Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Medieval Sandbox MMO from independent team
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I'm not....and one would find neither defined in dictionary or thesaurus, because there is no commonly accepted definition of said term that nearly everyone agrees upon. The terms are very subjective.
However, AFAIC, "sandbox" simply implies the opportunity for significant player input and creativity in shaping the environment of the game and the narratives that occur within it. That doesn't mean that there are ZERO restrictions imposed upon the players....the "BOX" in "Sandbox"...nor no other forces in the world that could IMPOSE thier will upon the players if they acted in contravention to certain acceptable mores.
The Haiku and Sonnet are not disqualified from being considered creative works simply because they are constrained to a certain form. Nor would a game, IMO, be disqualified from being considered a "sandbox" by placing some very broad constraints on player behavior.
Would you expect to play a Klingon armed with a disrupter in a Medieval Fantasy Game? Then why would you not accept that some power greater then your own (a Diety, Society, a Magic Spell) could place some constraint upon the legitimate targets for direct hostility that your character could engage....yet still leave very broad latitude for your characters behavior within those constraints. If you were not living in a state of near anarchy....and you required the support of your own society to be effective....would it not be logical, then, that you would very quickly and permanently be removed from the world (and hence the game) IF you chose to act in such a way that directly contraviened that socities mores? Why would it be fruitfull for the Developers to model something that would inevitably result in the players removal from the game....especialy when they could not mechanicaly achieve such results, given the ability of players to create new accounts?
I can tell you planty of themeparks who support what I said and give planty of different results on an entirely cloned dungeon run.
I certainly don't have to give examples for Your theoreticaly placed sytem in which you're proving your own technical rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world very easy and if you actually google "definition of a sandbox game" you get:
http://www.techopedia.com/definition/3952/sandbox
http://mmogamersauce.wordpress.com/category/defining-sandbox-series/
http://www.wordnik.com/words/sandbox%20game
http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/02/29/the-daily-grind-how-would-you-define-a-sandbox-mmo/
And so on and so on.
Open World MMOs = Single player Sandboxes for the very simple reason that you're lacking almost a half of the pallet of human emotions by denying players the choice of killing each other, in single player games such as Skyrim there are never other players around and you can kill anything in-game (excluding children for some completely arbitrary reason) ergo it is a sandbox.
Sandbox MMOs allow all forms of interactions from the hostile to the downright overly attached variety between their players, you're mistaking mechanics and aesthetics linked constraints with arbitrary ones (no pvp vs full pvp), true a full sandbox MMO could allow you to be a klingon in a tutu banging the british queen in front of crowd of adoring anthromorphs but such games are impossible to make because they'd require thousands of years of work just to cover the possible variations of ideas just one individual could have ergo in the interest of sanity and budget the developers constrain a sandbox's choices such that it is fair for all gamers and possible to even make but make no mistake once you constrain the player to player interactions on a arbitrary basis, read: not because it would ease the production of the game by several thousands of years, then you move from a sandbox where one player can choose to build a castle and the other one to shit on that guy's castle because of x reason to a open world game, do not get me wrong open world games are fun in and of themselves but they are not sandboxes, they are games with arbitrary restrictions on gameplay catered towards a specific crowd of people.
To explain more simply: The universe which is made up of mechanics and aesthetics + lore is your box, the sand are your choices, if you take away the conflict and strife possible with FFA open world full loot PVP then you move from a sandbox to a box filled with molten adamantium where whatever you build is eternal (that is to say no one can take it away from you) which to put it bluntly isn't a sandbox anymore now is it? This is what makes or breaks a Sandbox MMO, no strife possible between the players with consequences possibly stretching months or years down the line (ex: Take a look at the history of war between Goonswarm and Band of Brothers in EVE-Online) then your game is a open world game where the best you can ever get is guild drama and speaking as someone who rather dislikes not being able to order a hit on a particularly... special individual for his/her part in a shitstorm of epic proportions I'd rather get ganked and lose all my crap than not be able to go "Say hello to my little friend" to particularly douchy players.
