Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
They can fill their boots and laugh all the way to ArcheAge, though. And they might turn that one into a short-lived game (and I'm betting they will), but they're still getting it. And nothing that compares to ArcheAge is coming out in the near future for sandbox PvE players.
I'm not bitter (well maybe a little, cause...ships and gliders) but I am puzzled by it. If there are more of us than there are of them, then we're doing something very wrong, or else why aren't we drowning in PVE sandboxes?
AA isn't ffa it has safe zones. We're not drowning in them because sandbox has always been a knee jerk reaction to I don't like wow clones. I'd be willing to bet if you dropped most mmo players into a sandbox they wouldn't know what to do first and wouldn't have fun for very long.
It's easy to say I don't like wow so I want a sandbox but until you've actually played one how do you really know you're the type that can go out every day with no yellow brick road to follow. They sound great on paper but all sandbox games have failed by todays standards and had to add theme park content to them. ( by that I mean no 100 mil game would turn a profit from the numbers they have playing )
So we are getting sandbox features in upcoming mmos but even devs seem gun shy of a true open world sandbox...and for good reason.
AA doesn't seem conducive to actually enjoying the game while %100 avoiding gankers, therefore, by my definition, it is ffa.
I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. I'm not arguing sandbox is less popular than themepark (speaking of nitpicking, AA is really a hybrid I guess) what I'm saying is, somehow a tiny percentage of gamers who PvP have gotten far more of what they want from sandbox creating devs than the PVE sandbox players, even though presumably more of us would play a sandbox if we didn't have to deal with gankers to do it.
Or perhaps less of us would than I think. I know I would, because I've played Xsyon, playing Everquest Landmark now, and wishing I could play AA (but not going to deal with gankers in order to do it).
I'd actually would be pretty impressed if someone were able to accumulate mass wealth while avoiding pvp 100% of the time, since that would seem to be the harder thing to do within the game.
I'd be impressed (and intrigued) if someone could simply enjoy the game and do what they wanted to in it while avoiding all PvP. Maybe one of the streamers should tackle this one.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
And yet the PvP croud seems to be fishing for the idea that sandboxes and PvP are synonyms. But yet there's nothing in sand that says go kill your neighbour.
It's not that the sand tells you to go kill your neighbor, it's where the sands gets stuck that makes you want to kill your neighbor.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
I don't see how they can be such fools, what with Darkfall's incredible player numbers. Isn't it in the tens of millions by now?
And don't forget Mortal Online. Another phenomenal hit when it comes to sandbox FFA PvP!!!
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
People are missing the entire point of a sandbox by labeling things.
A sandbox is just a game where the player makes all of their choices using tools created by devs. The sky is the limit in other words. A themepark has the character constrained to exactly what the devs want players to do. A sandbox allows players to do things devs never thought would happen...
PvP and PvE are just labels that mean nothing (arguably themepark and sandbox are also labels). If a player wants to fight someone else regardless if someone wants to fight them back, those choices are typically not allowed in a Themepark game. A sandbox allows that choice. The other person will have to choose to adequately protect themself (gear up/ find friends etc.) PRIOR to venturing or choose not to (run out, die repeatedly, quit the game because you think it's bad). There are always ways to prepare in these games. Always.
But you can have a game focused around dev created tools for players to experiment with and not include fighting other players. The problem with this is that the freedom, realism, immersion, illusion of freedom is immediately interrupted. When this happens, although it may support the "definition" of a sandbox...it's still limited. The original MMOs felt more like "unlimited" sandboxes (UO/AC/L1 etc). The point of the genre STARTED with freedom.
The basic dev created tools should support:
-build and craft anything anywhere...
-Fight/Save/Protect anything (players and monsters shouldn't matter...it's all part of the world and bound by the same rules).
-The trick is to make things fun for as many people as possible and limiting the sandbox as little as possible.
SWG became a themepark with the NGE, with some sandbox remains in its dead rotting corpse.
Everyone knows. Before, there were player bounty missions and Jedi perma death and tons of professions.
Perfect example how to ruin a sandbox and turning it into a joke WoWclone.
