It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by DEAD.line Since defining sandbox is so hard, let's keep that out of the thread. how would a pve version of any mmorpg with sandbox features, be any different from all other themeparks?
Lets see, in sandbox game (assuming it's not a themepark style level grind) I could go where ever I want right from the beginning (like in Skyrim for example). I could build a house, or a town with the help of others. There could possibly be features for you to impact on the actual geography of the world, dig and build a mine for your town for example.
Varied content would be all over the place for people to discover at their own pace and ability. Dynamic AI to launch mob raids on towns, there could be themed events like orc tribe trying to conquer part of the map, or a rampaging giant at other times etc. Weather effects that affect gameplay, like the need for warm clothes to adventure in frozen areas etc.
Now lets take a look at a themepark. You're 1st goal is to get to max level. Usually you level up in a straight line to max level, devour all content in the way, and crap out the devoured content from behind which is obsolete and out leveled now. You hit max level, there you have a tiny end game pocket to operate on, handful of raids (grinding for gear to be able to grind more gear) and some obsolete "normal" dungeons. You sit there until devs give you more heroine.. I mean content, to devour though in a straight line again. Expansion hits, repeat.
So what's the difference? In my sandbox example I immerse my self into the world, and basically start playing the game just like I want right away, maybe as a settler/builder, maybe a hunter for rare beasts or explorer, maybe part of a town militia? In the themepark example I do what you do in themepark, get to max level and then grind for gear in small end-game certified content pocket.
So my question is, what's same or similar in pve-sandbox with pve-themepark? Not much, perhaps the fact that you do combat at times (not a neccesity in sandbox) like you do in almost every game anyway.
Originally posted by bcbully Originally posted by Gadareth Sandbox PVE requires several factors. Firstly it needs continous development by the developer to keep content fresh. Secondly it needs multiple things people can choose to work for. SWG did this well with its class and crafting system where you could constantly readdress your class to keep it fresh. The crafting and harvesting system which was active and involved. EQ1 with its EPIC quests and large dungeons where the rewards gained were worth the effort to get them.
See what I mean...
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
Originally posted by DEAD.line Combat is the primary activity in mmos, and video games, so we either fight the AI or other players.
You lost me right here. Combat is not the primary feature I would attach to a sandbox game. A player economy is the primary feature I would attach to a sandbox game.
Originally posted by DEAD.line
The reason i'm asking this is because i see some people say that "sandboxes" like AA and BD are ruined by their owpvp aspect. But what i'm wondering is, if you remove it, how does it become any different from other standart mmos?
That's easy, you get a game that is more of a world where players decide what they do as opposed to being led around by quests and quest hubs.
One could work consensual pvp into it and various perks and rewards for those who participate.
1. Sandboxes require player interaction on an equal level to any interaction that exists between players and their environment. What I mean by this is, if I, as a player, can kill an NPC, I should be able to kill a PC. Freedom, after all, is the foundation and definition of a sandbox.
2. PvE sandboxes exist. The most famous is called Second Life. Excuse me, I mean... non-combat sandboxes exist. You're not really 'against' anything, and thus you're merely engaging with AI and people on a massive social platform.
3. Anyone who differentiates between PvP and PvE is flat out wrong. I don't care if they're only for PvP or only for PvE. In any sandbox, the two should not be referenced as different things. In a true sandbox, everyone is simply part of a living, breathing world, without outside, artificial tags laying a different groundwork for either. Anyone still stuck in the 'PvP' or 'PvE' mentality, playing a true sandbox, has some unresolved issues with other MMOs that they can't let go and are coloring their judgment.
I totally get why people don't want PvP in a sandbox. If you spend time building something and then someone just comes through and destroys it, well it would make most people not even bother to play. With that said though a sandbox to me would be really boring without any risk.