So you have examples but somehow do not want to state them? That in my world is called: Bullshit.
Sandbox has nothing to do with pvp, they are 2 distinct systems. Sandbox is just about player derived content, the players essentially making content (not solely but they can derive and influence it)
Pvp is one way to do this, probably the most common but definately not the only one. Atitd is a sandbox, there is no pvp. Istaria is a sandbox there is no pvp. Swg was a sandbox, you could play without pvp if you wanted to.
Yes you are full of it atm. I pointed out at a failed logical step you did and now you're cruching on this? You actually got butthurt over it, haha please.
Where did YOU answer me how your system where a droped axe equals droped sword is actually a valid system than can support your statement about said technicalities?
I'll be sportsman tho and answer your question. ANY mmorpg in existance can have a boss with a no drop result on loot table as one of results. A simple bug can be the couse and our mathmatical system that suposedly our human ancestor have invented will prove me right and if you're mathematician you can calculate and see that statisticaly if you do enaugh tries a bug like that will come into existance and couse the said no loot result.
Unless you want to clame all mmorpgs, themeparks namely if you wish, are absolutely perfect without any bug what so ever.
First off learn to spell.
Second off: Can have does not mean will have and I have yet to hear examples of MMORPGs where you kill something and you get nothing for your troubles and this not being a bug beyond your own opinion which if we'd start admitting as true we'd have to do for everyone around the forums (I can't name one and I've played allot of em including the rather unique case of Entropia Universe which actually would have a reason to give you nothing and yet still does).
That's so weak. And now nothing but a waste of time since you seem unable to do any real logical connections in the conversation and instead keep dragging it down to irrelevant personal level. I will leave you with wiki so you can learn more quotes and pretend you're actually smart.
Good, you found spell check at least, shame the phrasing still needs allot of work. Have fun and btw I used examples from other places not just wiki (and the quotes you find there can also be found in many other places) which is allot more than you've done, nice troll attempt if that's what it was if not, sad.
How "smart" is it for a few people to take on an army? "Smart" isn't what you are looking for, "guarantees regardless" is.
A doctored game. Insurance against losing. Fairness no matter.
Once upon a time....
But seriously it should be a game balanced on the notion that if you're a small group of people going up against a zerg guild through careful battle doctrine you could whittle away their numbers through morale draining raids and hit and run attacks. That's what I mean, not all out and out battles but applying your resources in such a way that you can win against a oponent who does not apply his in equal if not better way regardless if numbers are on either side. That's what I'd like to see in this game and not the derpfest EVE has become since most 0.0 alliances/blocks can now just drop supercaps on any small group they feel like it, before titans and supercarriers the battles were more interesting the wars were more battles of morale attrition, nowadays it's just who's got more titans and isn't in a persistant vegetative coma.
Ah, well, yes. I can agree with that. I just think that numbers should be important. But I also think that zergs need the challenge of maintenance. As I stated above, it should cost just for the act of going to war.
Basically, I want a more realistic game. Imagine your comment here if there are supply lines that your small guild can break, harassment, etc., and playing a waiting game while the attacker weakens themselves and a third party decides it's a darn good time to take some other holdings, and forcing your attacker to pull out. Or alliances, "you attack them there, and if you do I have another guild who's ready to attack them over there, and we'll beat the crap out of that zerg."
Imagine true player mercenary armies for hire.
Once upon a time....
I agree. Griefers feel empowered when they can ruin someone else's fun. That is why you rarely see griefing in ThemePark MMOs with no death penalty. I played on the WAR PvP servers, at launch, and even though it was possible for higher levels to gank noobs it rarely happened because you lost almost nothing when dying.
However, in games like Eve, where you lose so much. Getting ganked in low security zone is a guarantee, even if you fly a crap ship, not worth anything, because they know that killing and podding you still hurts. You have to get a new clone, get a new ship, new modules etc etc.
