing options so they can succeed with various playing styles
- no, do not try to force the balance by limiting the success of players (groups) that just played well and deserve to reap the rewards of their smart play
In any game there will be those more successful and less successful... a good game should never "force the balance" by mechanical limitations.... difference in success between players (and groups) needs to exist because that is what drives the social mechanics of the game.
And... things can always turn around... people just need to be taught that they need to work for it, rather then expect this to be gifted to them by game mechanics.
-
@Roccandil said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
If one bully takes everyone else's toys
...then others should organize, plan a tactic (use some brain work and logistics) to take the toys back.
Btw. someone is not a "bully" simply because he played smarter from others and managed to acquire those toys (resources). The main aim of this game (Fractured) is not to share the resources, but to compete for them...
This is why you can not ask for mechanical limitations that would force the sharing and equality... this is not such game...
-
@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
I'm just saying that "setting too many rules and limitations" would make the game not fun anymore.
If someone placed an effort, was smart about how to organise and do things, and as consequence he gained advantage over others... he should be allowed to reap the rewards of his smart play... and not pushed back with the message "hey, others are weak so we will now limit you so others can feel successful too".
Smart game design will, of course, give some tools to weaker players (groups) to allow them to learn, to get better by learning and to be able to fight as underdogs, but those tools should never directly limit those players (groups) that worked to be successful and earned it by smart play.
Tools need to be designed so they can aid players in need with options and with an opportunity to improve, but should never be designed in such way so that balance is achieved by "taking away the success" of players that earned it.
TLDR:
- yes, design the game so that it helps weaker players to learn so they could become better, give them different playing options so they can succeed with various playing styles
- no, do not try to force the balance by limiting the success of players (groups) that just played well and deserve to reap the rewards of their smart play
In any game there will be those more successful and less successful... a good game should never "force the balance" by mechanical limitations.... difference in success between players (and groups) needs to exist because that is what drives the social mechanics of the game.
And... things can always turn around... people just need to be taught that they need to work for it, rather then expect this to be gifted to them by game mechanics.
What on earth you are talking about?
You are talking about tools, learning, helps weaker players, mechanics, forced balance, taking away success, smart play, smart gamedesign, limiting success, etc.
But where is all the concreteness?
What are the tools and mechanics you do not want to see and with what you are okay with? How you exactly take out someones success? Just mention few confusing points.
-
Example 1:
- make the logistical cost of owning multiple cities high and not easy to maintain
- but do not limit how many cities is guild allowed to own (if they succeed being geniouses at logistics)
Example 2:
- give smaller guilds a nice GUI to easily form alliances in need, when attacked by large guild, and make an alliance GUI to help communication between smaller guilds helping them organize easier
- but do not forcibly impose small guild member limit so larger gaming communities can not play together
Example 3:
- impose taxes on profit, and make logistics of larger enterprises more demanding, and those of small crafts less demanding
- but do not limit how large enterprise one can grow, and how much he is allowed to earn (if successful)
Example 4:
- make movement of larger groups more visible (NPCs around the world will see them and spread the word, a large army never moves around undetected), this will help the cities become aware of possible invasions in advance
- but do not prevent the large invasions all together by limiting them by game mechanics somehow
Example 5:
- let players have some hiding skills and tools, so small groups can outsmart larger groups sometimes (guerilla fighting)
- but do not mechanically give extra strength and power to smaller groups, simply because they are smaller
Example 6:
- let players have a lots of options for where to find resources
- but do not mechanically prevent a larger group of people owning and controlling a certain world area if they organize well
People should be told that they are required to work (and compete) for resources, and not expect for game mechanics to simply hand them over, because, hey, they "do not have the mood to compete".
-
@Farlander said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
@Gothix Sandbox doesn't mean no rules. It means open world with no linear path. You are allowed to go where you want and do what you want.
This is pretty good definition. I would only add, that this all happens within the rules and frames set by developers. Idea is of course only set rules which are needed.
-
@Tuoni said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
@Farlander said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
Sandbox doesn't mean no rules. It means open world with no linear path. You are allowed to go where you want and do what you want.This is pretty good definition. I would only add, that this all happens within the rules and frames set by developers. Idea is of course only set rules which are needed.
Exactly... everyone is allowed to do what he wants, including the guy that's "taking the toys".
-
@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
@Roccandil said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
If one bully takes everyone else's toys
...then others should organize, plan a tactic (use some brain work and logistics) to take the toys back.
Btw. someone is not a "bully" simply because he played smarter from others and managed to acquire those toys (resources). The main aim of this game (Fractured) is not to share the resources, but to compete for them...
This is why you can not ask for mechanical limitations that would force the sharing and equality... this is not such game...
It's not a question of forcing equality, but of preventing long-term exclusion of content.
