Amazon job posting reveals New World details

A job listing for a player relations specialist may be inadvertently giving us a glimpse of a few details concerning Amazon’s upcoming New World MMORPG.

Tucked inside the job posting is a description of New World:

New World is a massively multiplayer, open-ended sandbox game that allows you to carve your own destiny with other players in a living, hostile, cursed land. How you play, what you do, and whom you work with or against is up to you. Live on your own amidst the supernatural terrors or join with others to build thriving civilizations. In this evolving world that transforms with the changing of the seasons, weather, and time of day, the only limit is your own ambition.

As for the job itself, the position sounds like it will be a lead community manager in Orange County, California, who believes in “authentic two-way conversations with the player community.” The specialist will be expected to become an expert on New World’s gameplay and lore, engage with the community daily, moderate the forums, and compile “relatable” patch notes. Some of the requirements include playing MMOs or survival games and having run an MMO guild.

Another implication of this listing is that this could be a sign that there’s starting to be movement on New World’s development and public profile. It’s been a while since we initially heard the announcement of this intriguing game, but Amazon Game Studios has been quiet about it as it focused more on promoting its other titles.

Source: Amazon Game Studios. Thanks Vellikos!
SHARE THIS ARTICLE

LEAVE A COMMENT

145 Comments on "Amazon job posting reveals New World details"

Subscribe to:
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most liked
Reader
Jeff

Is it too early to call this one a crash and burn?

Reader
Crowe

Was there a “new” part of the game revealed by the details? I’ve read it a couple of times but must be continually glossing over anything revealed… other than they are hiring.

Reader
Apollymi

/yawn
Yet more of the same…

Reader
silverlock

Is that job description anyone’s else’s version of hell because it sure as hell is mine.

I mean I’m interested in the game and all but having to be nice to a bunch of whiny gamer’s would make me go postal in a very short amount of time.

“authentic two-way conversations with the player community” shudder.

Reader
Denice J. Cook

…And you do realize you’re writing this on a public gaming blog…right? ;)

Reader
Zynoviya Cyberlight

It’s been fun reading the duelling (no pun intended) posts about PVP. I tend to agree with Melissa below, who I think hits the nail on the head about player consent. I think you could make the penalties for “unfair” or “dishonourable” PVP as high as the sky – you’d still have people killing others for the fun of it.

Once upon a time I bought Aion without really reading up about it, thinking PVP would be consensual or segregated. Not far in, a roaming party of high-levels from the opposing action taught me the error of my ways. I couldn’t have been the slightest challenge to them, but they killed me anyway, more than once. Being someone else’s punching bag wasn’t particularly enthralling, so I left the game soon after. A pity, because it was so pretty. ;(

Reader
Veldan

When I bought Aion in all my PvP innocence, and enemies appeared for the first time, I was thrilled and suddenly liked the game a lot more. It made questing much more interesting, knowing that that was actual danger. And in the end, they were never really all-powerful, because you had those NPC guards that had a big range and would deal with any enemy players. All you had to do was be somewhat near them and set up a chat radar.

Did I still get killed sometimes? Yes. Did this decrease my fun? No. It increased it, if anything.

Crow
Reader
Crow

That person has no idea what they’re talking about. Why? Because they’re not PA employees.

Reader
Giannis Papadopoulos

So thats the only big company known for developing an MMO for the near future, and they develop a gankbox? Oh well… I guess I ll get a break from MMOs… lets say a 10 years break :)

Reader
Melissa McDonald

Hopefully they’ll hire that new community manager ASAP and publicly declare what multi-player actually means in this game.

Reader
jay

tin hat twist. New world is actually https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ the hype they are building with all the secrecy, while actually talking about the game the whole time under another moniker!!

Reader
Rottenrotny

Normally I’d be rolling my eyes, but with Amazon’s limitless funding capability and the devs they’ve already hired I gotta say I’m pretty excited to see what they can come up with.

Reader
enamel

The comments after reading a single paragraph about an unreleased game:

jumptoconclusions.jpg
Reader
Schlag Sweetleaf

;P

Reader
Veldan

Tbh, where do people get the idea that it’s going to be a gankbox? There doesn’t seem to be info about that. Do they conclude this based on the words “whom you work with or against”?

Reader
squidgod2000

Tbh, where do people get the idea that it’s going to be a gankbox?

Their first statement about ‘murderous player bandits’ and the strong Twtich integration/promotion.

Reader
Paul

The original announcement a while back said something about “Murderous player bandits” or words to that effect.

Reader
Serrenity

There’s nothing in there except the word “against” that implies PVP at all, and nothing that implies full-loot gankbox, but people seem to have no problem declaring it a gankbox on exactly zero information.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

I find it hard to believe that Amazon is going to screw itself by going gankbox niche tbh. I’d be really surprised to see this game do anything but offer all kinds of server types.

Edit: OTOH, they should probably get out in front of this with more info than what we’ve gotten since fall.

Reader
Armsbend

Building hype has been a pitfall of every MMO developer since WoW. Amazon doesn’t need to give you guys any information really. Hype is thine enemy in gaming now.

Release game > pay streamers to influence > if it is a good game you have a hit.

That is how it works in 2017. Or should. Sorry Bree you guys are marginalized on hype.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

I didn’t say anything about MOP whatsoever. I was talking about getting out in front of all the players who are already shitposting about the game here and everywhere else.

Reader
Serrenity

How do you talk about your game without being declared hype though? This is the problem I see – any time ANY marketing goes out, everyone jumps on the ‘zomg-its-just-hype-train’. Its like any discussion of game features, vision or goal gets labelled as hype.

How are games supposed to talk about who and what they are to reach their target audience if everything they say is hype?

Crow
Reader
Crow

I’d put $100 on this ending up a variation on survival sandbox.

Reader
Tandor

Yup, it sounds to me like Conan Exiles with zombies.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Because that blurb about the game matches, sometimes even word for word, that of other gankboxes.

