IMO a sandbox game doesn't have to have pvp at all in order to be considered a sandbox.also, you mention making a warrior, set classes isn't really a sandbox element.point is, this is your view of what a sandbox should be and if this game doesn't meet that criteria, it doesn't mean it isn't a sandbox.me personally, i really don't care if it has some theme park elements as long as its main focus is the sandbox elements.to be honest, i would be happy with a game that was exactly like everquest was when it first came out with some added sandbox elements,some new bells and whistles, and open pvp servers, but that's just me.
Then what is a sandbox to you? Sandbox to me is where users have the majority of the control over the game. How can a game be sandbox without pvp? What would you do?
Set classes are fine in a sandbox. i.e in shadowbane you could make a class called templar, but there were so many viable builds of templars that it was crazy. You had some that were str based, some that were int, some that were dex. Weapons were effected by certain stat modifiers. warlocks had a weapon called psi blades that did more dmg based on what your warlock skill was. But you didnt have to use them, you didnt even have to have a high warlock skill. You could be a melee warlock if you wanted. this flexability of the player is what makes up the elements of the sandbox.
Kill the wrong person in a sandbox game like shadowbane or eve and you have a political conflict on your hands, that can grow into a fullscale war. The devs didnt make that happen. you the players did. In sandbox devs job is to stay out of the game as much as possible and just take care of bugs, and introduce new content.
So in your mind, how would it have thempark elements, and what would make it sandbox? If you were making the game yourself, how would you do this?
let me start by saying i do want open pvp. i just think a whole heck of a lot of people think open pvp = sandbox and it simply doesn't in my mind.
what would you do wihtout pvp? as close to anything you want as possible, that is what makes it a sandbox in my mind.
if you want to travel to a deserted island, build a house there and maybe start farming and crafting your own stuff to put in your house, you can do that.
or as you mentioned, you can build towns and cities if your guild/clan is powerful enough.
there doesn't need to be full open pvp, they can make it just like it was in EQ and guilds can declare war against other guilds.
i am not saying it shouldn't have open pvp or even that i do not want it, because i do.
just saying it doesn't have to have it, open pvp does not make it a sandbox, the mechanics in game that allow you do play your character the way you want with as much freedom as possible does, but again that's just my opinion.
that said, personally i definitely do not want a game where its just a big pvp war and i don't think they will make a game like that.
because if they did it wouldn't be everquest. this game is almost certainly going to be pve focused, i think it will be more of a hybrid sandbox/theme park rather than strictly a sandbox game.
remember, smed already confirmed there will be raiding in this game, so that tells you right there what the focus of this game will be.
like i said before, if i had it my way it would be a game that was unforgiving like EQ was when it first came out, with a huge seamless and un-instanced world.
there would then be the added sandbox elements that provide much more freedom for the player to play their character the way they want.
with the option to play on a server with open pvp or a "blue" server with only dueling or guild warfare allowed.
that way the people that want the pvp can do it and the people that just want to do the pve, socialize, and work with other players, or just do their own thing in their "sandbox" without being bothered by others can do that as well.
I will tell you exactly what happened. Smedley is on a plane some where about 3 or 4 weeks ago reading a trade magazine on gaming so that he will sound like he know what he is talking about when he drops a few buzzwords during management meetings. He runs across and article on sandbox games. He doesn't really understand it but it makes him excited because he just learned a new word. As soon as he gets back to the office, he pulls the entire EQNext design team into a conference room and puts a single frame power point on the projector with the word "SANDBOX". He looks around the room at everyone and then after a dramatic pause says "It's the future." with a blissfully ignorant and overly confident sage nod.
Everybody in that room nods in agreement but thinks to themselves "F*&#, he has been reading magazines on airplanes again."
This very scenario happens all the time at all kinds of companies. simply change the actors and the buzzword. Virtualization, Cloud computing, Data Warehouse, I have seen it happen, and I am not the only one.
B2P or F2P either way I hope to enjoy this Sandbox alongside GW2 and PS2, I just hope the Combat isn't like EQ1-2, I hope I get to have some sort of control in combat.
Like AOC, DSO, GW2, and Tera.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
remember, smed already confirmed there will be raiding in this game, so that tells you right there what the focus of this game will be.
I agree with you about PvP. I don't see why "sandbox" has to mean unrestricted open PvP. Ideally I would like to see open PvP but only if someone could come up with some consequences which would actually prevent a game from becoming a mindless gankfest. I've often thought a robust enough faction system (including player created factions) might do the trick but who knows. Oh, and I mean faction hits for killing other players.
The focus on raiding is the thing that really kills this whole thing for me. Ok, cards on the table here, I've hated raiding since I played the first EQ game so I am extremely biased against it. However, I just can't see how any game could even pretend to be a sandbox if it is focused on raiding for loot. That whole paradigm would make any attempt at a sandbox game into a sad joke. I mean if you're going to rely on raid progression to keep people hooked it requires certain things for that to work with directly contradicts the whole idea of a sandbox.
1. it kills crafting because the best loot has to come from raids or people wouldn't do raids.
2. With the constant need to raid, raid, raid for loot upgrades to "keep up with the Jones's" nobody is going to care about piddling around with any sandboxy elements.
3. Endless gear progression would compelely f-ck up balance between characters who have progressed a lot and those who haven't. So if you did have PvP it would be seriously messed up.
4. It eliminates the possibility of having destuctable items because people wouldn't stand for it if their phat raid lewtz could be destroyed. And there goes any chance at a sandboxy economy.
5. As with point 4 it eliminates the possibility of item loot in PvP. Maybe there could be item loot on a special PvP server like Rallos zek but think about how few people played there compared to all the people who played on all the other servers.
Basically, if the game has raid progression for ever-increasingly-powerfull items then everything comes to revolve around raiding. Quite simply because that's where the progression is. And if the game is all about endless gear progression then it's really not about player driven, emergent gameplay, sandbox "style" stuff. In fact, it's just the same exact crap they've been shoveling at us for years.
There's some black humour here, watching the sandbox vultures gathering to pick the corpse clean before it is even born.
