The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.
-
@Tuoni I don't think cities are safe zones in Fractured. I believe a player can steal and murder in cities. They just have to be willing to pay for it with karma lose and perhaps the guards delivering them a just death.
-
I hope if nothing else, our houses will be safe zones: I don't want to feel like I have to be constantly logging into the game to see if I'm going to lose everything. That burned me out on Atlas.
I really like that I can walk away from Albion, and not feel like anything I care about is going to be looted or decay.
The exception in Albion is the requirement to defend guild-owned territory, and that seems like a good balance, since a guild as a single entity has the ability to be "alive" in the game world all the time (if well run).
-
@Roccandil Here's a post from Znirf's "the concept of possessions loss is different from other MMO's, in Fractured, with its horizontal progression system, everything will be re-obtained in a relatively fast way. The most important things that you will need for in-game progression will be the equipment crafted in the city buildings."
I have to say though I thought I remembered something about certain safe storage being untouchable, but I could be wrong because I can't find the post. Also the above quote stemmed from talks of city sieges, but I could see this way of thinking being applied in the core mechanics of Fractured. It won't be the same as Atlas in Fractured. The reasons are most towns will have NPC guards and only certain individuals won't care about karma loss and being flagged as criminal.
-
@Crowdac so do you only lose karma if your misdeeds are witnessed? I'd like it it effected your karma in a way like , commiting a crime infrunt of a guard makes you become more chaotic evil, committing a crime with out being seen moves your alignment towards lawful evil,
-
@Xzoviac "Karma changes according to how you behave towards other players, NPCs, and divinities" and "any unprovoked aggressive action towards players with Good or Neutral alignment triggers a Karma loss." . In other words, the action doesn't have to be witnessed. I pulled this from Spotlight #6. It doesn't look like there are categories for the alignments, just varying degrees.
I'm not sure stealing and murdering have to be witnessed either.
Thief- You get this when stealing from a Good or Neutral player. It lasts for 24 real-world hours, and prevents you from choosing a Good Alignment.
Murderer- You get this when executing a Good or Neutral player. It lasts for 48 real-world hours, and forces you to pick an Evil alignment.Although to be labeled a murderer and/or a thief it would make more sense if the actions had to be witnessed.
Also I think we are getting a bit off topic.
-
@Crowdac said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
@Tuoni I don't think cities are safe zones in Fractured. I believe a player can steal and murder in cities. They just have to be willing to pay for it with karma lose and perhaps the guards delivering them a just death.
I am not sure either how this will be implemented, but..
If players can attack others in towns, what value this will add to the game? I can not find any..
In MMORPGs towns are places where people normally chills, AFKs, crafts, trades, etc. I can already see how these towns are zerged regardeless of some NPC guards. If not for profit, then just for fun and missery. Imho PvP should happen in open world, not absolutly everywhere.
Karma loss happens everywhere so it can be leaved away from this. If pick pocketing is a thing maybe that could happen in towns, but I guess that thievery is more like about looting ko/dead player.
-
@Crowdac I found this from Feature Spotlight #6:
"The degree of protection enjoyed by players on Syndesia is location-dependent, and varies according to the laws established by the guild in possession of each town and its surrounding territory. No hostile actions are permitted in Good-aligned towns besides during sieges, while protection outside of city walls depends on the efforts of the sovereign guild or alliance. This includes hiring NPC squads who hunt down and dispossess any player marked by a criminal flag such as Thief or Assassin. Starting towns can’t be conquered, are always Good-aligned, and their territories strictly patrolled."
It seams that what kind of actions can be performed in towns depends of the alignment of that town. Okay, that sounds fair.
-
@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
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.
That's a great straw man fallacy tactic there. No one here said, "We all need to be gifted everything".
I have been in both sides of the coin. I have been in a small (40-60 guild) in a small alliance (150ish-250ish member alliance) that was out numbered by guilds that were 300+ in alliances that were 900+ (Atlas). And I have also been in the huge dominating alliance that steam rolls everyone (Shadowbane).
And it comes down to the same thing. One side winning, and no one ever having the chance to compete after that. As fun as it is to easily dominate a pvp game, where no one else can even pose a challenge to you, it kills the pvp game.