Also, keep in mind that if you do enjoy multiplayer PvP in games like Rust and Ark you likely have a different definition of “gankbox” than those people complaining about the game being one.

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

It may be the Open World mixed with Survival aspect…that seems to imply strongly pvp and therefore gankbox.

And it will either be unrestricted in which case it will be gankbox or it will be limited and then pvpers will cry that its barely worth doing pvp.

Reader
Oyjord Hansen

Le sigh.

Sounds like just another PvP FOTM gankbox.

Freaking lazy devs. “We made a map, now go kill each other.”

*yawn*

Reader
Drainage

This comment section summation:

IMG_0060.JPG
camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

PVP (to PVE): Ah kill yew! HAHA!
PVE: (respawns)
PVP: Ah kill yew again!
PVE: (respawns) *sigh* Please stop killing me.
PVP: Git gud and fight meh! Ah kill yew!
PVE: (respawns) But I don’t enjoy playing like that.
PVP: Then yur a carebear! *stabs*
PVE: (respawns) Listen I just want to collect forty ash logs and make a cabin.
PVP: Go play Minecraft carebear! *stabbitystab* *knocks over cabin foundation*
PVE: (logs out)
PVP: Cry moar!

.
.
.
PVP: Where is everyone? This game sucks.

Reader
Drainage

I don’t understand. The vast majority of MMOs are PvE or have PvE servers.

PvP people can have games too, all the games don’t have to belong to the PvE player.

Reader
Sally Bowls

Except this has nothing to do with fairness, it’s about money. When the eleventh restaurant opens in a town with ten Mexican restaurants and zero Ethiopian restaurants, it is more likely to be Mexican. Nobody is trying to be unfair, just that the market says Mexican is more profitable than Ethiopian.

So if there are not profitably-enough people who want PvP MMOS, then no, PvP players can’t have games. (It works the other way, e.g. PvE players and MOBAs & FPS)

Reader
Drainage

Sally, yeah, I was going to say that some sort of PvP will be incorporated into the vast majority of new online games.

However, there are so many PvE options out there, I just don’t understand the hand wringing.

Crow
Reader
Crow

I love that the argument here is that people can’t take it. just reinforces why we get game after game where people quit and move on after two weeks.

Reader
Drainage

They move on from PvP and PvE games.

1) Vagabonds wanting a new fix after performing their content locust routine.

2) They just don’t like the game.

Reader
Robert Mann

Your second post below was far better, but to be blunt PvP focused players need to step back and self-examine. The idea that attacking somebody who obviously doesn’t enjoy it after the first time or two is somehow justified by the game they are playing… is exactly why people leave.

If instead of just repeatedly murdering somebody unwilling to, and pretty obviously incapable (equipment wise) of fighting back, who has essentially nothing of value, the PvP player went ahead and did the RP to say that there’s no reason a bandit or thief would bother with such worthless wanton slaughter, then the problem would be solved.

Now, in the case of bigger guilds and valuables, then maybe there is a reason for conflict (but those cases also have the means of fighting back.)

Crow
Reader
Crow

Except can I say that what you talk about here just isn’t that common? I can’t think of a PvP-focused game where high-level players just roamed the countryside looking for lowbies to gank. I’m sure it has happened, but this isn’t the base state of experience.

If killing someone (murder) flagged your character for permakilling then you’d be damn careful about other people’s lives, yeah?

In a context when you can never go back, only better-forward, what stops people from killing? To be honest, I think ganking is more of a concern in themeparks than in sandboxes.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Except that between PvP flags and the ignore tool players in themeparks typically can just ignore those that want to be jerks without any negative consequences.

Which is a better way of dealing with those jerks than fighting them. Jerks, like Trolls, typically crave attention, so just pretending they don’t exist is one of the best ways to drive them away.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

That wasn’t his argument.

Crow
Reader
Crow

Then what was?

As far as I can see this is about someone entering a PvP environment and then not wanting to get PKed.

The actual answer to this is to encourage RP. I know that sounds crazy, but when you convince people to RP “pirates” and “thieves” they show far more respect toward targets than a wild-west. Hell, when the actual punishments for breaking “laws” are meaningful… *gasp* people stop doing it!

I just hate this “gankbox” bullshit. All it would take would for a dedicated group of PvE players to take over one of these dying servers to change the whole ideal.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

His argument was clear: Trying to do anything but PvP in a game that happens to include PvP as one of its many features is frequently an exercise in futility. It’s not about not being able to “take it.” It’s about wolves chasing off the sheep to hundreds of other worlds “because they can” and then crying when there’s nobody left to abuse or play with or buy stuff from.

The ideal sandbox is about freedom to do all kinds of game activities to simulate a virtual world. Gankboxes allow PvP so unfettered that PvP (I use the term loosely) becomes the primary activity unless the PvPers who get there first and run the place happen to call a truce on a whim from day to day.

I have no idea why PvE players would bother with a game where they have to fight off gankers 24-7 given hundreds of other choices. I understand why antipks fight gankers in gankboxes, but we are few and far between, and it’s rarely worth the trouble when there’s no one to defend.

Crow
Reader
Crow

Trying to do anything but PvP in a game that happens to include PvP as one of its many features is frequently an exercise in futility.

And I find this a false premise because few MMORPGs are full-on actual gankboxes.

The real issue here is how many of those “sheep” would have even stayed?

You can look at EVE for a game that values “sheep” and also places them at utmost risk.

Reader
Drainage

I just didn’t experience this on WoW PvP servers. We would often wave at each other, seeing our characters so much while leveling.

Sometimes I feel a player is ganked once and therefore ganking is the norm in their minds.

Crow
Reader
Crow

It is amazing that as soon as people who actually have played on these servers pipe up, the PvE players get very quiet.

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

I played on the PVP-RP server on Rift. Yes I did have some occurrences where I would interact with folks who could attack me but did not and we have friendly conversations.

I also had random “I’m walking down the road and BAM, Stealth ganked.” or “I’m fighting a big bad mob and Bam! “Thanks for getting that big bad down 75 percent.” Ah Kill YEw!”