Or maybe Sony will successfully make its corpse run?
I've laughed sever times over these EQNext threads.
What is indeed funny is the fact the original EQ was a harsh and unforgiving game yet it was the dominant non-asian mmo of the day by far. Let first make it clear that I was an AC player during that time but I still respected EQ for what it was. EQNext is trying to go back to what EQ was originaly like along with concepts and ideas the original EQ team likely would have loved to impliment.
What EQNext will be is a much harder place to progress through and survive without real time investment, real social interaction and real fantasy immersion. This scares new age mmo players. It scares people knowing they must organize and plan along side other players within the world. It scares them that it is like real life and their lack of real online social skills will be tested and forced to develop. It scares them when they realise that 5+ years of mmo gameplay has in fact had nothing to actually do with real rpg gameplay that others have mastered over a life time of playing. They are now the outsiders and the themeparks which have been providing all the conveniences for them is now being stripped away and the player must now work for those conveniences.
So many here forget that great gameplay does not required to be wrapping in small zones or personal instances. That improving social interaction requires removal of barriers and not more barriers. They forget that group finders remove the need to actually meet someone and are in fact counter intuitive and that pvp and instanced dungeons remove players from the world, not add to the world.
People are just scared. They say it won't work to ease their insecurity and ignore the fact that it has already worked and worked well. All SOE is doing is making a roleplaying game for actual roleplayers (and I don't mean rp chatters ... those aren't roleplayers, they are socialites). They decided to stop making an mmo for video gamers with no rpg background and stop taking away rpg mechanics because non-rpg players couldn't handle them. But I know, making an rpg for actual rpg fans is crazy! Who the fuck would go out and make a game for it's target audience? CRAZY TALK!
There's some black humour here, watching the sandbox vultures gathering to pick the corpse clean before it is even born.
Or maybe Sony will successfully make its corpse run?
I've laughed sever times over these EQNext threads.
What is indeed funny is the fact the original EQ was a harsh and unforgiving game yet it was the dominant non-asian mmo of the day by far. Let first make it clear that I was an AC player during that time but I still respected EQ for what it was. EQNext is trying to go back to what EQ was originaly like along with concepts and ideas the original EQ team likely would have loved to impliment.
What EQNext will be is a much harder place to progress through and survive without real time investment, real social interaction and real fantasy immersion. This scares new age mmo players. It scares people knowing they must organize and plan along side other players within the world. It scares them that it is like real life and their lack of real online social skills will be tested and forced to develop. It scares them when they realise that 5+ years of mmo gameplay has in fact had nothing to actually do with real rpg gameplay that others have mastered over a life time of playing. They are now the outsiders and the themeparks which have been providing all the conveniences for them is now being stripped away and the player must now work for those conveniences.
So many here forget that great gameplay does not required to be wrapping in small zones or personal instances. That improving social interaction requires removal of barriers and not more barriers. They forget that group finders remove the need to actually meet someone and are in fact counter intuitive and that pvp and instanced dungeons remove players from the world, not add to the world.
People are just scared. They say it won't work to ease their insecurity and ignore the fact that it has already worked and worked well. All SOE is doing is making a roleplaying game for actual roleplayers (and I don't mean rp chatters ... those aren't roleplayers, they are socialites). They decided to stop making an mmo for video gamers with no rpg background and stop taking away rpg mechanics because non-rpg players couldn't handle them. But I know, making an rpg for actual rpg fans is crazy! Who the fuck would go out and make a game for it's target audience? CRAZY TALK!
Originally posted by Neanderthal Originally posted by baphametlet me start by saying i do want open pvp. i just think a whole heck of a lot of people think open pvp = sandbox and it simply doesn't in my mind.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------remember, smed already confirmed there will be raiding in this game, so that tells you right there what the focus of this game will be.
I agree with you about PvP. I don't see why "sandbox" has to mean unrestricted open PvP. Ideally I would like to see open PvP but only if someone could come up with some consequences which would actually prevent a game from becoming a mindless gankfest. I've often thought a robust enough faction system (including player created factions) might do the trick but who knows. Oh, and I mean faction hits for killing other players.
The focus on raiding is the thing that really kills this whole thing for me. Ok, cards on the table here, I've hated raiding since I played the first EQ game so I am extremely biased against it. However, I just can't see how any game could even pretend to be a sandbox if it is focused on raiding for loot. That whole paradigm would make any attempt at a sandbox game into a sad joke. I mean if you're going to rely on raid progression to keep people hooked it requires certain things for that to work with directly contradicts the whole idea of a sandbox.
1. it kills crafting because the best loot has to come from raids or people wouldn't do raids.
2. With the constant need to raid, raid, raid for loot upgrades to "keep up with the Jones's" nobody is going to care about piddling around with any sandboxy elements.
3. Endless gear progression would compelely f-ck up balance between characters who have progressed a lot and those who haven't. So if you did have PvP it would be seriously messed up.
4. It eliminates the possibility of having destuctable items because people wouldn't stand for it if their phat raid lewtz could be destroyed. And there goes any chance at a sandboxy economy.
5. As with point 4 it eliminates the possibility of item loot in PvP. Maybe there could be item loot on a special PvP server like Rallos zek but think about how few people played there compared to all the people who played on all the other servers.
Basically, if the game has raid progression for ever-increasingly-powerfull items then everything comes to revolve around raiding. Quite simply because that's where the progression is. And if the game is all about endless gear progression then it's really not about player driven, emergent gameplay, sandbox "style" stuff. In fact, it's just the same exact crap they've been shoveling at us for years.
you make some good points, especially about crafting and the items.
this is just one of the reasons why i am confident that this will be more of a hybrid sandbox/theme park rather than strictly a sandbox game.
i personally don't have a problem with that as long as its implemented the right way.
i too am not a huge fan of raiding anymore since i did it in classic EQ and vanilla wow but if the game is that good and it builds a great community like EQ had, i would consider it just for the social aspect of it if nothing else.
There's some black humour here, watching the sandbox vultures gathering to pick the corpse clean before it is even born.