A Tale in the Desert has NO COMBAT.
AT ALL.
just give up already.
^--- This is what I was referring to in my earlier post. If the game doesn't have PVP, there is a select group of people that come out of the woodwork just to tear it down with their absurd criteria.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Considering less than 10% of all MMO players, want PVP in any form in their games, its not hard to figure out why there is no longevity in ANY of the recent trash MMO devs have thrown out there in the last 12+ years. Another example of PC in business. Trying to please 1 person while pissing-off 50. I hope I have not offended anyone while writing this.......WAIT...YES I DO!! PIZZ OFF LOSER!
And yet the PvP croud seems to be fishing for the idea that sandboxes and PvP are synonyms. But yet there's nothing in sand that says go kill your neighbour.
The reason the majority of them do so is that it is a very easy and cheap alternative for true content. Considering most of these sandboxes are small indie projects, any thing cheap that can be construed as content is good, hence the almost near universal reliance on PvP.
I've had the same sig in my profile for a very long time and as my first foray into this genre came with the Sandbox MMO Asheron's Call, I think it's pretty obvious that PvP and Sandbox aren't synonymous. But it will take money and a decent publisher/studio to sink enough money into making a Pure PvE Sandbox game. Hence my near hyperbolic recent boasts about my desire for Everquest Next. I'll say right now that if EQN releases with forced PvP, I'll be devastated and my future in this genre will be all but over.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
SWG became a themepark with the NGE, with some sandbox remains in its dead rotting corpse.
Everyone knows. Before, there were player bounty missions and Jedi perma death and tons of professions.
Perfect example how to ruin a sandbox and turning it into a joke WoWclone.
A Tale in the Desert has NO COMBAT.
AT ALL.
just give up already.
^--- This is what I was referring to in my earlier post. If the game doesn't have PVP, there is a select group of people that come out of the woodwork just to tear it down with their absurd criteria.
With no game to play and no hope of ever having one ...what else are they going to do.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
I don't see how they can be such fools, what with Darkfall's incredible player numbers. Isn't it in the tens of millions by now?
And don't forget Mortal Online. Another phenomenal hit when it comes to sandbox FFA PvP!!!
ah, what a bunch of hypocrites making fun of two low-to-no-budget buggy indie titles as self fulfilling prophecy of sandbox MMOs (=player competiton core design) not being successful. Well done. /slowclap
maybe you could for once accept, the MMO developer world does not circle around people exclusively, who inist on beating only scripted NPC mobs in multiplayer worlds. Things have changed. The era of the Wowclone is finally coming to an end. About time.
But no one is taking away the themeparks, they will still run and will be played, I play them too but if I play a sandbox I want to play a sandbox, not a themepark in disguise like YOU demand.
Besides 99% here are just jumping on the buzzword sandbox bandwagon and have zero clue what sandbox MMO even means, talking about their spongy undefined visions like "go where you want".
ask for more themeparks with level scaling then. Because this is what you actually want. You certainly don't want a sandbox MMO.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
Miners make up less than 5% of gamers...so we don't need that in the game.
People who care about socializing more than the game make up less than 5%, so we don't need social features.
People who try for world firsts and extremely exclusive/difficult content make up less than 5%, so we shouldn't waste resources building that content.
Role-players make up less than 5%, so why bother having NPCs acting in character at all?
5% care about their MMO having a strong plot, so let's not waste too many resources putting in the game(Though given how notoriously dull MMO plots are, I think developers are way ahead on this point...)
5% care about voice acting...Getting rid of that is ALOT of resources and development time freed up.
<1% actually like grinding. Let's get rid of that.
5% care about achievements. Let's get rid of that.
5% care about a realistic player economy. Better get rid of that too...
5% care about housing. Gone..
<1% actually demand marriage in MMOs...most people couldn't care less. I suppose that means it should never be added?
5% care about the music. Most people will just mute it and put on something else in the background, so don't need that...
Hey, this is fun...the "only 5% of people want this, so it shouldn't be in the game" game!