The latter experiences greatly outweighed the appeal of the former.

Reader
Robert Mann

This. In general, the jerks do far more to ruin the experience. There are good PvP groups that don’t act this way. The idea of rules (usually) doesn’t bother them. It’s those that want to sit around and gank players who have virtually zero chance of defending themselves that is the problem.

The only methods to dealing with them are to either remove that from gameplay, or make such attacks result in very high punishments. Otherwise anyone not looking for that tends to move on.

Shouldn’t be hard to understand.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Very much this.

I played WoW for years on a PvP realm, due to having real life friends who refused to play on a PvE realm. It’s a big part of the reason I will never again play any game where other players can attack me without my consent.

In other words, my admitedly extreme point of view isn’t from not knowing how PvP goes; quite the contrary, it’s from knowing all too well how it usually goes.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

WoW PvP isn’t free-for-all PvP or a sandbox. (I’ve also mained on a WoW PvP server since launch, though I didn’t go back for Legion because eh.)

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

I could potentially get behind an RP rationale for pvp. However, how many pvpers are gonna rp beyond, “I’m a bad ass mercenary/bandit lord and I don’t give a crap about nobody so…Ah kill yew!”

My suspicion is that the group of dedicated pvers taking over a dying server would only draw the ire of a dedicated group of pvpers who would then band together ‘to show those carebears what pvp is all about!’

Then it’s just a question of scale, one pver who isn’t optimized for maximum carnage versus one who is or a whole group of pvers who aren’t maximized for maximum carnage versus a whole bunch who are.

Crow
Reader
Crow

So we’re talking about MMORPGs getting back to their, at max, 3mil playerbase. Not this insane 10-30mil stuff.

MMORPGs will never make tons of money excepting the big names. I seriously wish someone would come up with a decent “MUD”-esque basis for MMORPGs.

MMORPGs aren’t money. In fact, their playerbase doesn’t support large-scale dev. We need to be honest with ourselves when, in 2017, we say “Oh hey, I don’t actually like MMORPGs.”

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

3M was only achieved by mainstream-focused MMOs, though.

For niche MMOs it’s more to the tune of 300K players, and that for the wildly successful ones.

Of note: I’m not counting survival games here. They are typically tuned in such a way that you can reach the pinnacle of power in a week or less, and don’t quite fit in the slower-paced model commonly used in MMOs.

Reader
Robert Mann

Groups have tried. The usual course of things is that they get very tired very quickly of every single person who wants an easy target skulking around until somebody has their back turned.

This is why a fair number of the indie sandboxes are looking at various ideas for restricting PvP. Because it’s just been shown that people will prevent us from having nice things, including such agreements to RP and all that.

Beyond this, there are very few games where meaningful punishment can be done by players to players. Instead it is mostly just ‘Welp, they killed me… run back and annoy them more! Rofl!’

I do think there is a balance point. I think that sadly that point where you get a balance of enjoyment for most PvE focused players won’t please a fair portion of the PvP crowd… because it does make attacking those easy targets punishing.

Crow
Reader
Crow

The PvP restriction that solves this all is so simple: You murder someone you get flagged for permakilling. No timer, nothing. As soon as you murder another player you go on the list and if you’re killed, “bye bye character.”

Reader
Robert Mann

Which works if there’s enough build up time or cost involved. Far too many games make that easy to bypass with a new character.

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

It would be interesting to see if that would work.

It would be interesting to see why mmo companies have not done this before as I don’t know if I have ever seen one do so in the past.

Permadeath may not be appealing to pvpers either.

On second thought I doubt it would work for at least one reason. Those folks who mix max and like pvp are usually the ones who can quickly figure out maximize leveling/gear acquisition in an mmo.

Those who can be max level either alone or with help from a guild in 24 hours and fully geared would not be nearly as deterred from ganking and potentially losing a character.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

This will never happen.

If you dig back into my UO video from last fall, I go into detail about how the first real FFA sandbox tried one thing after another to curb the rampant ganking that was killing overall retention. EA tried everything from bounties to stat and skill loss to permanent murderer status. The crying from the gankers was endless. The gankers I knew either stopped playing or started hunting in huge packs so they’d have zero risk of dying and losing stats. People cheated and exploited their way out of murder counts and bounties. None of it worked because gankers won’t sit for penalties. This is why EA said fuck it and created Trammel.

On top of that, the devs who build games with this problem would never penalize the people they consider their main customers. Heya CCP.

Edit: And mind you, I’m talking about mainstream success — not tiny niche games, not games with populations that are just wolves biting each other’s tails, not games where non-gankers just don’t even bother trying to play in the world.

Reader
Robert Mann

I have to agree with Crow that saying “Let’s not even try” is wrong. Very few games have tried, at all, for a long time on this.

Put out a game. Make sure the gankers KNOW that you are going after that behavior, and that you will aggressively be banning them. Put in a subscription charge with a 3 month minimum. Note that being banned voids any possible refund, and that this condition is agreed to as a requisite to playing.

Note to the PvPers who want some fun open world content that big open battles will be supported, just not the stupid ganking crud. Make the effort to have eyes in the game to see what is going on, GMs used to do that all the time!

Follow up on that, and see what happens. I’d bet that those who want to gank will be rare, and that a community of fans would develop.

Crow
Reader
Crow

On top of that, the devs who build games with this problem would never penalize the people they consider their main customers. Heya CCP.

This is so unfair. And it prevents other devs from even trying to do better.

That all said, I don’t think UO’s efforts that mostly go back to the late 90s are at all worthwhile as case studies, here. ARK is running tons of PvP servers and so is Conan, currently. People like it and enjoy it and it certainly isn’t as awful as you suggest or Survival games wouldn’t be so popular.

But all I hear is “We can’t do anything!” which just points more devs at PvE which just further reinforces that real, deep player action isn’t ready for prime-time (though they’ll use it for PR purposes).