Or maybe Sony will successfully make its corpse run?
I've laughed sever times over these EQNext threads.
What is indeed funny is the fact the original EQ was a harsh and unforgiving game yet it was the dominant non-asian mmo of the day by far. Let first make it clear that I was an AC player during that time but I still respected EQ for what it was. EQNext is trying to go back to what EQ was originaly like along with concepts and ideas the original EQ team likely would have loved to impliment.
What EQNext will be is a much harder place to progress through and survive without real time investment, real social interaction and real fantasy immersion. This scares new age mmo players. It scares people knowing they must organize and plan along side other players within the world. It scares them that it is like real life and their lack of real online social skills will be tested and forced to develop. It scares them when they realise that 5+ years of mmo gameplay has in fact had nothing to actually do with real rpg gameplay that others have mastered over a life time of playing. They are now the outsiders and the themeparks which have been providing all the conveniences for them is now being stripped away and the player must now work for those conveniences.
So many here forget that great gameplay does not required to be wrapping in small zones or personal instances. That improving social interaction requires removal of barriers and not more barriers. They forget that group finders remove the need to actually meet someone and are in fact counter intuitive and that pvp and instanced dungeons remove players from the world, not add to the world.
People are just scared. They say it won't work to ease their insecurity and ignore the fact that it has already worked and worked well. All SOE is doing is making a roleplaying game for actual roleplayers (and I don't mean rp chatters ... those aren't roleplayers, they are socialites). They decided to stop making an mmo for video gamers with no rpg background and stop taking away rpg mechanics because non-rpg players couldn't handle them. But I know, making an rpg for actual rpg fans is crazy! Who the fuck would go out and make a game for it's target audience? CRAZY TALK!
Originally posted by ShakyMo The trouble with pure pve sandboxes.
You end up with a lorded elite having all the fun while everyone else ends up being a serf. You need pvp so you can have revoloution.
Is there a pure PvE sandbox out there where you can be a hoarding lord? You may have just been talking hypothetically but I think if the world is big and varied enough there should be room for everyone to "stake a claim". If you like PvP then great I just don't think it's required in a sandbox game. I would be very surprised if EQN had forced PvP outside dedicated servers. I guess we'll have to wait and find out.
RPS: That seems to be the trend with more systemic MMOs like that. Similar to EVE, where a lot of what ends up going into the game is shaped by the players. Is there where SOE’s hoping MMOs are headed? To the point of shedding off archaic, grindy quests in favor of dynamic worlds? I mean, I see a bit of EVE in PlanetSide’s structure, but what about in, say, EverQuest Next?
John Smedley: We are, as a company, embracing that. I don’t talk a lot about EverQuest Next because we’re not ready to yet, but I will say that you’re going to see that times 20 in the next EverQuest. We’re embracing that. That’s the whole game. It’s going to be a very, very different game than the original EverQuest or any other MMO ever made. In fact, we rebooted it. This is the third reboot of it. Users saw the first iteration… We trashed it. We said, “This is just too similar to other games.” Then we did another iteration, and we said, “This is better,” but we trashed that too. This time it stuck, because everybody in the company said, “Oh, yes, we want that.”
RPS: SOE’s Player Studio seems like an extension of that to me. Let players make their own new content. How far do you hope to expand that, though? Right now it’s just objects in games like EverQuest and eventually PlanetSide. Would you ever like to see players creating their own missions and gametypes, though?
John Smedley: Stay tuned. The answer is yes, wholeheartedly. We have plans for that that go out a long way, and a game that is going to dominate because of that kind of stuff.
It’s not just players making quests. Don’t think of it just as Dungeons & Dragons. What we’re actually building is the ability for players to put in systems. System-level stuff. We give them some rules, some basic simple rules, and they can make things out of whole cloth. They could build their own battlegrounds style of gameplay. That’s what we want. What we have is an amazing infrastructure and ability to let players do new and emerging things.
We want them to… Not make their own fun. We’re going to make our games amazingly fun. We want them to be able to make things we didn’t think of fun. That’s really what it is. I mentioned Hulkageddon, I love that in EVE. That’s just players putting bounties on something. It’s nothing. That’s all it is. But that’s as fun as anything in EVE. More fun if you ask me. It’s amazingly fun.
You’ll be able to destroy, massive, massive parts of this world, almost all of it. You can light the forest on fire; we have ambition with this thing. We want it to be something where the world you log into, might not be the world you log into in five days.
What you saw in WoW’s Cataclysm could take place because someone cast a spell that is powerful enough to do something major. We want it to be meaningful. And that’s what we’re building. It’s actually what we’ve built, because we’ve got this now. It just isn’t quite at the level where we’re OK [to reveal it to the public]. We have a story that we want to tell for the announcement of it, we want it that you’re seeing every aspect of the gameplay, we’re one aspect short of that until we’re ready to show, so we’re close now.”
RPS: That seems to be the trend with more systemic MMOs like that. Similar to EVE, where a lot of what ends up going into the game is shaped by the players. Is there where SOE’s hoping MMOs are headed? To the point of shedding off archaic, grindy quests in favor of dynamic worlds? I mean, I see a bit of EVE in PlanetSide’s structure, but what about in, say, EverQuest Next?
John Smedley: We are, as a company, embracing that. I don’t talk a lot about EverQuest Next because we’re not ready to yet, but I will say that you’re going to see that times 20 in the next EverQuest. We’re embracing that. That’s the whole game. It’s going to be a very, very different game than the original EverQuest or any other MMO ever made. In fact, we rebooted it. This is the third reboot of it. Users saw the first iteration… We trashed it. We said, “This is just too similar to other games.” Then we did another iteration, and we said, “This is better,” but we trashed that too. This time it stuck, because everybody in the company said, “Oh, yes, we want that.”
RPS: SOE’s Player Studio seems like an extension of that to me. Let players make their own new content. How far do you hope to expand that, though? Right now it’s just objects in games like EverQuest and eventually PlanetSide. Would you ever like to see players creating their own missions and gametypes, though?