Disclaimer: I'm a total carebear, but FFA pvp, like all the above items, are what make an MMO feel massive, even if you don't indulge in it yourself...especially if you don't indulge in it yourself.
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
Miners make up less than 5% of gamers...so we don't need that in the game.
Does adding mining to a game make 95% of the other gamers not play ? Do any of your examples ?
Originally posted by DamonVile When you make up less than 5% of the market it doesnt really matter what you think on this subject. No one is going to cater to you anyway.
Are you saying only %5 of gamers want a sandbox at all? You can't mean the PvPers, because they certainly get what they want when it comes to sandbox MMOs. They have Darkfall, Mortal Online, and now ArcheAge.
So are you suggesting only %5 of sandbox players don't want to deal with PvP? I find it hard to believe, but it might be true. Or maybe we just aren't loud enough. We're certainly not as good at being loud as the PvP crowd. I've seen them come and demand open world PvP or at least an open world PvP server on just about every new game I've played.
Open world ffa pvp players make up less than 5% of all mmo gamers. If they want to sit on a forum and say " that isn't a sandbox" they can fill their boots. It wont stop a game from launching and call itself a sandbox and if we look at history...ignoring those 5% the game has a greater chance of being a success.
Miners make up less than 5% of gamers...so we don't need that in the game.
Does adding mining to a game make 95% of the other gamers not play ? Do any of your examples ?
I assume you mean "some of the other 95%"
Um...if you're a right-wing nutcase, you might boycott a game for including same-sex marriage. If you're a left-wing nutcase, you might boycott a game for not including same-sex marriage.
Having high difficulty content without a strong enough grouping mechanism or with restrictions like raid timers can cause gamers to quit. DDO had a lot of tremendously fun endgame content, but there were so few players on each server that it was obscenely time-consuming to get a group together to run it. I despise when games reach the point where it basically forces you to play with the same dozen or so people(how is that 'massive'?) at a scheduled time every week(making an MMO feel even more like a job ).
And yes...mining and a poorly-designed economy can interfere with the other players, making the game significantly less fun than if those systems weren't included.
But I'm avoiding your point...which is that FFA pvp ruins the game for a significant portion of other players. But I think this falls into the same category as the economy...if it's poorly designed, it could ruin the game. But if the FFA pvp is like Eve, where a large portion of players are generally safe, then only those players who are offended at the very concept of FFA pvp will reject the game. I think the potential benefits for (hopefully non-dickish) emergent gameplay and limitless hours of enjoyment outweigh the risks.
Sandbox does not mean the game needs FFA, lets just get that clear now. That's a juvenile assumption and contrary to what a Sandbox design philosophy tries to impress. Sandbox may best be equated to freedom of play but it's much more than just "allowing me to do whatever whenever to whoever". It's more about things like allowing character progression through many different means such as resource gathering, crafting/production, construction, exploration, trading, marketeering...etc etc.
The main issue I see with FFA is that it breaks immersion in 99% of the game IPs out there and when there are FFA options it's handled incredibly poorly. Additionally, games need boundaries and rulesets to create immersion or you're just creating another Flappy Bird game which offers nothing more than an immediate high for 10-15 minutes. MMO's and RPGs are more than just the high of killing someone or completing a quest, they are about the worlds they create and how immersed they can get their players. FFA proponents insist that a game can't be good without FFA and if that were true we'd see many more games WITH FFA.
Just because someone doesn't want the FFA mechanic doesn't mean they are carebears, hate PvP, or can't deal with loss. AA has the ability to kill your own faction but it also allows you to 'snipe' your own faction. What I mean by this is you show up as friendly until the split second you decide to flag yourself for FFA and down a friendly-faction target when they are in the midst of killing 2-3 mobs or at 10%. These are the types of mechanics that completely break immersion, the guy is friendly for 20 minutes of questing/killing next to you until he's done with quests/killing in the area and decides he'll just kill you and never return....great system! If they had a mechanic like that of SWG where you had to flag before you leave the city, it would be completely different because this gives people in a PvP zone time to react or position yourself to defend against a possible attack.