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

I have been meaning to go experience this Conan Exiles. Maybe I will post my experiences as a Rp PVE’er in the world of Conan.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

I do. Because it’s been proven the case in every single MMORPG sandbox since, from Darkfall to Shadowbane to EVE. Human nature is human nature.

ARK and Conan aren’t MMORPGs. They’re survival sandboxes. They have some of the same problems, but not all of them.

Crow
Reader
Crow

Really? Shadowbane was a great PvP-box that had players concerned with in-game stuff a lot. That sounds like success.

My partner and I have been debating the “survival” question recently.

In most cases it is about running a PvP game that doesn’t focus on PvP. Hell, we die and lose our stuff and we say “whelp, that’s how it works!”

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

Shadowbane was a cool idea that launched three years too late for that style of MMO, and what actually launched was a game that basically almost immediately turned into a handful of massive power alliances that screwed each other over while one or the other slept. It pretty much shriveled up and died when the plebes decided they didn’t want to be vassals to internet gods constantly rebuilding their territory every five minutes. And then the big guilds got bored of winning and went to WoW. Heh.

Here’s to hoping Crowfall does better. Seems like he learned a lot.

Crow
Reader
Crow

Shadowbane was a cool idea that launched three years too late for that style of MMO

Shit, where’s this long-form?

I sincerely disagree with all of that. Shadowbane quickly made it clear that it was about large scale PvP and then engage with that.

Just maybe consider that the bitching and moaning was from people who never should have played the game in the first place.

We, as consumers, keep killing games we’d have killed to have released in 2004. Because they’re not good enough.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

No, I mean it literally launched late – it got delayed several times and was kicked around by publishers, so by the time it came out, the genre had moved well on past UO-style PvP games and had tons of competition, and Dark Age of Camelot already did territorial RvR exceptionally well. And then three months later, both EVE and SWG launched and sucked all the wind out of its sandbox sails. It basically blazed hot at launch, and then very few people stayed.

Crow
Reader
Crow

At a certain point we’ve seen this over and over again. Shouldn’t we be cheering and supporting those little efforts so that the same doesn’t happen again?

Everything here has to do with econ, not game mechanics. I don’t see you making a single argument against Shadowbane’s mechanics… which were a decade ahead of their time.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

Oh let me be clear, I am definitely slamming its mechanics — same old story with the problem with territorial sandboxes growing stale as soon as they turn into 2-3 huge guilds controlling everything, the problem of the fun payoff of the game being reserved for a handful of people at the top while workers at the bottom do most of the work, the problem of timezone exploitery making all guilds staff internationals to guard the castle around the clock, and on and on, and that’s before you even get into the FFA PvP issues.

I don’t really agree it was ahead of its time at all. It was just trying to take UO and add territory, but other games beat it to it and did it better, like DAOC. Now that style of game is seeing a revival.

And I actually do think Coleman recognizes those problems – it’s basically why Crowfall’s maps reset, for one thing, and why eternal kingdoms are benign.

Crow
Reader
Crow

I have an issue because I can’t help but think that Crowfall is nothing more than a LoL reskin with a meaningless shit to achieve “MMO” along the way.

I think there’s a real argument for how a game like Crowfall isn’t something that is actually massive.

But…

the fun payoff of the game being reserved for a handful of people at the top while workers at the bottom do most of the work

This is something we need to get ahead of. The idea that you should be able to log in first-time and do things? That’s crazy.

I’m concerned that your idea of “fun” is linked to “winning” in the same way PvPers do. There’s no difference between a raid and a PvP op. In most cases players are better AI than any mob could be.

Look. It isn’t always even about silliness, right? Lord British got ganked.

Salome is an example of an RP account in Elite that was made by one person and then turned over to the dev/writer team for consistent benefit.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

That’s definitely not what I was saying. I don’t really feel like arguing it out; this is simply a longstanding problem with MMORPGs that routinely privilege guild leaders as a special class of people with special content and perks, exacerbated by sandboxes where who gets there first stays in control as long as she chooses to stay. Nothing to do with fun or logging in as a newbie and expecting to “do things.”

Crow
Reader
Crow

So what’s the actual issue? Guilds? (That seems apparent)?

If we didn’t have guilds would it be different?

What would make it different?

Crow
Reader
Crow

It would be interesting to see if that would work.

It will work. Full-loot MMORPGs have been doing it for years now.

It would be interesting to see why mmo companies have not done this before as I don’t know if I have ever seen one do so in the past.

The closest was the ill-fated Middle-Earth Online which didn’t aim to do this exactly.

Permadeath may not be appealing to pvpers either.

What constitutes a “PvPer?” When your game is about vertical advancement and you never get weaker this appeals.

Perhaps why PvP games haven’t been huge hits is that their approach to PvP is manic and unbalanced. Engaging in PvP should come with serious issues one then has to face.

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

Sadly, this game is becoming less and less interesting to me, like most mmos actually.

Maybe my tastes are changing as I age.

/e sigh.

Reader
Melissa McDonald

I long for the days when “Sandbox” meant building something, instead of what it means anymore, having the ability to kick over someone else’s sandcastle.

The sociopathy disguised as ‘gameplay’ anymore sickens me.

And it’s all because they can’t make compelling content, or tell a good story. That’s hard. Kill-thy-neighbor is easy.

Can’t wait for Investigation Discovery Channel MMOs. “Wives With Knives”, “Fear Thy Neighbor”, and “Catch My Killer”.

Reader
Robert Mann

Agreed that this is, all too often, what it means. There are some communities where this is treated with disgust, however, and where sandbox really does mean trying to have an interactive world with far more to it than just attacking everyone else you see.

Unfortunately, the majority of developers seem stuck on the “Must have PvP without limits” crowd. That crowd, of course, tends to locust each game, then run back to their lobby based games as the newest ‘Unrestricted PvP sandbox dies.’

Thus why I am happy that a few games, at least, have told off those complaining about measures to make ganking painful.

Reader
squidgod2000

Unfortunately, the majority of developers seem stuck on the “Must have PvP without limits” crowd.