John Smedley: Stay tuned. The answer is yes, wholeheartedly. We have plans for that that go out a long way, and a game that is going to dominate because of that kind of stuff.
It’s not just players making quests. Don’t think of it just as Dungeons & Dragons. What we’re actually building is the ability for players to put in systems. System-level stuff. We give them some rules, some basic simple rules, and they can make things out of whole cloth. They could build their own battlegrounds style of gameplay. That’s what we want. What we have is an amazing infrastructure and ability to let players do new and emerging things.
We want them to… Not make their own fun. We’re going to make our games amazingly fun. We want them to be able to make things we didn’t think of fun. That’s really what it is. I mentioned Hulkageddon, I love that in EVE. That’s just players putting bounties on something. It’s nothing. That’s all it is. But that’s as fun as anything in EVE. More fun if you ask me. It’s amazingly fun.
Interesting. Based on this it sounds more (generally) like its going to be a RPG-maker lite. Provide in game systems that allow you to build part of the world. I can see the rules just restricting the creativity to the context/lore of the game. I imagine a world where dungeons are user-created or (even better) user-created quests. Perhaps people who reach max level provide quests for items they may want in exchange for the plat they have accumulated over time. Keeps crafting/commerce active (which I also enjoy).
Still skeptical, but definitely curious and excited how this will turn out. Currently bored with the slew of current thumb-sucker MMOs.
Here's a small nugget from June in a TTH interview with Georgeson about SoEMote:
"Wait until you see spellweaving in the next EverQuest," Georgeson teased. "I've said too much but you've never played a game like it. I can promise you that.
"We have two EverQuest games we can already use as testbeds for what we plan on with the next one. While we're doing that we're putting a huge focus on storytelling over the next year. We want characters to become memorable parts of the story arcs. We want to bring back the world to virtual worlds. This is a re-imagined Norrath. Think of the EverQuest games as three separate universes--a multiverse."
Um... Yeah... I've said for a while now that being able to cast via voice and swinging my own sword while standing would be an MMO "engame" for me. Looks like part of that is not far off. If what I'm reading into here is true and EQN will feature casting via speach (or mouth motion) it's not far fetched that quests could go back to "[quest trigger]" as something you speak rather than type.
/sigh, it's hard not to get too excited right?
I like the idea, but wary of the implementation. Coming from the console (360+Kinect) background I can tell you motion capture is not mature enough (in my eyes) to make that type of gameplay style effective or fun. Interested to see if they can pull it off, whatever it is.
Interesting thread, many thanks to Nadia for posting it.
I am admittedly skeptical because of past failures on SOE's part. I agree with another poster who said they already revealed that raids are present and we all know the rinse-repeat gameplay that entails, tossing in the word "Sandbox" only obfuscates the matter. For Smed to have any sort of credibility in the use of the word, he has to first define what he means when using it within the context of his project. He's unwilling to do that because like any politician on the campaign trail, history and unfolding truths boxes him in and may cost him (and his masters) the election.
While we can debate the subtlties of the terms "themepark" and "sandbox", and what constitutes the "correct" use of the word in question, they are polar opposites in philosophy. Defining what I understand as the core principles of those two philosophies in abbreviated/simplified terms are;
Themepark Dev's create the encounter, scripted with If-Then Do sequences that players are expected to know and respond appropriately to and create the most desired rewards in the game for successfully completing the encounter, with repeated completion of said scripted encounter being both required and considered "the real game".
Sandbox the players are given tools to create their own content, rewards, and conflicts, meaning there must by default be PvP (though how it is presented, what forms it takes and any consequences are beyond the confines of this post to get into). Devs participate by throwing events at them that threaten the status quo of all that content the players have generated and it is by necessity, open world in nature (meaning no instancing of any sort).
Build me a world where if I'm a outlaw, I become hunted by bounty seekers, if I'm a lord who clears a region to develop a holding and must defend it from monster and rival lords alike, where I can discover new spells, rituals, alchemy formulas and pursue forgotten lore to restore ancient powers to my use. In such a place I can assassinate key political figures and cause disturbances by that fact, a dragon can rampage and destory crops or be a (dangerous) ally, where gods answer prayers and demand appropriate sacrifices. Sometimes invasions of a unrelenting foe threatens factions that have been locked in conflict for generations and they have to agree to work together for a time, all the while looking out for a opportunity to emerge stronger than their ally of the moment will.
A game where the term "class" is but a loose definition of what you can expect of my abilities that have grown based upon what I choose them to be, all that and more, can be done in sandbox if the tools are there. Build a world like that and it'll endure game engine updates and people will subscribe to it for life. And yes, it can have quests, even "basic" ones for that is in fact, how our lives progress. We quest for that degree, job, mate, car, trophy, etc, but how we fail is as important as how we succeed, so far, no game has addressed that beyond not getting the goodies.
All of that requires the game to have a very deep and bug free design at launch, with a vast wealth of tools to give to players and a aggressive response mechanism to deal with bugs and any other game breaking flaws, not the least of which is coping with in game currency sellers. The world has to be very robust with a depth necessary to support all of that and that is exceptionally expensive. While its true SOE has a great wealth of resources and could indeed, do all of that, their history has shown repeatedly they are unwilling to do that. I may not regard Smed with much in the way of respect because of his politician persona, but to be fair, he can't deliver on anything if he doesn't get the funding to do it, and SOE is notoriously tight fisted.
Admittedly Nadia has succeeded in getting me to watch this development, but I regard it with a lot of skepticism because of the actors involved. In short, SOE would have to prove to me that the tiger has changed its stripes.
Even peace may be purchased at too high a price, and the only time you are completely safe is when you lie in the grave.
I have to call bullshit on Smed. To me that sounds like a lot of intentionally misleading hype. At first it sounds like they are really going to make an effort to make a good sandbox game but then if you look a little closer you realize that---oh yeah---not so much sandbox after all.
The first clue was when he referred to is as "sandbox style". By adding that little modifier there, the word "style", he was covering his arse so he can't be called a lier later. Basically what this tells you is that it won't really be a sandbox game but rather it will be a typical sort of game with some elements which could concievably be labeled sandbox elements.