When one guild is allowed to dominate in a sanbox pvp game there is no way to come back from it. Even if you decided, "I know I will recruit mass amounts of people" you will not have the infrastructure or resources to compete and in your aim to get them-You get destroyed.
This isn't me saying, "Give everyone everything". It's me saying, "There needs to be a trade off for that dominance otherwise the game dies".
Some people here suggested taxes. I like that.
I suggested buffs/debuffs. I would probably prefer the taxes if it can be done right.
I noticed Znirf said that if people lose a settlement they can keep it if they pay taxes. That is a solution I haven't seen at all.And lets not get it twisted. You can take a gander at my signature. I am in a guild that has ambitions to be one of those large and powerful guilds. This isn't me saying, "I am in a small guild and want all the things!".
This is me saying, "This PVP game looks awesome and I don't want it to die in the same way that most sandbox PVP games die even if they are crazy fun".
-
@Znirf said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
Hello everyone, it is still too early to speak about this kind of things, we didn't have cities or sieges yet!
Anyway, it is a tough topic to discuss, and we are aware that it will be one of the main things to care about in the future. From our side, we can say that our will is to maintain a balance between guilds, we won't give too much power to the biggest ones and we will try to avoid that. For sure, there will be bigger and stronger guilds, and we won't apply any members caps. Remember that spaces for city buildings will be limited, and if a guild decides to have more members than the city could host, it will be forced to have different settlements with following problems about communication and mobility (especially for resources transports). Another thing that will make things harder is the knowledging system and the "need" for exploring and discovering. Guilds will be tempted to reach different parts of the planet to be competitive (maybe conquering a crucial geographical point or a relic); in this way, having too many cities concentrated in the same place won't draw a critical advantage.
Last, if a guild will succeed to conquest a settlement, it will force the losers to pay taxes and ONLY if they won't be able to do that the city will pass to the winners.Thanks for the reply!
But sounds like the perfect time to see this discussion played out! I wouldn't recommend doing it afterwards as an afterthought.
Though, no matter which side you pick some people will be upset. Or on the bright side, no matter which side you pick some people will be happy
I just see so many great PVP sandbox games die from this reason when they were incredibly fun at the start from both sides of the coin (Small guilds and mega-alliance guilds). But if you are even acknowledging this point you are ahead of a lot of sandbox pvp games lol.
-
PvP seems to always be the most argued point in any MMO I've ever been associated in lol. It boils down to this, everyone isn't going to be happy and you just have to be able to try to please the majority of the players so the game doesn't tank.
-
@Farlander said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
PvP seems to always be the most argued point in any MMO I've ever been associated in lol. It boils down to this, everyone isn't going to be happy and you just have to be able to try to please the majority of the players so the game doesn't tank.
Or, it boils down to, "Everyone isn't going to be happy but with one point leads to the death of the game, and the other one might not".
For example. This is an influence map of Atlas shortly before their wipe when what I was talking about was in affect.
https://i.redd.it/d4ha3450ypi21.png
You can sail from your home Island for nearly 2 hours without ever moving out of your Alliance territory. If you were in AoP you could sail for around 4 hours without ever moving out of your alliance territory.
Luckily for Atlas the game wiped before one side was able to dominate but the death grip of 2 factions was already there.
To put it in perspective just two months prior the map looked like this.
https://i.redd.it/4ho65f9zz9821.png
Allowing sides to rapidly gain power with no checks, balances, or trade off for it leads to the death of Sandbox PVP games.
I do agree at the very start it is more fun. But whether you are on the winning side, or the losing side, it quickly loses the fun once a victor is made and the game dies.
-
@Whisper said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
Sexy Cats and Big Dick Boys.. What is wrong with people?
-
@Tuoni I was thinking the same thing. That's the reason devs have to put filters into place lol.
-
It comes down to this...
Life isn't fair... nor should the game be. The more "safeguards" are in place, the more dull game becomes.
The fun is in risk, in expectation that anything can happen, and in knowing that that changes depend solely on you. The freedom and the risk, without limitations. This is the game as I want to play it. This is why i stay away from theme park MMOs that limit you with various mechanics.
People here come with arguments "But what if i need to leave the game for some time...?" .... well that's your own problem man. If you leave, then deal with the consequences, that's life. You can't have everything, you need to make choices.