Much like Wildstar with the hardcore raiding obsession in design/marketing. They never really comprehended that the hardcore raider crowd, while freakishly loud, was minuscule compared to the ‘average’ player and could never support a game.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Ironically, that nearly two decades old white paper by Bartle where he defined his archetypes (Killer, Explorer, Achiever, Socializer) is basically a study of this phenomena; how Killer-archetype players will drive other players away and finally leave due to lack of “prey”.

Crow
Reader
Crow

…and Bartle, himself, is upset how this has been utilized because that “‘Killer-archetype’ player will drive other players away” was never an actual conclusion of the paper.

In fact, having Pkers and “evil” characters added immensely to every other bit.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

The conclusions of that paper are clear: Killer-archetype playes drive other archetypes away, and other archetypes being driven away in turn drives killers away.

But yeah, Bartle wasn’t advocating removing the Killers; rather, he was trying to find ways to keep them while not driving everyone else away. I just don’t think that at all possible except for niche games focused on players that don’t follow the relationships Bartle described.

Crow
Reader
Crow

You’re not understanding the data.

“Killers” were never PvP players, as we see them now.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

No, not exactly PvP players. Killers are, instead, players that enjoy exerting dominance over other players. It’s possible to be a killer archetype without ever touching conventional PvP (as in the case of someone trying to corner the in-game economy and create de-facto monopolies), and many PvP players aren’t part of the Killer archetype (I’m in particular an avid PvP player when it comes to lobby-based, instanced PvP).

Basically, those that exert dominance — in particular if they get their jollies by forcing others to do things against their will — tend to drive other players away. PvP is just the most common way of expressing that dominance.

(A simple way of understanding the archetypes is that they are divided according to whether the player prefers interacting with other players or with the game world, and whether the player aims for domain over what he interacts with or prefers to simply experience and enjoy it. Socializers and Killers both enjoy interacting with other players, with Socializers enjoying the social contact and Killers trying to achieve domain over those other players; Explorers and Achievers both enjoy interacting with the game world, with Explorers wanting to experience it and Achievers wanting domain over it.)

Crow
Reader
Crow

Thanks for explaining something I work with daily… maybe, JUST MAYBE, I have a better understanding of how this works.

Reader
Robert Mann

True in part, because he didn’t really just mean the murderous PK. Also, he made the assumption that players could counter a PK… which just isn’t true so far (and that would change things a fair bit.)

Reader
Melissa McDonald

reminds of me when Agent Smith declared humanity a virus.

Crow
Reader
Crow

Good thing Agent Smith is the villain.

Reader
McGuffn

because it is easy. Several years ago, games embraced pvp because it was cheap and the players could entertain themselves. Then they weaponized pvp into e-sports. That was even cheaper because to some extent you didn’t even need the game anymore, just viewers.

Sandbox follows the same ethos. It is cheaper than a themepark and lets players entertain themselves. But it is still easier to destroy than create. Sandbox is going to become synonymous with “minimum viable product” if people aren’t careful.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

It already is. Building a PvE sandbox that doesn’t suck is hard and expensive to build and maintain (sup, MMO economies) compared to a PvP sandbox-lite where players are the content and the devs hope they get enough traction off the wolves and sheep to make easy cash for a while before moving on to the next batch of suckers. Hey I know, let’s stop being the damn suckers.

Crow
Reader
Crow

We really need to get off this stupid train.

Good games are good games. Bad games are bad games. We have so much evidence that who devs is more important than the ideals.

borghive
Reader
borghive

I never understood why people hate PvP so bad? I get people want to be immersed into a world and have activities other than killing other players, but isn’t that what single player RPGs are all about? I mean they offer way more immersive worlds with more interesting activities than most online games. We also have god knows how many story driven pve themeparks as well, were you can tackle scripted group content if you are looking for a group based mmo.

I would love for someone to explain to me what a non-pvp sandbox MMO would look like, maybe the new Jane Austin game? Serious question here, not trying to flame.

Reader
Robert Mann

Ever play games with cooperative goals? There’s a ton of people who like those. The only such goals in those themeparks are really dungeons/raids/world bosses. Those can be fun, but there’s a lot more variety to gaming overall than just that.

The J.A. game is one idea, another might be a game where the players are trying to settle a new continent which is filled with dangers… both environmental and monstrous.

Reader
Giannis Papadopoulos

Its not the same thing… MMO gives you the feel of persistent. You are part of a world where real players play too. This makes your action and your achievements matter more. You feel you are part of something bigger. Single player game cannot create that feeling.

Also people dont hate pvp, they hate non consensual pvp. I have no problem if a game has pvp, just dont force it on me and also dont ruin my class for the sake of pvp balance.

as for pve sandbox question, a quick blog post came to my mind. https://syncaine.com/pve-sandbox-mmo-design/ . It is a good write.

Crow
Reader
Crow

That’s the BEST question now!

God, I have no idea. I think that the only actual way we get back to better days is to excise those we dislike from the genre.

I… I think the 00s will be crazy decided by data. And I think when Bree’s kid comes to MOP-Next they’ll see that dev was too limited to actual make a difference here.

Reader
Robert Mann

I think the only way we move forward, without limiting the genre to the status quo, is indie devs moving on with a focus on pleasing smaller groups and making high quality games.

From there, the big studios will see the money with several different game types, and develop… well, probably a game that mixes it all up together that will flop. After a decade or so, the suits in charge will eventually figure it out or after a few decades will be replaced, and eventually AAA might manage to realize that they don’t need one MMO to rule them all.

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

I would totally play Wives With Knives.

Reader
Schlag Sweetleaf

I’d like to take this time to announce my Kickstarter campaign...

WIVES WITH KNIVES.png
Reader
octahedron8

Be still my beating heart, a Vita game!

camren_rooke
Reader
camren_rooke

As long as it’s OWPVP I’m all in!

Bree Royce
Staff
Bree Royce

TAKE MY MONEY

Reader
Sally Bowls

And play it frightening well is my guess. :-)

I am unsure of the commercial success; I think many people play MMOs to take their mind off crazy women, not pay to have virtual ones added to their life.