I believe a happy balance is the best. Allow for FFA PvP but make the death penalty moderate, such that you "lose" maybe 10 minutes of your time. That way death wont be meaningless but also not so bad that griefers will get a kick out of griefing you.
My gaming blog
You're complaining that you autopiloted through low sec or didn't plan accordingly for the trip and got ganked? Are you seriously gonna bring that argument to the table? Because I got a few choice words to definitively counter it: electronics level 5, cloaking level 4, covert ops level 4 + your choice of faction frigate to level 5 and you'll be laughing at any gate camps you run into including the bubble camps in 0.0/wormhole space ( I still have my original anathema complete with the original set of scanning rigs I put into it, which defaulted into large rigs when they rigs got split into small/medium/large types and the ship is almost 7 years old and has been through major fleet battles in over 3 wars in 3 different regions).
Also your "happy" balance will just feed griefers and bring in the griefertards from WoW and WoW-clones who grief people just cause they ran across them (think I am joking? try grinding mobs in northrend to gain a level on a pvp server and see how long it takes for a level capped blood elf pally with full pvp gear to drop on your ass and 2 shot you because you're at least 10 levels below him and in pve gear of the non-raid variety), because with no consequence beyond "10 minutes" people won't care about them as a collective and the griefers will just go about their jobs ruining your gameplay experience at which point you'll moan going "FFA PVP SUXOR THE DEVS ARE FAIL!".
If you can't be bothered to think your moves in a game, think what you need with you, what you can afford to lose and what you need to put in the bank then this is most definately not your game as you'll be crying you just lost everything when anyone with even the least bit of tactical knowledge knows "never bring anything you cannot afford to lose" (that's the best piece of advice you'll ever hear in a real sandbox game and while you'll no doubt continue thinking this is unfair and a game is supposed to be "fun" , your fun is not my fun and I like a game where I can jump into it, find a band of like minded individuals and get on with doing whatever (hunting creatures, hunting other players or just plain old bashing numbers together thinking of which way to optimize production quotas, yeah I got a few good friends in EVE with whom I do just that and while the latter might bore you and the hunting players part might horrify you it is all in good fun and we sometimes are the ones who end up dead, in which case we all pm the guys who beat us and congratulate them on a good fight)).
Ah fair enough. Assume you'll post updates on your website 1st and foremost (blog?)?
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Yes of course. We try to be as transparent as possibles about our decisions and why we make them. But currently we are doing a lot of testing and do not want to raise wrong expectations by saying we are doing A, only to find out later that we are doing B.
Kind regards
Bercilak
A medieval sandbox MMO
http://www.facebook.com/albiononline/
I must have missed that memo :P
I did plenty of solo play in UO. Did a fair bit of group stuff as well, but one (of many) things I liked about UO was that I didn't feel like the game itself was punishing me for going one way or the other. There was reason to group, but it never felt forced.
Meh, no. Strictly PvE games are all about the endgame raiding these days, and that's not really solo or even small-group material either. The grind-to-endgame might be perfectly viable as a solo endeavor, maybe even more efficient, but once you're through that part there's SFA to do on your own.
@Dihoru,
Sorry, but Wikipedia is hardly considered an authoritative source because of the manner of it's editing. If you find the term in Websters, let me know. More importantly even the Wikipedia entry that you reference does NOT agree with your own definition of sandbox... "In a true "sandbox", the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play". That definition does not include PvP at all, let alone FFA PvP. Nor does it say that said tools are exhaustive and no limitations within who's form the player must work within thier creativity. It simply implies that the player has tools to modify the world and express creativity in how they play. I again point to the sonnet and the haiku as devices which impose some broad form upon a writer but who few would consider do not allow for individual creativity.
You can look to something like, A Tale in the Desert, as an example of a game which allows for sandbox style play but doesn't feature combat at all.