If i wanted a game that protects me, that safeguards me when I need to leave, that balances things for me regardless of what I do or where I go... I would go play Farmville.
And... Fractured is already taking care of you in that regard. If you are worried about everything, simply play as Beastmen on Arboreus, and you are safe, from invasions, if you leave for few days,... you can play in peace.
What more do you want? (that is rethorical question, I know what you want, for Syndesia and Tartaros to conver to Arboreus as well... this is what you want in every MMO that's being created. Forums are full of threads like this... asking for same thing over and over by same type of players.... give us safety.... I want to play solo, make others not touch me...)
It's getting old.
-
@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
It comes down to this...
Life isn't fair... nor should the game be. The more "safeguards" are in place, the more dull game becomes.
This is a game, not real life. Your second bolded comment that you try to pass as a fact is an extremely subjective opinion. And wildly off topic since I am not asking for safeguards for protection but for consequences from growing widely too big.
Like I said no rules or limitation makes for a fun pvp at the start sure but then the game ends and dies. Which is no fun for anyone. I guess if the FracturedMMO Devs just want a game that will last for a little while and then close down it is a fantastic idea for that though. Whenever a sandbox PVP game comes out I normally play it until that point (Atlas being a prime example).
@Gothix said in The End of most Sandbox PVP Games-The losing side.:
The fun is in risk, in expectation that anything can happen, and in knowing that that changes depend solely on you. The freedom and the risk, without limitations. This is the game as I want to play it. This is why i stay away from theme park MMOs that limit you with various mechanics.
There is no risk if you play the, "Just recruit everyone and attack smaller guilds since it is easy to win them and they either get absorbed, or stop playing". Then as you continue it gets easier and easier. That isn't fun, engaging, or risky. In fact it is the opposite of risky. It's extremely safe. Risky would be if there were mechanics that made every decision come with consequences.
People here come with arguments "But what if i need to leave the game for some time...?" .... well that's your own problem man. If you leave, then deal with the consequences, that's life. You can't have everything, you need to make choices.
I don't see how that pertains to this situation at all but okay. Again, this is a game. Not life. I would say perhaps you should join the army but then you will find there are indeed extremely strict limitation in real life. Perhaps a life of burglary? You will find even stricter limitations and consequences there. I think the, "Real life" comment you keep brandishing is in no way in your favor. In real life there are limitations and rules all around us to keep things going, and for people who try to ignore them there are extreme real consequences.
If i wanted a game that protects me, that safeguards me when I need to leave, that balances things for me regardless of what I do or where I go... I would go play Farmville.
Are you suggesting there is a Farmville Open world pvp game? Or are you trying to make a false false equivalency to this by misrepresenting reality in hopes that people don't see through your comment?
And... Fractured is already taking care of you in that regard. If you are worried about everything, simply play as Beastmen on Arboreus, and you are safe, from invasions, if you leave for few days,... you can play in peace.
Please don't get it twisted. I am not worried about my well being, or my items, or in game character. As I have repeatedly pointed out by now, I am worried about the game dying once a losing side is determined (I have no plans to be on the losing side by the way).
What more do you want?
For the game to last longer than a year, and not die because one side wins and the game stagnates and dies.
that is rethorical question, I know what you want, for Syndesia and Tartaros to conver to Arboreus as well... this is what you want in every MMO that's being created
Another false equivalency argument here I see.
give us safety.... I want to play solo, make others not touch me.
What are you rambling about? Nothing here remotely said anything similar to that.
-
@Gothix
a sandbox can fit only so much sand and only so many people. Even sandboxes have limits.we play by the game rules. If those rules state there can only be 100 people in a guild then a large guild will create more guilds to handle them all while using private channels in game or Discord for communication.
As much as I love a good fight, BOB is a huge guild and they can bring in thousands of players to any game. IF they decide to join Fractured, you'll be wanting some limits in game. It's been rumored that CCP (the creators of Eve Online) purposely dismantle large alliances to keep the balance between alliances. BOB had, at one point, over 2/3's of the game's low security under their power. here's BOBs wiki
-
@Whisper Atlas "dealt" with the problem by taxing a Companies islands: more islands = more taxes. But that solution fell short. Larger and larger Companies bring in more and more gold. Th mega Companies run by the Chinese ruined that game for me.