He also says, " I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system." Which is just another way of saying it's still going to be a level based game.
Ok, then when talking about raiding he says, "We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make..." So, yeah, more of the same.
Alright so what do we learn when we look closely at his comments? We learn that he's planning to make a level based game with end-game raiding. Well golly gee I never heard of something like that before!
Yes, he also talks about better AI and a dynamic world but, come on. The game will be shaped by the fact that it's level based and raid based. Those two basic facts will dictate what the game will be and they pretty much make a sandbox game impossible. Ok, say a raid guild kills dragon X. Dragon X stays dead. Instead of dragon X respawning there will be something else like < Mountian Giant Y> or whatever. Maybe this is generated somewhat randomly. Well ok, now they can say that their world is "dynamic". But really it's just the same ol' thing in a different graphical package.
And if you think I'm clueless that's fine, but really, does anyone have any faith left in SOE or Smedley?
How's that tin-foil hat fit after all these years?
You can appease both player bases with rather little effort. It's not a stretch to say, for example, a Lord Nagafen raid would drop one Cloak of Flame for every, oh, eight hours he's alive, on average requiring about 30 people to slay the big, bad dude. You could also have master crafters who, given a whole absurd slew of materials and rare, but individually attainable, components could make the exact same Cloak of Flame. It isn't a serious stretch to say that both are possible - in fact, it makes more sense that both ARE possible, since Mr. Nagafen himself acquired the Cloaks of Flame from somewhere. That's the ultimate kind of sandbox; giving the opportunity to play the game the way you want to play it. Hell, you could even set up a quest for other players to get you the components you need, and as a result of their success you give them a certain amount of your own platinum and the game gives them a bit of an experience boost relative to the difficulty of the attainment - sort of like an NPC bounty system set by the players, for the players.
The reason why UO was the first quality MMO was because it was a world based almost entirely off of a sandbox - you could be an immensely powerful and wealthy individual without ever putting a sword in your hand. The reason why EQ became the standard was because it was the ultimate PvM sandbox. You could create a Dark Elf Shadowknight, level up to 50 partially by way of slaying your own guards repeatedly, and become the best friend of the halflings while having your friend run and by your Shadowknight spells. Oh, and if you ever wanted to train again, you had to do the exact same grind the other way - I know this to be true, because I did exactly that. EQ also had the 'all for one, one for all' mentality of building friendships and fighting a common enemy to acquire untold riches and treasure, a formula that is still the key component of MMO's to this day. The only unfortunate part of that is now the questgivers have exclamation points marked on the map and floating above their head, taking away from the immersion and adding to the hand-holding.
I truly believe that most people would be happy with a graphically updated version of the original EverQuest. If they add any of the pseudo-sandbox elements they've been discussing while still giving us the core elements of EQ - the player trading, the overall difficulty, the requisite world exploration (save the staggered zones - no one's against a seamless world), this game will be a rousing success. Which is great, because Norrath is still the best modern fantasy world ever made, and more people should get the opportunity to experience it.
I have to call bullshit on Smed. To me that sounds like a lot of intentionally misleading hype. At first it sounds like they are really going to make an effort to make a good sandbox game but then if you look a little closer you realize that---oh yeah---not so much sandbox after all.
The first clue was when he referred to is as "sandbox style". By adding that little modifier there, the word "style", he was covering his arse so he can't be called a lier later. Basically what this tells you is that it won't really be a sandbox game but rather it will be a typical sort of game with some elements which could concievably be labeled sandbox elements.
He also says, " I'm not saying we're going to a big skill-based system." Which is just another way of saying it's still going to be a level based game.
Ok, then when talking about raiding he says, "We absolutely need to build that style of content into every game we make..." So, yeah, more of the same.
Alright so what do we learn when we look closely at his comments? We learn that he's planning to make a level based game with end-game raiding. Well golly gee I never heard of something like that before!
Yes, he also talks about better AI and a dynamic world but, come on. The game will be shaped by the fact that it's level based and raid based. Those two basic facts will dictate what the game will be and they pretty much make a sandbox game impossible. Ok, say a raid guild kills dragon X. Dragon X stays dead. Instead of dragon X respawning there will be something else like < Mountian Giant Y> or whatever. Maybe this is generated somewhat randomly. Well ok, now they can say that their world is "dynamic". But really it's just the same ol' thing in a different graphical package.
And if you think I'm clueless that's fine, but really, does anyone have any faith left in SOE or Smedley?
To answer your question nope, none at all, but people on here are suckers for a , 'supposed', MMO savior, (all previous sins are forgiven when you overhype your next game).
While anyone can poke holes in grandoise talking and how Smed sounds just like Mythic before WAR, or ANET before GW2, I think it's best to wait and see what they have to show before we can really say anything positive/negative.
Personally I don't have any faith in SOE, or Smed, and it's a bad idea to start hyping something and then say, 'oh we'll have footage next year', (so whats the point in mentioning it, without anything to show? People will just forget about it). However in this case I'd happily be proven wrong if they have something worthwhile brewing...
Interesting thread, many thanks to Nadia for posting it.
I am admittedly skeptical because of past failures on SOE's part. I agree with another poster who said they already revealed that raids are present and we all know the rinse-repeat gameplay that entails, tossing in the word "Sandbox" only obfuscates the matter. For Smed to have any sort of credibility in the use of the word, he has to first define what he means when using it within the context of his project. He's unwilling to do that because like any politician on the campaign trail, history and unfolding truths boxes him in and may cost him (and his masters) the election.
While we can debate the subtlties of the terms "themepark" and "sandbox", and what constitutes the "correct" use of the word in question, they are polar opposites in philosophy. Defining what I understand as the core principles of those two philosophies in abbreviated/simplified terms are;
Themepark Dev's create the encounter, scripted with If-Then Do sequences that players are expected to know and respond appropriately to and create the most desired rewards in the game for successfully completing the encounter, with repeated completion of said scripted encounter being both required and considered "the real game".