This type of system doesn't promote cooperation, it stifles it. In other MMOs you find groups in PvP zones where the same-faction people will help each other, stick close enough to each other to maintain visual contact...this promotes cooperation and faction cohesion. FFA breaks all that in favor of people not really willing to PvP but opportunistically gank. There's nothing immersive about that and that's where FFA fulesets break down.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
I don't see how they can be such fools, what with Darkfall's incredible player numbers. Isn't it in the tens of millions by now?
And don't forget Mortal Online. Another phenomenal hit when it comes to sandbox FFA PvP!!!
ah, what a bunch of hypocrites making fun of two low-to-no-budget buggy indie titles as self fulfilling prophecy of sandbox MMOs (=player competiton core design) not being successful. Well done. /slowclap
maybe you could for once accept, the MMO developer world does not circle around people exclusively, who inist on beating only scripted NPC mobs in multiplayer worlds. Things have changed. The era of the Wowclone is finally coming to an end. About time.
But no one is taking away the themeparks, they will still run and will be played, I play them too but if I play a sandbox I want to play a sandbox, not a themepark in disguise like YOU demand.
Besides 99% here are just jumping on the buzzword sandbox bandwagon and have zero clue what sandbox MMO even means, talking about their spongy undefined visions like "go where you want".
ask for more themeparks with level scaling then. Because this is what you actually want. You certainly don't want a sandbox MMO.
If you really want to think of all PVE sandbox concepts as themeparks, go ahead. Whatever makes you happy in your brain.
But maybe you're getting cheated, too. Maybe azzamasin is right about this:
"The reason the majority of them do so is that it is a very easy and cheap alternative for true content. Considering most of these sandboxes are small indie projects, any thing cheap that can be construed as content is good, hence the almost near universal reliance on PvP."
And why can't I get multiquote to work?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Considering less than 10% of all MMO players, want PVP in any form in their games, its not hard to figure out why there is no longevity in ANY of the recent trash MMO devs have thrown out there in the last 12+ years. Another example of PC in business. Trying to please 1 person while pissing-off 50. I hope I have not offended anyone while writing this.......WAIT...YES I DO!! PIZZ OFF LOSER!
Where did you pull of those 10%? Because that is never and nowhere true.
And about longevity.. you can say whatever you will about pvp sandboxes.. but they all still exist, although they are usually piss poor made, with hundreds of bugs and a pletora of missing, and requested features.
All games with not so much longevity are mostly themepark and pve focused.
Originally posted by kakasaki
Originally posted by Madimorga
Originally posted by DocBrody
Originally posted by BeansnBread
Originally posted by Quesa
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I feel sorry for anyone who is so limited in their thinking that they actually belIeve that any mmo without ffapvp is a theme park.
So incredibly limited thinking. It's rather sad.
Feast your eyes on the new generation.
If anything, I think the mentality that sandboxes must include FFA PvP is part of an older generation of thinking.
or maybe the developer mentality that every MMO needs some carebear catering safemode to be successful, is part of an older generation of thinking?
I don't see how they can be such fools, what with Darkfall's incredible player numbers. Isn't it in the tens of millions by now?
And don't forget Mortal Online. Another phenomenal hit when it comes to sandbox FFA PvP!!!
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
There are just no good made sandboxes out there worth considering(at least if you take out EvE, and EvE is after all a pvp sandbox if i wanted to make a point)
With other word your arguement is worth shit.. and to pick up everytime Mortal Online and Darkfall to indicate that PvP sandboxes don't work is just bullshit.. they did both not work, because they were shitty made, with millions of bugs, missing features and broken content.. Mortal Online more so than Darkfall. Though, to call Darkfall even a sandbox is rather hard with that rather limited feature set(and no it was not intended like that 10 years ago during development... and yes i was there... and i was disappointed when it finally released after almost 10 years of development)
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by DamonVile Can anyone name one in the last 8 years that would make an aaa developer say lets try and copy that success?
Minecraft. And many companies are trying to copy it.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
Originally posted by DamonVile Can anyone name one in the last 8 years that would make an aaa developer say lets try and copy that success?