Ok let me play out a scenario of how a sandbox game should get people to interact. You decide you want to be a crafter/gatherer and have no interest in PvP combat at all. Well you need to get this rare material to create this awesome armor set to sell and make tons of cash. Sure you can go out to that dangerous area, but you will most likely run into some bandits (Other players) so you decide to hire some mercenaries to protect you while you go on your adventure. Who knows you may run into some other players...or you may not......but if you do you have your gaurds to protect you. It is a win/win situation for everyone involved. The PvPers get to engage in PvP with people that will put up some kind of a challenge and the PvEer gets what he/she wants. If you don't run into anyone its all good because your mercenaries got compensated for their time with money.
The above scenario is one of countless that you could do. This type of gameplay is good for both the PvPers and PvEers. In these types of situations it makes players need each other to accomplish their goals or atleast has the potential to and isn't that what MMORPGs are supposed to be about.
So IMO if you don't want to PvP fine you don't have to, but just because you don't want to PvP doesn't mean that you should force your playstyle on others. The most fun aspects of a sandbox game to me are freedom, risk vs reward, and socializing with other players. In recent years we as gamers have lost these qualities in our MMORPGs.
Originally posted by Spawnblade 1. Sandboxes require player interaction on an equal level to any interaction that exists between players and their environment. What I mean by this is, if I, as a player, can kill an NPC, I should be able to kill a PC. Freedom, after all, is the foundation and definition of a sandbox. 2. PvE sandboxes exist. The most famous is called Second Life. Excuse me, I mean... non-combat sandboxes exist. You're not really 'against' anything, and thus you're merely engaging with AI and people on a massive social platform. 3. Anyone who differentiates between PvP and PvE is flat out wrong. I don't care if they're only for PvP or only for PvE. In any sandbox, the two should not be referenced as different things. In a true sandbox, everyone is simply part of a living, breathing world, without outside, artificial tags laying a different groundwork for either. Anyone still stuck in the 'PvP' or 'PvE' mentality, playing a true sandbox, has some unresolved issues with other MMOs that they can't let go and are coloring their judgment.
1. To me a sandbox means a lot less restrictions if compared to themepark, and a lot more features when it comes to interacting with the world. There can be different kinds of sandboxes, they dont have to have some internet-certified must-have-all-these-features list to qualify.
A sandbox game does not mean it absolutely has to have city building in it, or absolutely has to have terrain transformation in it, or absolutely has to have pvp in it. It does not lose the definition of sandbox just by missing one feature that often comes up in sandbox discussions.
3. Or they just prefer different play styles. This is solved by having servers with different rulesets, it means more work for the dev studio, but also bigger audience. It does not take anything away from either of the fans of the different rulesets so I dont understand why the pvp crowd always attacks those who asks for a pve server in a sandbox game.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Combat has become the "easy to do" fallback for video games. Look at the number of PvPers that can not grasp doing any activity in a video game other than combat. They are hell-bent on saying that there can be nothing else to do in an MMO if their is no PvP. What narrow views they have.
Ohh.. come on.. now we as PvP players are blamed for having only combat oriented MMO Games nowadays? Really? And if tomorrow would be the worlds end i guess it would be the fault of the pvp player, right?
In all honestly.. most pvp player do like a lot of other activities beside combat.. like building a house, like crafting things, like exploring the world, like build up a trading empire.. but, when it comes down to combat we usually can't stand very long any mobs.. they become to predictable to fast, and especially in MMOs they usually don't do anything and just stand there to be slaugthered.. and therefore.. we look for other player to fight against.. they are not that predictable, they usually stand not still there until they are slaughtered and even more important it exist the posiblility that we actually lose a fight. Hah.
And by the way.. i am one of those stubborn pvp players which are not willingly to limit pvp just to combat. How boring is that?
PvP can be about trading, building up a commercial and logistic empire. It can be about city building.. build a profitable, self sufficient city to become that cultural and economical centre of a region. It can be about strategic desicions, about tactics, not so much the one on one combat, or combat at all, but more about warfare. It can be about diplomatics, about intrugue to gain more influence than anyone else..