Sandbox the players are given tools to create their own content, rewards, and conflicts, meaning there must by default be PvP (though how it is presented, what forms it takes and any consequences are beyond the confines of this post to get into). Devs participate by throwing events at them that threaten the status quo of all that content the players have generated and it is by necessity, open world in nature (meaning no instancing of any sort).
Build me a world where if I'm a outlaw, I become hunted by bounty seekers, if I'm a lord who clears a region to develop a holding and must defend it from monster and rival lords alike, where I can discover new spells, rituals, alchemy formulas and pursue forgotten lore to restore ancient powers to my use. In such a place I can assassinate key political figures and cause disturbances by that fact, a dragon can rampage and destory crops or be a (dangerous) ally, where gods answer prayers and demand appropriate sacrifices. Sometimes invasions of a unrelenting foe threatens factions that have been locked in conflict for generations and they have to agree to work together for a time, all the while looking out for a opportunity to emerge stronger than their ally of the moment will.
A game where the term "class" is but a loose definition of what you can expect of my abilities that have grown based upon what I choose them to be, all that and more, can be done in sandbox if the tools are there. Build a world like that and it'll endure game engine updates and people will subscribe to it for life. And yes, it can have quests, even "basic" ones for that is in fact, how our lives progress. We quest for that degree, job, mate, car, trophy, etc, but how we fail is as important as how we succeed, so far, no game has addressed that beyond not getting the goodies.
All of that requires the game to have a very deep and bug free design at launch, with a vast wealth of tools to give to players and a aggressive response mechanism to deal with bugs and any other game breaking flaws, not the least of which is coping with in game currency sellers. The world has to be very robust with a depth necessary to support all of that and that is exceptionally expensive. While its true SOE has a great wealth of resources and could indeed, do all of that, their history has shown repeatedly they are unwilling to do that. I may not regard Smed with much in the way of respect because of his politician persona, but to be fair, he can't deliver on anything if he doesn't get the funding to do it, and SOE is notoriously tight fisted.
Admittedly Nadia has succeeded in getting me to watch this development, but I regard it with a lot of skepticism because of the actors involved. In short, SOE would have to prove to me that the tiger has changed its stripes.
Comments
let me start by saying i do want open pvp. i just think a whole heck of a lot of people think open pvp = sandbox and it simply doesn't in my mind.
what would you do wihtout pvp? as close to anything you want as possible, that is what makes it a sandbox in my mind.
if you want to travel to a deserted island, build a house there and maybe start farming and crafting your own stuff to put in your house, you can do that.
or as you mentioned, you can build towns and cities if your guild/clan is powerful enough.
there doesn't need to be full open pvp, they can make it just like it was in EQ and guilds can declare war against other guilds.
i am not saying it shouldn't have open pvp or even that i do not want it, because i do.
just saying it doesn't have to have it, open pvp does not make it a sandbox, the mechanics in game that allow you do play your character the way you want with as much freedom as possible does, but again that's just my opinion.
that said, personally i definitely do not want a game where its just a big pvp war and i don't think they will make a game like that.
because if they did it wouldn't be everquest. this game is almost certainly going to be pve focused, i think it will be more of a hybrid sandbox/theme park rather than strictly a sandbox game.
remember, smed already confirmed there will be raiding in this game, so that tells you right there what the focus of this game will be.
like i said before, if i had it my way it would be a game that was unforgiving like EQ was when it first came out, with a huge seamless and un-instanced world.
there would then be the added sandbox elements that provide much more freedom for the player to play their character the way they want.
with the option to play on a server with open pvp or a "blue" server with only dueling or guild warfare allowed.
that way the people that want the pvp can do it and the people that just want to do the pve, socialize, and work with other players, or just do their own thing in their "sandbox" without being bothered by others can do that as well.
I will tell you exactly what happened. Smedley is on a plane some where about 3 or 4 weeks ago reading a trade magazine on gaming so that he will sound like he know what he is talking about when he drops a few buzzwords during management meetings. He runs across and article on sandbox games. He doesn't really understand it but it makes him excited because he just learned a new word. As soon as he gets back to the office, he pulls the entire EQNext design team into a conference room and puts a single frame power point on the projector with the word "SANDBOX". He looks around the room at everyone and then after a dramatic pause says "It's the future." with a blissfully ignorant and overly confident sage nod.
Everybody in that room nods in agreement but thinks to themselves "F*&#, he has been reading magazines on airplanes again."
This very scenario happens all the time at all kinds of companies. simply change the actors and the buzzword. Virtualization, Cloud computing, Data Warehouse, I have seen it happen, and I am not the only one.
All die, so die well.
You stay sassy!
There's some black humour here, watching the sandbox vultures gathering to pick the corpse clean before it is even born.
Or maybe Sony will successfully make its corpse run?
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It's free right?
B2P or F2P either way I hope to enjoy this Sandbox alongside GW2 and PS2, I just hope the Combat isn't like EQ1-2, I hope I get to have some sort of control in combat.
Like AOC, DSO, GW2, and Tera.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
I agree with you about PvP. I don't see why "sandbox" has to mean unrestricted open PvP. Ideally I would like to see open PvP but only if someone could come up with some consequences which would actually prevent a game from becoming a mindless gankfest. I've often thought a robust enough faction system (including player created factions) might do the trick but who knows. Oh, and I mean faction hits for killing other players.
The focus on raiding is the thing that really kills this whole thing for me. Ok, cards on the table here, I've hated raiding since I played the first EQ game so I am extremely biased against it. However, I just can't see how any game could even pretend to be a sandbox if it is focused on raiding for loot. That whole paradigm would make any attempt at a sandbox game into a sad joke. I mean if you're going to rely on raid progression to keep people hooked it requires certain things for that to work with directly contradicts the whole idea of a sandbox.
1. it kills crafting because the best loot has to come from raids or people wouldn't do raids.
2. With the constant need to raid, raid, raid for loot upgrades to "keep up with the Jones's" nobody is going to care about piddling around with any sandboxy elements.