Minecraft. And many companies are trying to copy it.
Player-governed, multiplayer servers of 32 or less work fine, and no one is really questioning that. The countless servers for the various survival shooters/sims are also an example of that. However, a company-operated massively multiplayer online game is a whole different animal. Are you suggesting that to make FFA PVP work in a sandbox game they should cap servers at 32 players and have both separate rulesets and separate admins for each?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
Neither was on time. Neither actually implemented all of the advertised features at launch. Budgets for both MO and DF would have been considerably higher than ATitD's budget. Darkfall did eventually get their game running right, but I don't think Mortal Online is running right to this day, though a lot of that could be blamed on the mods.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I'd be impressed (and intrigued) if someone could simply enjoy the game and do what they wanted to in it while avoiding all PvP. Maybe one of the streamers should tackle this one.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
It's not that the sand tells you to go kill your neighbor, it's where the sands gets stuck that makes you want to kill your neighbor.
And don't forget Mortal Online. Another phenomenal hit when it comes to sandbox FFA PvP!!!
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
People are missing the entire point of a sandbox by labeling things.
A sandbox is just a game where the player makes all of their choices using tools created by devs. The sky is the limit in other words. A themepark has the character constrained to exactly what the devs want players to do. A sandbox allows players to do things devs never thought would happen...
PvP and PvE are just labels that mean nothing (arguably themepark and sandbox are also labels). If a player wants to fight someone else regardless if someone wants to fight them back, those choices are typically not allowed in a Themepark game. A sandbox allows that choice. The other person will have to choose to adequately protect themself (gear up/ find friends etc.) PRIOR to venturing or choose not to (run out, die repeatedly, quit the game because you think it's bad). There are always ways to prepare in these games. Always.
But you can have a game focused around dev created tools for players to experiment with and not include fighting other players. The problem with this is that the freedom, realism, immersion, illusion of freedom is immediately interrupted. When this happens, although it may support the "definition" of a sandbox...it's still limited. The original MMOs felt more like "unlimited" sandboxes (UO/AC/L1 etc). The point of the genre STARTED with freedom.
The basic dev created tools should support:
-build and craft anything anywhere...
-Fight/Save/Protect anything (players and monsters shouldn't matter...it's all part of the world and bound by the same rules).
-The trick is to make things fun for as many people as possible and limiting the sandbox as little as possible.
^--- This is what I was referring to in my earlier post. If the game doesn't have PVP, there is a select group of people that come out of the woodwork just to tear it down with their absurd criteria.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Considering less than 10% of all MMO players, want PVP in any form in their games, its not hard to figure out why there is no longevity in ANY of the recent trash MMO devs have thrown out there in the last 12+ years. Another example of PC in business. Trying to please 1 person while pissing-off 50. I hope I have not offended anyone while writing this.......WAIT...YES I DO!! PIZZ OFF LOSER!
The reason the majority of them do so is that it is a very easy and cheap alternative for true content. Considering most of these sandboxes are small indie projects, any thing cheap that can be construed as content is good, hence the almost near universal reliance on PvP.
I've had the same sig in my profile for a very long time and as my first foray into this genre came with the Sandbox MMO Asheron's Call, I think it's pretty obvious that PvP and Sandbox aren't synonymous. But it will take money and a decent publisher/studio to sink enough money into making a Pure PvE Sandbox game. Hence my near hyperbolic recent boasts about my desire for Everquest Next. I'll say right now that if EQN releases with forced PvP, I'll be devastated and my future in this genre will be all but over.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
With no game to play and no hope of ever having one ...what else are they going to do.
ah, what a bunch of hypocrites making fun of two low-to-no-budget buggy indie titles as self fulfilling prophecy of sandbox MMOs (=player competiton core design) not being successful. Well done. /slowclap
maybe you could for once accept, the MMO developer world does not circle around people exclusively, who inist on beating only scripted NPC mobs in multiplayer worlds. Things have changed. The era of the Wowclone is finally coming to an end. About time.
But no one is taking away the themeparks, they will still run and will be played, I play them too but if I play a sandbox I want to play a sandbox, not a themepark in disguise like YOU demand.