Reader
Giles Linnear

All the thinly sublimated murder comprising zombie shows isn’t enough?

Line
Reader
Line

As much as I agree… it’s not so much that they can’t make something else.
It’s that they want to make gankboxes.
Broken ass copy pasted games where you can kill others is making millions with each latest clone.

The online market has spoken. It wants shitty murder simulators and card games.

Crow
Reader
Crow

The issue always becomes that people who want to be playing sim-boxes are such a minority that game dev doesn’t pay to dev for us.

Reader
Melissa McDonald

It’s fookin’ simple. CONSENSUAL DUELING. When did choice become a no-go?

Crow
Reader
Crow

The answer is even better: Severe and game-changing consequences.

We talk a lot, as consumers, about choice and consequence. In fact, I’d argue that “consequence” is the defining factor in MMORPGs where you don’t easily just restart a game to avoid a bad state later on.

The issue hasn’t been being allowed to PK but about how there have yet to be real consequences for doing so in any game to know understanding.

The old Middle-Earth Online idea was really on-ball, if off-kilter a bit. The general idea I like there was that one could do “evil acts” which started small but led to murder, eventually. And after you murdered someone else… you were permakill-tagged.

Most of the issue, I think, comes from people who are willing to buy a game and play it until they fail at something. Fail states went from a normal part of gaming to being a rarity.

I recently made a mind-dumb decision to, 13,000 Ly out from Sol in ED, land on a planet for the view. I neglected to consider body’s high- gravity because I was tired and stoned and excited about the pics I’d snap.

Well… First landing attempt slammed me into the ground while lateral thrusters were at max. The the real brain-fart happened. With shields down and at 43% hull I somehow said, “Hey, we’ll try again!”

Bump, jump, skip. Then boom.

I read a Reddit post from someone who did something similar and their reaction is that they “Can’t even”. They can’t play. They can’t look at ED stuffs. It hurts them too much.

Meanwhile, when I have huge failures I jump into what I’m good at. In ED it is exploration. In LotRO it is dailies. In Eternal Crusade it is being a front-line soldier.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

The issue hasn’t been being allowed to PK but about how there have yet to be real consequences for doing so in any game to know understanding.

You will never find in a game consequences harsh enough to please those that don’t want PK to be common. Not quite feasible, as it would make playing as a PK simply not fun, and at that point it’s easier and better to just remove from players the ability to attack each other.

Most of the issue, I think, comes from people who are willing to buy a game and play it until they fail at something. Fail states went from a normal part of gaming to being a rarity.

Where did you see fail states being normal?

Old console games from the 80s and 90s? At that time harsh penalties for failure didn’t matter because you could beat most games in half an hour or less if you knew what you were doing, so for all practical purposes failure penalties were capped at roughly half an hour lost — which is less than, say, the time you lose if you wipe on a raid, even in the most forgiving MMOs out there.

Convert failure penalties into the time you lost on failure. You will see that harsh death penalties have always been rare. Mainly rogue-likes in the 80s and 90s, and some other games targeted at hardcore players later on. Heck, even the previous Elite games were very forgiving, given that you could always just load your previous save, so the harshest possible failure penalty in that series before ED was the amount of time you spent on your last play session.

I recently made a mind-dumb decision

Lastly, keep in mind that setbacks due to dumb decisions in PvE, for many people, feel completely different from something similar happening in PvP. Having a setback because you did something stupid, where the whole fault lies with you, is one thing; having a setback because some jerk can only be happy if he is causing grief for others is completely different.

Reader
Robert Mann

Yeah, there are some people who would like the ability to play the reviled roles… even with strong restrictions. It just makes it unattractive to the ‘I want to talk down to people and make them cry’ jerks who are all too common. Simply removing that side of play is one option, but I don’t believe it must be the only option (and it isn’t actually complex to allow these attack actions, so it doesn’t really benefit to the easier.) It does remove some players, including those who like me believe that what we would then run into is absolutely no threats and boredom very quickly setting in (or huge costs to develop PvE content, making it farm more difficult instead of easier.)

Of course, that doesn’t mean everyone would be willing to play such a game, but to me at least the problem is that I have seen just how willing people are to be *ahem* foul (I so want to say things that are best left unsaid!) when there’s nothing to make it painful. So without measures to make being a foul jerk painful, the idea is dead to me. However, if the game has nothing but building with minimal economic importance on trade and crafting, it is also dead.

With such measures, however, I look at the idea of having the deeper world aspects of building, crafting, and creating our own stories in sandboxes, and I like that idea very much. The occasional person who is willing to risk the punishments under such a system becomes far less important to me, at least, than the promise of something with deeper interaction and more social connections than the next WoW clone.

Yeah, it probably isn’t a game that will draw 5+ million. It could, however, still be a resounding success for many of us. The idea that simply removing it is better is your opinion. Stating your opinion as opinion is fine. You stated it like a fact, and that is not fine. Thus the counter argument here.

Crow
Reader
Crow

Dear god you’re frustrating.

This isn’t about players who want to PK all the time and those who want nothing to do with it. The vast majority of players are in-between without strong feelings.

Where did you see fail states being normal?

Old console games from the 80s and 90s?

You mean “games” from the 80s and 90s? And the 70s, too? And the early 00s? “Gaming only became what it is today starting in about 2007… which I realize is almost a decade away so of course we don’t remember.

So yeah. “Fail States” were insanely common through about 2010, when the desire to never let players fail met the desire of the larger population to never have to think they failed.

Lastly, here, please don’t use my own admission of making a stupid mistake as some kind of evidence. If you go back and actually re-read what I said nothing that followed here was at all on-topic in the least.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Gaming only became what it is today starting in about 2007… which I realize is almost a decade away so of course we don’t remember.

Nah, I remember it quite well. In fact, I have about a dozen games released between 2005 and 2010 currently installed on my PC, and I’m in the middle of a play-through of one of the larger games of the time (Fallout 3, released in 2008).