3. Endless gear progression would compelely f-ck up balance between characters who have progressed a lot and those who haven't. So if you did have PvP it would be seriously messed up.
4. It eliminates the possibility of having destuctable items because people wouldn't stand for it if their phat raid lewtz could be destroyed. And there goes any chance at a sandboxy economy.
5. As with point 4 it eliminates the possibility of item loot in PvP. Maybe there could be item loot on a special PvP server like Rallos zek but think about how few people played there compared to all the people who played on all the other servers.
Basically, if the game has raid progression for ever-increasingly-powerfull items then everything comes to revolve around raiding. Quite simply because that's where the progression is. And if the game is all about endless gear progression then it's really not about player driven, emergent gameplay, sandbox "style" stuff. In fact, it's just the same exact crap they've been shoveling at us for years.
I've laughed sever times over these EQNext threads.
What is indeed funny is the fact the original EQ was a harsh and unforgiving game yet it was the dominant non-asian mmo of the day by far. Let first make it clear that I was an AC player during that time but I still respected EQ for what it was. EQNext is trying to go back to what EQ was originaly like along with concepts and ideas the original EQ team likely would have loved to impliment.
What EQNext will be is a much harder place to progress through and survive without real time investment, real social interaction and real fantasy immersion. This scares new age mmo players. It scares people knowing they must organize and plan along side other players within the world. It scares them that it is like real life and their lack of real online social skills will be tested and forced to develop. It scares them when they realise that 5+ years of mmo gameplay has in fact had nothing to actually do with real rpg gameplay that others have mastered over a life time of playing. They are now the outsiders and the themeparks which have been providing all the conveniences for them is now being stripped away and the player must now work for those conveniences.
So many here forget that great gameplay does not required to be wrapping in small zones or personal instances. That improving social interaction requires removal of barriers and not more barriers. They forget that group finders remove the need to actually meet someone and are in fact counter intuitive and that pvp and instanced dungeons remove players from the world, not add to the world.
People are just scared. They say it won't work to ease their insecurity and ignore the fact that it has already worked and worked well. All SOE is doing is making a roleplaying game for actual roleplayers (and I don't mean rp chatters ... those aren't roleplayers, they are socialites). They decided to stop making an mmo for video gamers with no rpg background and stop taking away rpg mechanics because non-rpg players couldn't handle them. But I know, making an rpg for actual rpg fans is crazy! Who the fuck would go out and make a game for it's target audience? CRAZY TALK!
You stay sassy!
+1
The focus on raiding is the thing that really kills this whole thing for me. Ok, cards on the table here, I've hated raiding since I played the first EQ game so I am extremely biased against it. However, I just can't see how any game could even pretend to be a sandbox if it is focused on raiding for loot. That whole paradigm would make any attempt at a sandbox game into a sad joke. I mean if you're going to rely on raid progression to keep people hooked it requires certain things for that to work with directly contradicts the whole idea of a sandbox.
1. it kills crafting because the best loot has to come from raids or people wouldn't do raids.
2. With the constant need to raid, raid, raid for loot upgrades to "keep up with the Jones's" nobody is going to care about piddling around with any sandboxy elements.
3. Endless gear progression would compelely f-ck up balance between characters who have progressed a lot and those who haven't. So if you did have PvP it would be seriously messed up.
4. It eliminates the possibility of having destuctable items because people wouldn't stand for it if their phat raid lewtz could be destroyed. And there goes any chance at a sandboxy economy.
5. As with point 4 it eliminates the possibility of item loot in PvP. Maybe there could be item loot on a special PvP server like Rallos zek but think about how few people played there compared to all the people who played on all the other servers.
Basically, if the game has raid progression for ever-increasingly-powerfull items then everything comes to revolve around raiding. Quite simply because that's where the progression is. And if the game is all about endless gear progression then it's really not about player driven, emergent gameplay, sandbox "style" stuff. In fact, it's just the same exact crap they've been shoveling at us for years.
you make some good points, especially about crafting and the items.
this is just one of the reasons why i am confident that this will be more of a hybrid sandbox/theme park rather than strictly a sandbox game.
i personally don't have a problem with that as long as its implemented the right way.
i too am not a huge fan of raiding anymore since i did it in classic EQ and vanilla wow but if the game is that good and it builds a great community like EQ had, i would consider it just for the social aspect of it if nothing else.
You end up with a lorded elite having all the fun while everyone else ends up being a serf. You need pvp so you can have revoloution.
I lol'd at the red part. Great post.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Is there a pure PvE sandbox out there where you can be a hoarding lord? You may have just been talking hypothetically but I think if the world is big and varied enough there should be room for everyone to "stake a claim". If you like PvP then great I just don't think it's required in a sandbox game. I would be very surprised if EQN had forced PvP outside dedicated servers. I guess we'll have to wait and find out.
past interview that happened 5 days before SOE Live
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/13/planetside-2-eq-next-and-soes-player-driven-future/
RPS: That seems to be the trend with more systemic MMOs like that. Similar to EVE, where a lot of what ends up going into the game is shaped by the players. Is there where SOE’s hoping MMOs are headed? To the point of shedding off archaic, grindy quests in favor of dynamic worlds? I mean, I see a bit of EVE in PlanetSide’s structure, but what about in, say, EverQuest Next?
John Smedley: We are, as a company, embracing that. I don’t talk a lot about EverQuest Next because we’re not ready to yet, but I will say that you’re going to see that times 20 in the next EverQuest. We’re embracing that. That’s the whole game. It’s going to be a very, very different game than the original EverQuest or any other MMO ever made. In fact, we rebooted it. This is the third reboot of it. Users saw the first iteration… We trashed it. We said, “This is just too similar to other games.” Then we did another iteration, and we said, “This is better,” but we trashed that too. This time it stuck, because everybody in the company said, “Oh, yes, we want that.”
RPS: SOE’s Player Studio seems like an extension of that to me. Let players make their own new content. How far do you hope to expand that, though? Right now it’s just objects in games like EverQuest and eventually PlanetSide. Would you ever like to see players creating their own missions and gametypes, though?