Besides 99% here are just jumping on the buzzword sandbox bandwagon and have zero clue what sandbox MMO even means, talking about their spongy undefined visions like "go where you want".
ask for more themeparks with level scaling then. Because this is what you actually want. You certainly don't want a sandbox MMO.
Thread could have ended here.
Miners make up less than 5% of gamers...so we don't need that in the game.
People who care about socializing more than the game make up less than 5%, so we don't need social features.
People who try for world firsts and extremely exclusive/difficult content make up less than 5%, so we shouldn't waste resources building that content.
Role-players make up less than 5%, so why bother having NPCs acting in character at all?
5% care about their MMO having a strong plot, so let's not waste too many resources putting in the game(Though given how notoriously dull MMO plots are, I think developers are way ahead on this point...)
5% care about voice acting...Getting rid of that is ALOT of resources and development time freed up.
<1% actually like grinding. Let's get rid of that.
5% care about achievements. Let's get rid of that.
5% care about a realistic player economy. Better get rid of that too...
5% care about housing. Gone..
<1% actually demand marriage in MMOs...most people couldn't care less. I suppose that means it should never be added?
5% care about the music. Most people will just mute it and put on something else in the background, so don't need that...
Hey, this is fun...the "only 5% of people want this, so it shouldn't be in the game" game!
Disclaimer: I'm a total carebear, but FFA pvp, like all the above items, are what make an MMO feel massive, even if you don't indulge in it yourself...especially if you don't indulge in it yourself.
Does adding mining to a game make 95% of the other gamers not play ? Do any of your examples ?
I assume you mean "some of the other 95%"
Um...if you're a right-wing nutcase, you might boycott a game for including same-sex marriage. If you're a left-wing nutcase, you might boycott a game for not including same-sex marriage.
Having high difficulty content without a strong enough grouping mechanism or with restrictions like raid timers can cause gamers to quit. DDO had a lot of tremendously fun endgame content, but there were so few players on each server that it was obscenely time-consuming to get a group together to run it. I despise when games reach the point where it basically forces you to play with the same dozen or so people(how is that 'massive'?) at a scheduled time every week(making an MMO feel even more like a job
).
And yes...mining and a poorly-designed economy can interfere with the other players, making the game significantly less fun than if those systems weren't included.
But I'm avoiding your point...which is that FFA pvp ruins the game for a significant portion of other players. But I think this falls into the same category as the economy...if it's poorly designed, it could ruin the game. But if the FFA pvp is like Eve, where a large portion of players are generally safe, then only those players who are offended at the very concept of FFA pvp will reject the game. I think the potential benefits for (hopefully non-dickish) emergent gameplay and limitless hours of enjoyment outweigh the risks.
Sandbox does not mean the game needs FFA, lets just get that clear now. That's a juvenile assumption and contrary to what a Sandbox design philosophy tries to impress. Sandbox may best be equated to freedom of play but it's much more than just "allowing me to do whatever whenever to whoever". It's more about things like allowing character progression through many different means such as resource gathering, crafting/production, construction, exploration, trading, marketeering...etc etc.
The main issue I see with FFA is that it breaks immersion in 99% of the game IPs out there and when there are FFA options it's handled incredibly poorly. Additionally, games need boundaries and rulesets to create immersion or you're just creating another Flappy Bird game which offers nothing more than an immediate high for 10-15 minutes. MMO's and RPGs are more than just the high of killing someone or completing a quest, they are about the worlds they create and how immersed they can get their players. FFA proponents insist that a game can't be good without FFA and if that were true we'd see many more games WITH FFA.
Just because someone doesn't want the FFA mechanic doesn't mean they are carebears, hate PvP, or can't deal with loss. AA has the ability to kill your own faction but it also allows you to 'snipe' your own faction. What I mean by this is you show up as friendly until the split second you decide to flag yourself for FFA and down a friendly-faction target when they are in the midst of killing 2-3 mobs or at 10%. These are the types of mechanics that completely break immersion, the guy is friendly for 20 minutes of questing/killing next to you until he's done with quests/killing in the area and decides he'll just kill you and never return....great system! If they had a mechanic like that of SWG where you had to flag before you leave the city, it would be completely different because this gives people in a PvP zone time to react or position yourself to defend against a possible attack.