I believe you are simply attempting to impose your own narrow preferences upon the definition of a very broad term. Like saying if a hotdog doesn't have mustard and relish, it's not a hotdog. Meaningfull human interaction takes many different forms, and simply because there may be some very broad effective constraints upon said interaction does not mean the interaction does not exist. The idea that the only way to express meaningfull human interaction, emotion, competition, even conflict is the hacking of each other is rather myopic (IMO)....as is that there can be no external constraint imposed on who is allowed to hack who down and still allowed the freedom to operate within a given environment.
In fact, one of the strongest experesions of a "sandbox" style experience that I've heard many players mention is PnP Role-Playing....and that is a place where the GM would generaly permanently remove characters from play if they attempted to engage in direct violence against the rest of the party on a regular basis.
In terms of the durability of what one creates, why would you assume that the ONLY force in existance capable of destroying something would be another player? That certainly isn't even true in real life where peoples "sandcastles" are often destroyed by forces beyond any humans control. In a game environment, you not only have such forces availble but a whole plethora of non-player antagonists availble to use for such a mechanism if desired.
RE: Greifing
To be fair, in any game where one player can interact with another player in any fashion, the potential for greifing exists. I do see that FFA full loot games TEND to attract more greifers then other types of games. I think this is simply due to that sort of interaction putting more tools in the greifers tool-kit to use....and not giving the greifers most favored targets, new players, any built in support base that they can use to help deflect such attacks. Therefore, there is probably a degree of self-selection that turns into an ugly spiral in many such games. I don't think it is the design intent of most such games to support or encourage such activity. I do wish the Developers of Albion much success in thier efforts to curb such activity in thier own game. I do think both specific design mechanisms and degree of intent of the designers can make a big difference here. It's just an unfortunate tendency that many such games have fallen victem to this problem so far.
I'll keep a carefull eye on how this MMO progresses and hope the Developers here are able to solve what seems to be a fairly pernicious problem with this category of game. At least they seem well aware of the potential problem.
1. I'd say it's a better measure of a definition than most dictionaries which sometimes take years to include technical terms due to the flux said terms could be in.
2. And modification of the world does include (not exclude) reduction of the number of individuals within said world. If said individuals are also player controlled then elimination of another player by you, as a player, is basically PVP. A Tale in the Desert also allows PVP just that is the non-combat sort (I assume player trade is in that game and a wider player controlled market, if not then you really have no basis to call it even a open world MMO) and it is quite redundant to name it a sandbox.
3. My "narrow minded preferences" are in fact broader than yours which I find rather amusing.
4. By that definition Neverwinter Online is a sandbox.
5. Do you even know how difficult natural disasters are the model in a game? (hint: look up fluid dynamics and the math going into it to have a good idea the kind of models a game with credible natural disasters would require to emulate and be able to run on your local hardware).
Feh. Even the PnP environment has it's 'sandbox' versus 'themepark' debate, just under different terms: "railroad" versus "free-form" are the ones I'm familiar with.
As to how much in-party fighting was allowed... well, actually I'd compare that more to in-guild fighting than to the ffa concepts.
1) We can disagree on the authoritative status of Wikipedia, but again...Wikipedia, which YOU consider an authoritative source does NOT conform to your definition of the term....it's definition is MUCH broader, and would include things you do not consider "sandbox".
2) Modification of the world CAN include reduction of the number of players in the world but does not NECCESSITATE such. Huge difference there. Nor does it dictate the conditions under which said reduction MIGHT. Note, the idea of reduction of players in the world is something which NO FFA PvP game currently supports anyway...since none of them support perma-death, let alone closing of the players account upon death. Conflict can indeed take many forms, as I have already pointed out. FFA PvP is a very narrow expression of one of those forms. Furthermore, Wikipedia's definition, which you consider authoritative, doesn't even reference conflict. It references creativity. Conflict is merely one narrow expression of creativity.
4) Yes, the FOUNDRY aspect of Neverwinter Online would be a VERY STRONG expression of a "sanbox". Nearly the definition of it, since it quite literaly allows the players to create a portion of the world and how they might play within it. The degree by which that gameplay aspect is divorced from the rest of the gameplay experience of the game MAY certainly open the door for debate on the overall classification of the game....but I would absolutely maintain that the FOUNDRY itself is an expression of sandbox gameplay.