John Smedley: Stay tuned. The answer is yes, wholeheartedly. We have plans for that that go out a long way, and a game that is going to dominate because of that kind of stuff.
It’s not just players making quests. Don’t think of it just as Dungeons & Dragons. What we’re actually building is the ability for players to put in systems. System-level stuff. We give them some rules, some basic simple rules, and they can make things out of whole cloth. They could build their own battlegrounds style of gameplay. That’s what we want. What we have is an amazing infrastructure and ability to let players do new and emerging things.
We want them to… Not make their own fun. We’re going to make our games amazingly fun. We want them to be able to make things we didn’t think of fun. That’s really what it is. I mentioned Hulkageddon, I love that in EVE. That’s just players putting bounties on something. It’s nothing. That’s all it is. But that’s as fun as anything in EVE. More fun if you ask me. It’s amazingly fun.
EQ2 fan sites
ZAM interview
http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=30916
You’ll be able to destroy, massive, massive parts of this world, almost all of it. You can light the forest on fire; we have ambition with this thing. We want it to be something where the world you log into, might not be the world you log into in five days.
What you saw in WoW’s Cataclysm could take place because someone cast a spell that is powerful enough to do something major. We want it to be meaningful. And that’s what we’re building. It’s actually what we’ve built, because we’ve got this now. It just isn’t quite at the level where we’re OK [to reveal it to the public]. We have a story that we want to tell for the announcement of it, we want it that you’re seeing every aspect of the gameplay, we’re one aspect short of that until we’re ready to show, so we’re close now.”
EQ2 fan sites
Interesting. Based on this it sounds more (generally) like its going to be a RPG-maker lite. Provide in game systems that allow you to build part of the world. I can see the rules just restricting the creativity to the context/lore of the game. I imagine a world where dungeons are user-created or (even better) user-created quests. Perhaps people who reach max level provide quests for items they may want in exchange for the plat they have accumulated over time. Keeps crafting/commerce active (which I also enjoy).
Still skeptical, but definitely curious and excited how this will turn out. Currently bored with the slew of current thumb-sucker MMOs.
I like the idea, but wary of the implementation. Coming from the console (360+Kinect) background I can tell you motion capture is not mature enough (in my eyes) to make that type of gameplay style effective or fun. Interested to see if they can pull it off, whatever it is.
Interesting thread, many thanks to Nadia for posting it.
I am admittedly skeptical because of past failures on SOE's part. I agree with another poster who said they already revealed that raids are present and we all know the rinse-repeat gameplay that entails, tossing in the word "Sandbox" only obfuscates the matter. For Smed to have any sort of credibility in the use of the word, he has to first define what he means when using it within the context of his project. He's unwilling to do that because like any politician on the campaign trail, history and unfolding truths boxes him in and may cost him (and his masters) the election.
While we can debate the subtlties of the terms "themepark" and "sandbox", and what constitutes the "correct" use of the word in question, they are polar opposites in philosophy. Defining what I understand as the core principles of those two philosophies in abbreviated/simplified terms are;
Even peace may be purchased at too high a price, and the only time you are completely safe is when you lie in the grave.
am i just lost, or is there no actual place holder for EQ Next on mmorpg.com game list yet?
i've checked through the game list, but didn't see it. i'm pretty tired and not throwing out the idea that i may have just missed it.
i see eq and eq2. is it just too early to make a sub section for it?
How's that tin-foil hat fit after all these years?
You can appease both player bases with rather little effort. It's not a stretch to say, for example, a Lord Nagafen raid would drop one Cloak of Flame for every, oh, eight hours he's alive, on average requiring about 30 people to slay the big, bad dude. You could also have master crafters who, given a whole absurd slew of materials and rare, but individually attainable, components could make the exact same Cloak of Flame. It isn't a serious stretch to say that both are possible - in fact, it makes more sense that both ARE possible, since Mr. Nagafen himself acquired the Cloaks of Flame from somewhere. That's the ultimate kind of sandbox; giving the opportunity to play the game the way you want to play it. Hell, you could even set up a quest for other players to get you the components you need, and as a result of their success you give them a certain amount of your own platinum and the game gives them a bit of an experience boost relative to the difficulty of the attainment - sort of like an NPC bounty system set by the players, for the players.
The reason why UO was the first quality MMO was because it was a world based almost entirely off of a sandbox - you could be an immensely powerful and wealthy individual without ever putting a sword in your hand. The reason why EQ became the standard was because it was the ultimate PvM sandbox. You could create a Dark Elf Shadowknight, level up to 50 partially by way of slaying your own guards repeatedly, and become the best friend of the halflings while having your friend run and by your Shadowknight spells. Oh, and if you ever wanted to train again, you had to do the exact same grind the other way - I know this to be true, because I did exactly that. EQ also had the 'all for one, one for all' mentality of building friendships and fighting a common enemy to acquire untold riches and treasure, a formula that is still the key component of MMO's to this day. The only unfortunate part of that is now the questgivers have exclamation points marked on the map and floating above their head, taking away from the immersion and adding to the hand-holding.
I truly believe that most people would be happy with a graphically updated version of the original EverQuest. If they add any of the pseudo-sandbox elements they've been discussing while still giving us the core elements of EQ - the player trading, the overall difficulty, the requisite world exploration (save the staggered zones - no one's against a seamless world), this game will be a rousing success. Which is great, because Norrath is still the best modern fantasy world ever made, and more people should get the opportunity to experience it.
To answer your question nope, none at all, but people on here are suckers for a , 'supposed', MMO savior, (all previous sins are forgiven when you overhype your next game).
While anyone can poke holes in grandoise talking and how Smed sounds just like Mythic before WAR, or ANET before GW2, I think it's best to wait and see what they have to show before we can really say anything positive/negative.
Personally I don't have any faith in SOE, or Smed, and it's a bad idea to start hyping something and then say, 'oh we'll have footage next year', (so whats the point in mentioning it, without anything to show? People will just forget about it). However in this case I'd happily be proven wrong if they have something worthwhile brewing...
This looks like a job for....The Riviera Kid!
Nice post!