This type of system doesn't promote cooperation, it stifles it. In other MMOs you find groups in PvP zones where the same-faction people will help each other, stick close enough to each other to maintain visual contact...this promotes cooperation and faction cohesion. FFA breaks all that in favor of people not really willing to PvP but opportunistically gank. There's nothing immersive about that and that's where FFA fulesets break down.
If you really want to think of all PVE sandbox concepts as themeparks, go ahead. Whatever makes you happy in your brain.
But maybe you're getting cheated, too. Maybe azzamasin is right about this:
"The reason the majority of them do so is that it is a very easy and cheap alternative for true content. Considering most of these sandboxes are small indie projects, any thing cheap that can be construed as content is good, hence the almost near universal reliance on PvP."
And why can't I get multiquote to work?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Because this forum software is horrible.
Oh, I thought it was just user error!
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
Where did you pull of those 10%? Because that is never and nowhere true.
And about longevity.. you can say whatever you will about pvp sandboxes.. but they all still exist, although they are usually piss poor made, with hundreds of bugs and a pletora of missing, and requested features.
All games with not so much longevity are mostly themepark and pve focused.
You mean like ATITD, Istardia, or Ryzom? Those PvE sandboxes did excatly that worse.. hell even worst, and were exactly as piss poor made with almost no budget whatsoever.
There are just no good made sandboxes out there worth considering(at least if you take out EvE, and EvE is after all a pvp sandbox if i wanted to make a point)
With other word your arguement is worth shit.. and to pick up everytime Mortal Online and Darkfall to indicate that PvP sandboxes don't work is just bullshit.. they did both not work, because they were shitty made, with millions of bugs, missing features and broken content.. Mortal Online more so than Darkfall. Though, to call Darkfall even a sandbox is rather hard with that rather limited feature set(and no it was not intended like that 10 years ago during development... and yes i was there... and i was disappointed when it finally released after almost 10 years of development)
Wait, how do you figure ATITD was 'piss poor made' or that it did poorly? It was designed on budget and to spec. It was made for a projected sub base of 1,000 and got 3,500. You know that, right?
Right?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Minecraft. And many companies are trying to copy it.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
And where is the difference to Darkfall or Mortal Online there? Both games are still alive.. with a string shoe budget and met both probably their expectations.. Darkfall even released a second part. And that could even said for EvE.. they started with 22 developer and expected maybe 50k.. now they have 500k subs and over 100 developers. That is at least somewhat of a success.
Nevertheless a game made for 1,000 sub base is barely a AAA game.. and 3,500 subs is by far not a huge remarkable success.
That's the point. And it should be really crystal clear, when you look at my post as response from another post.
And i said even more in that post(which you quoted just partially) that is not the fault from the developer, or that they are sandboxes.. it's is because they are indy companies with a very small budget... and what you usually get out of that is a indy game, and can't and shouldn't be compared to games from major companies with ten times and more the budget and developers.
You should really start off with an easier question...
What sandbox has been successful and not put in maintenance mode the last 8 years?
Player-governed, multiplayer servers of 32 or less work fine, and no one is really questioning that. The countless servers for the various survival shooters/sims are also an example of that. However, a company-operated massively multiplayer online game is a whole different animal. Are you suggesting that to make FFA PVP work in a sandbox game they should cap servers at 32 players and have both separate rulesets and separate admins for each?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Yeap.. that one is easy.. at least if you cut out that 8 years part. It's EvE.. just EvE.
And some doing ok as poor indy games, for a indy niche market. Like Wurms Online and others..
Neither was on time. Neither actually implemented all of the advertised features at launch. Budgets for both MO and DF would have been considerably higher than ATitD's budget. Darkfall did eventually get their game running right, but I don't think Mortal Online is running right to this day, though a lot of that could be blamed on the mods.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.