Albion Online is in that situation: new guilds have almost no chance to break in to own territory, even though the developers are trying to make that possible. The massive 8000+ member alliances easily dominate, and the only practical way to experience endgame content is to join them.
That's -not- a good thing if you want to keep new people playing (and blaming new players/guilds for not being good enough is shortsighted, and bad for business).
-
@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
Example 1:
- make the logistical cost of owning multiple cities high and not easy to maintain
- but do not limit how many cities is guild allowed to own (if they succeed being geniouses at logistics)
Example 2:
- give smaller guilds a nice GUI to easily form alliances in need, when attacked by large guild, and make an alliance GUI to help communication between smaller guilds helping them organize easier
- but do not forcibly impose small guild member limit so larger gaming communities can not play together
Example 3:
- impose taxes on profit, and make logistics of larger enterprises more demanding, and those of small crafts less demanding
- but do not limit how large enterprise one can grow, and how much he is allowed to earn (if successful)
Example 4:
- make movement of larger groups more visible (NPCs around the world will see them and spread the word, a large army never moves around undetected), this will help the cities become aware of possible invasions in advance
- but do not prevent the large invasions all together by limiting them by game mechanics somehow
Example 5:
- let players have some hiding skills and tools, so small groups can outsmart larger groups sometimes (guerilla fighting)
- but do not mechanically give extra strength and power to smaller groups, simply because they are smaller
Example 6:
- let players have a lots of options for where to find resources
- but do not mechanically prevent a larger group of people owning and controlling a certain world area if they organize well
People should be told that they are required to work (and compete) for resources, and not expect for game mechanics to simply hand them over, because, hey, they "do not have the mood to compete".
I like what you say here, but if I were a developer, I'd want to keep the hard limits available if I needed them to prevent new players from being squeezed out.
So, I'd avoid artificial limitations as much as I could, but I wouldn't rule them out.
-
@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
@Tuoni said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
@Farlander said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
Sandbox doesn't mean no rules. It means open world with no linear path. You are allowed to go where you want and do what you want.This is pretty good definition. I would only add, that this all happens within the rules and frames set by developers. Idea is of course only set rules which are needed.
Exactly... everyone is allowed to do what he wants, including the guy that's "taking the toys".
Everybody is allowed to do what they want, but still within the rules set by developers. Players are not above the game or devs.
-
@Gothix These examples gave much better information what you were actually thinking and it is easy to agree with those most part.
-
In pvp games I play, server resets or seasons are how they combat super guilds and large tier 1 guilds from dominating. It's always the goal of large communities to pull ahead of the competition, and raise their players / lifestyle players ahead of the rabble. I've seen a few ways that games have gotten around this, that is to have a constant reason for flux or growth among players, and the other I've seen is to create reasons for the players to not be absorbed or not be allies. Such as guild wars providing huge benefits.
-
Friendly fire is a must-have, taxation based on a guild's size is a good idea, and in case guild claims of some kind will provide resources - those should be limited so small and big guilds get about the same amount.
-
@DCCCXIX said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
Friendly fire is a must-have
Well it is an option, but not even close something to must have. Some people think it is a cool feuture and some not. It more like causes a good amount of ability and melee vs. ranged balance problems. There is still unresolved issues related for groups, alignments, planet rules and karma points. It can also be used for griefing/exploiting. And finally, FF gives nothing special with trade. It is not a good anti-zerging mechanic, because it affects also for smaller groups. And because of these reason SBI dropped the implementation of FF from the table in Albion Online. Still this might be something what DS wants to tets out, so lets see how it will go.
-
@DCCCXIX said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
those should be limited so small and big guilds get about the same amount.
No they shouldn't.
You are free to grow your guild in size if you want stuff. And if you chose to play in small guild then you should accept the drawbacks that come with it.
Also larger guild must split those resources among larger number of members, so it would be completely illogical for small and large guilds to get the same amount....
-
It's hard to translate real life into a game. Most normal people do not spend every waking moment care taking over their account. In a perpetual world that you have to leave for large amounts of time there needs to be safeguards in place to prevent others from taking your stuff. You can't expect players to be guarding their belongings while they are offline. Hopefully there are tools within the game that can help with that. Maybe the ability to hire town guard npcs. In LIF when judgement hour came you better hope most of your players can be online or you stand to lose everything.
-
@Farlander Towns are able to hire guards, that's one of the benefits of living in a town, city, etc.. It's in the free areas were people are going to have to take risks with their belongings. Though I'm pretty sure the Dev's said they were doing something to help mitigate griefing in free areas. It's up to the player to decide the level of risk they wish to take.
-
In Albion cities are safe zones where people can not PvP (beside dueling). That is pretty easy and working solution.