And yeah, not much different in how death penalties are usually shallow, often barely felt if at all. Take Fallout 3, for example: death only means going back to the last save (the game even automatically loads it for you), and besides having a quicksave option the game automatically saves every time you sleep, fast travel, or go through a door. Death rarely means the loss of more than a couple minutes, and as long as you follow the usual recommendation of saving often and in different slots even mistakes that don’t result in immediate death can be rectified in short order.

Lastly, here, please don’t use my own admission of making a stupid mistake as some kind of evidence. If you go back and actually re-read what I said nothing that followed here was at all on-topic in the least.

@Melissa McDonald posted that the answer was to make dueling (and, thus, PvP) consensual. You posted that the issue is, instead, that players can’t take loses anymore. I pointed that your example is of a PvE loss, and that PvE loss and PvP loss have nothing, at all, in common.

Where is the off-topic?

BTW: I’m mostly fine with harsh PvE loses, going back hours or days (as long as getting back to where I was is fun and enjoyable in itself). What I’m never fine with is harsh loses caused by PvP.

Crow
Reader
Crow

I’m getting old.

I’m talking about going back to the 80s.

Line
Reader
Line

When sociopaths made more money than everyone else.

Reader
Sally Bowls

Insert obvious lawyer joke here.

Reader
Schmidt.Capela

Sounds like just another gankbox. I would love to be proved wrong, but everything up to now points to it being a game I would have no interest in playing.

Reader
Witches

PVP gankbox #53, bummer.

Oh well, back to dreaming about an MMO from CDProjekt or maybe Netflix may want to try making games too.

Zeph
Reader
Zeph

Sounds like my kind of game.

Reader
Schlag Sweetleaf

.

jb its happening.gif
Reader
Robert Mann

Ah yes, that job posting. “Please show us game experience, and in a completely unrelated note have a BA. Because any other life route you might have taken just isn’t good enough.”

Sorry, just standard business management BS (and I’m not talking a science degree!) that comes up way too often and should be the subject of ridicule for all those places it really shouldn’t be!

The game info, kinda cool.

styopa
Reader
styopa

Meh.
Game experience is obvious.
BA degree simply shows that you have the minimum ability to a) commit to a project and stick with it to completion, b) minimal capabilities of literacy and learning on the job.
Look, I agree that it shouldn’t be a deal-killer if you DON’T have a BA/BS and have great skills, and very certainly having a BA/BS doesn’t automagically make you the perfect candidate, but it’s a pretty low bar today. If you don’t have them, you simply have more to prove to make the cut.

Reader
Robert Mann

There’s a significant portion of the population that chose other paths than college. Business degree courses need to stop treating those people like they are worthless. There are times and places a degree requirement is wise and acceptable, but this is no such case.

*I generally don’t mind when there are other options available, but when it is a hard requirement for something like this…*

The problem is that they get attached to everything. It’s not cool, and dismissing that with a line like ‘It’s a pretty low bar’ neglects the substantial cost of such a degree. Something which many people who chose a different path post high school, and are more than capable, simply can’t afford… despite the fact they could be great candidates. If, you know, you looked at a job and it said “Must pay at least $10k to apply.” would you think it was pretty reasonable and a low bar?

The use of such requirements where they don’t make sense, thus, drives me to dislike any company or product having them.

styopa
Reader
styopa

Of course it’s not NEEDED for a community manager job, but it’s a simple fact of life in 2017.

You can complain all you like, but the government’s egalitarian push since the 1980s to ensure ‘everyone has the ability to go to college’ simply meant (aside from a MASSIVE government subsidy to teachers cloaked as ‘student tuition assistance’) that such degrees really are ubiquitous. (And we have NO other filter system like the Abitur or something to weed out those unfit for college.)

They are, sad to say, one of the the first ‘cuts’ an HR person makes sifting through a massive pile of resumes.

Again, I wish the world were unicorns and rainbows, but it ain’t. Until the government gets out of the business of carrying people to school with tax dollars, that’s going to forever be the yardstick.

And yes, if someone said “you need to pay $10k to have any chance of getting a non-drudgework job, ever, unless you start your own business or are extraordinarily lucky” I sure as hell WOULD take the government FAFSA/Pell loan/grant and do it.

Reader
Robert Mann

Yeah, except a large number of people can’t get those. It’s basically a stupid requirement that we as potential employees have every right to not only complain about, but have the power to simply say “Nope.”

Yes, there’s problems with our system and college, and government pushing it. No, that doesn’t mean that it should be accepted as a requirement on things where a college degree is essentially meaningless.

Reader
MesaSage

I dunno, they might get a few applications for this position.

Crow
Reader
Crow

In all honesty they have their hire already. This is how it works.

Low level HR people will interview, but that’s for show. They know who they’re hiring.

semugh
Reader
semugh

so it’s ARK…

Reader
TheDonDude

C’mon Amazon, I wanna know the PvE/PvP situation. I’s gots to know whether to get excited for this or not.

Crow
Reader
Crow

It will be heavy PvP. Consider the aims of their other games in approaching the Twitch audience. Also the ownership of Twitch.

Reader
Paraxes

Can’t believe I had to scroll down so far to see this. PVP makes the most sense with the twitch buy. It draws tens of thousands of viewers a normal PVE MMO never does. It’s so obvious that this will be a giant gankbox to appeal to all those people who watch the stuff on twitch.

necropsie
Reader
necropsie

TLDR: We are developing an open world, full loot PVP game which you will be constantly harrassed by other players.

Zeph
Reader
Zeph

Oh, indeed.

Reader
Giles Linnear

“The only limit is your own ambition…the only narrative is who’s ganking today.”

Crow
Reader
Crow

Thank god.

borghive
Reader
borghive

I hope this game isn’t another quest til cap, then run the same dungeons over and over again! I also hope it isn’t like BDO either were it is mostly a solo RPG masking itself as a sandbox.

Crow
Reader
Crow

BDO is only “masking itself as a sandbox” if you intentionally avoid interacting with other players. This is part of the sandbox. The sandbox does not FORCE you to group up in any way.