5) So are truely accurate real-world physics that physical combat might be based upon. A game system does NOT have to have accurate real-world modeling in it's systems in order represent something in game-play. Virtualy all game-play mechanisms in all games (including all your FFA PvP games) are merely abstractions of something. Heck...the Sim-City single-player computer games back in the 90's had representation of natural disasters as part of thier game-play. This point is not salient to the discussion at hand.
-facepalms- Just remove yourself from the discussion, it's obvious you're ill suited for rational and calm discourse even if you had any idea of the topic and if anyone had any doubt of that 5) pretty much nailed that coffin shut. Comparing classical mechanics,which are used to represent physical combat in most MMOs as currently know of no game where combat happens at relativistic speeds, to fluid dynamics is like me comparing you to a fern and no stylizing natural disasters like they used to do it in 2D, isometric and 3D management games won't work in a 3D sandbox game where players can spot, due to their ground level point of view, the glaring, immersion breaking,flaws in any simplified version of modeling a natural disaster when said disaster is tearing shit apart and even if you could get it to look good enough while avoiding the immersion pitfall and not spend a few years coding each disaster in part you're still then faced with a very real issue of "how the fuck are people gonna even see this without their rigs bursting into flames?" because I donno how much you know but modeling a fluid on the PC in rudimentary graphics isn't fun for the PC and when I say rudimentary I mean WoW looks like da shit in comparison level graphics.
Nope, still not tired of making accounts.
@Dihoru
Not sure if you are trolling at this point, but I'll bite...
- You don't NEED to model fluid dynamics in the engine. All you need is destructable structures (which you would need to model anyway with PvP if you wanted to be able to "tear down someone elses sandcastle" and a graphical representation of something happening to a structure (e.g. a lightning bolt) or player which is no more complex to model graphicaly then any spell effect which has been around for 10+ years in MMO's.
- Have you even looked at the screenshots for this MMO? It's presented from an isometric view (ala UO) rather then a 3D ground based view anyway....so your a priori assumptions go out the window there.
- The "natural disaster" thing was just one example of an environmental challenge of which you picked a narrow subset (flood) which is difficult to model convincingly in 3D graphics. In PvE you also have the oportunity to utilize hostile creatures as antagonists which are no more difficult to model graphicaly then hostile player characters in PvP.
- Given that you picked only one of the 5 points used to refute your position to respond to and your response was limited to that a certain subset of graphical effects is difficult to render convincingly in a fully 3D environment....I'd say it's obvious that you pretty much defaulted on the arguement.
Now I'm done...as I really don't want to derail the OP's thread with anymore of this nonsense...and it's clear that you are simply arguing in circles at this point. Thank you. Good bye.
You want sandbox? Albion delivers.
Lords of Death (www.lordsofdeath.com) was lucky to get invited to an alpha testing event, and every one of us had a blast! Of course the game is not complete, and I will reserve final judgement for the release version, but what I saw was a very smooth running game with TONS of potential. The developers/administrators are also extremely competent as we noticed several instances of them fixing bugs while the game was still live...and they did it within minutes of the bug/issue being reported.
LoD has always been a PvP/PK guild, and this game promises to be right up our alley. Here's why we liked it:
Gear based - friends can join late and not be behind a level grind. Yet, it takes some group commitment to earn improved gear.
Full loot - risk v. reward. 'Nuff said. Nothing is worth having if there's no real risk of losing it. We literally had guard patrols during our harvesting sessions so that we weren't ambushed. Cool stuff.
Building/item progression - this game presents a strong desire to stay ahead of the competition. Once i encountered an enemy with a tier 3 item, i couldn't rest until we matched his technology in the field.
I'll be watching this game, and hope it stays on course with it's original vision...we have enough "easy mode" games...we need a true sandbox entry to this genre.
Murdock
LoD