The real question is if you’re sick of the current models, what makes them better? I guarantee you that the answer to that question enters the a realm of programming that borders on having thousands of unique AIs running around.

To be frank, we won’t get that until we need some severe upgrades to connection capacity on the grid. Landmark-Storybricks was our closest and they just couldn’t do it.

Reader
Veldan

It’s not about avoiding or forcing grouping, it’s about whether there’s a reason to group at all, beyond having someone to chat with. When I played BDO, there was not. As a result, noone grouped. Everyone was solo leveling and doing professions.

Also, the true spirit of a sandbox is freedom. The devs don’t design content, they merely design tools, which the players can use to influence the world and build things in it. I really missed this in BDO. All the “influence” you have in the world, like housing and investing in nodes, is personal and instanced. Combine this with severe trade restrictions and it really feels like a non-sandbox single player game.

Crow
Reader
Crow

See, there’s this misnomer that sandboxes should be able to get players who hate certain kinds of content to suddenly love that content.

Sandboxes aren’t about ensuring that every activity is as exciting as a scripted cutscene. You give up that for having freedom that isn’t touched by “the game”.

borghive
Reader
borghive

While I tend to agree with your posts, in fact I like a lot of what you have to say, I kind of disagree about BDO being a real sandbox. I’d say it has a few elements that give the illusion of a sandbox, but at the end of the day it is mostly just another themepark MMO. I wasn’t advocating for forced grouping either, I just wish BDO had more player interaction that was more organic.

Crow
Reader
Crow

What is a “real” sandbox? Is that like the “real” Scotman?

I ask because it seems we have insane expectations for “sandboxes” that don’t line up to the reality of what is being asked for.

Initial “Sandbox” games were very much of two types: the one that gave you nothing and told you to choose between 4-10 mission types and those that had dedicated, themepark-like foci which wasn’t necessary to progress.

BDO takes a LOT of inspiration from themeparks. And there’s an argument that what they did is a “Sandpark” model we were all talking about a few years ago. A “themepark” base with sandbox flavors.

That said, BDO meets the definition of “sandbox” in the same way TES3: Morrowind meets that definition. Morrowind had a deep, main plot line that was awesome… but you never had to touch it. You could go off and do… whatever… and it didn’t matter. Your progression wasn’t tied to specific story progression and you could just do… whatever. This was strengthened by the fact that Morrowind wasn’t concerned about holding your hand and telling you how to do everything.

Learning to fly/jump was something no MMORPG could do these days for balance issues.

I like BDO and I like their sandbox. I think we often mistake what is most lucrative for being a “forced grind”. There are plenty of people who read MOP who loved BDO for the sandbox elements. Hell, the whole command economy is miles better than the free-for-all of EVE/UO auction houses.

borghive
Reader
borghive

Man I disagree on this one, Minecraft is a perfect example of a what a real sandbox is, or Wurm online. BDO has some sandbox elements to it, but they are all fluff, nothing you do in the game really has an impact on the game or others playing the game.

Crow
Reader
Crow

I honesty know you didn’t play enough BDO to feel otherwise. But you’re not correct.

borghive
Reader
borghive

I’ve been playing it since March of last year up until now, I have 3 level 56 characters, the game for me is a snooze fest. It really is at it’s core just another Asian grinder, with some added so called sandbox systems. I’m glad you like the game, you don’t need to defend it so hard. :) I’m not going to change my mind about it.

As I wrote before what systems to you are sandbox elements, and stop reacting so harshly here, this is a debate right?

I engaged in the horse breeding, which was pretty limited at the end of the day. I ran trade carts, was interesting but nothing really sandbox about that. I did most of the quest content in the world, pretty standard themepark quests in my opinion.

I did a good bit of crafting, which was fun but not being able to trade these items and having set prices on the AH killed my drive to make things. I AFKed fished a lot, did a bit of farming and dabbled in all the life skills. I decorated my house, kind of liked the housing, but the fact that it was instanced and there wasn’t any real estate market like AA made it rather boring.

I ran guild quests with my guild, did a bit of node warfare, and did some world bosses with them. Nothing really stood out as being different from any other themepark in those areas.

I could go on, but I assure you I played this game quite a bit. I did love the graphics and the combat, and at the end of the day that is what kept me playing.

Reader
Robert Mann

He goes into too much detail. It’s simply this: Sandbox means interactions with the world and players around you in a non-scripted fashion.

Aka, being able to chop down a tree, farm a plot of land, and change what other’s see, while also having the option to work together or not.

PvP, trading, etc. are all just potential means to that end.

Reader
Robert Mann

No, BDO pulls in a few ideas from sandboxes, just like games such as AA, and then says “We are a sandbox!” Meanwhile, there’s so many limits on interaction both with the world and with other players (outside PvP and an AH) that you may as well just have said that humans are defined by the words “Gimpy half-cucumber spotted balloon bag.”

Crow
Reader
Crow

The real “sandboxes” these days are survival games.

All that said, BDO is very sandbox-y compared to any other MMORPG out there right now. AA is a decent comparison but the elements they took from themeparks made things better and even more sandboxy than otherwise.

borghive
Reader
borghive

So tell me what is sandbox about BDO?

Crow
Reader
Crow

You’ve played the game. It speaks for itself.

You may have been scared off before you got to that, which is fine!

Reader
Robert Mann

A little sand in a very big box. Not really sandbox-y in any way outside comparison to something that is completely non-sandbox-y. That’s like saying that a Cayenne pepper is more apple-y than corn, because they both have a red color at the end of their growth.

It’s an argument that is technically true, but worthlessly oversimplified.

borghive
Reader
borghive

I agree, you worded a lot better than I could. :)

Reader
Armsbend

Community manager. That tells me progress is going nicely. It is too bad the job is in Orange County and not Seattle. OC sucks balls.

Crow
Reader
Crow

I’m slightly surprised there is even a location attached. Though Amazon’s culture is a big part of their employment so maybe that isn’t too surprising.

wpDiscuz