In all honestly.. you are right at least in one point.. for a pvp player it is always more fun to play with and against other players instead of an AI. But what game, what tools we play with and against other players is a complete different topic and completely not limited to combat only. So.. sorry, NO, we pvp players are not to blame for those simpified combat only games.
Originally posted by Divona You just have to understand that combat and competition, while it maybe the main attraction to you, it may not be what attracted other people. Especially when it come to PvP, it could be a main disruption to other people who want to stay from engaging in unexpected fight while they're doing other things that they find fun in the game. What you so call "side features" can be so much more if the game would focus to develop them as one of the activities players can engage in. PvE players wanted a virtual world where they can safely living in, having occupations that help developing such world, not just being a warrior beating up each others on end to see who come out on top. The reason why people in real world chosen to be many things rather than take career in army. It's also why the game such as The Sims, SimCity, Banished, FarmVille exist. There is no combat in those games, yet people are having fun. You may not play them, but there are also many others who enjoy them. The feeling of seeing things grow around them day by day can also give out sense of achievement. There are also emotional state that involving in PvP games that PvE players want to avoid, that is the feeling of being loser. Not everyone want to be on the losing side, especially players who does not want to participating in combat, what else can they do to help their side win the war while stay safe? Imagine when you're building a sand castle by the beach for hours on end, and then 3-4 other guys come and smash it all down and left laughing. Those 3-4 other guys may find it funny, but the person who spent hours on end carefully crafted their creation is left with nothing but ruin. What PvE players want is a safe area where they are free from PvP players to come and ruined their day, and disrupting their pace of control environment. If you want PvE players to enjoy in PvP games, as you said balance is the key. The game can not focus their main development toward one or another type of gameplay. While they are war going on at the borders, PvE players should be able to support the cause of front line PvP players on their side without the need to go near PvP combat. So far in PvP focus games, combat often always the main solution to end all war.
I fully understand you. And you like lizardbones before (at least from my understanding, correct me if i am wrong) looking for a sandbox with dynamic behavior and pvp, but more predictable, and withit avoidable pvp.
If you are not.. i tell you a few limits of those sandbox elements you presented in a persistent multiplayer environment.. because those elements(SimCity and all Building, Econimc Simulations like Banished, like Anno, like Minecraft) are more or less limited to single player or non persistents world.. where if you build up your world and it became static you either reset it, or start in a new world. With other words those games/worlds do have a dynamic behaivor as long as you are building things up, but at some point everything is build, your world is full at it may become static.
You have basicly two options to avoid this
a) pvp. And better a more complex pvp system
b) pve. Like natural disasters to destroy randomly things. Or NPC evil factions conquering/destroying randomly player cities and so on.
I personally don't know any MMO with a more or less funtional solution of b).. but it could be interesting... most nowadays pve sandboxes are in most cases ever crowing worlds where you build up, if everything is build add more land.. but ultimately it becomes full, and over time boring. I am really eager to see how landmark will solve this problem.. as it looks now.. just umlimited adding new servers.. but that will not really work to build living communities. But we will see.
Minecraft does have a 2fold solution. Private servers with different server sets. If your world is full.. reset it, build a new one.. or do a survival one with players building and destroying (changing) the world.
I guess OP thought of b) and wanted to know what exactly you would like or how your PvE only sandbox would be.. because SimCity does not work in a persistent multiplayer environment without those limits i described above.
For a) i wrote a somewhere else a post about a server ruleset with pvp, but which could be more predictable, and for pve only players avoidable pvp, without losing the dynamic of pvp, warfare and changing borders and landscapes. I personally would really like to see such a game appear.. although my hopes for such a more complex system are rather tiny..
But here it comes:
Originally posted by Apraxis What would i like. Let's call it Territorial Economic Warfare Server. - Pre set NPC Factions (can be in war with others, allied or in peace.. those state can change at any time) a few(at least 3, maximum 5) pre set Factions anyone could join(just one Faction per time, leaving one faction will make you traitor to this faction and you will have some penalties; and switching factions should be possible, but difficulty, and with penalties). Every player should be able to get different positons in that faction, and with any position different kind of priviliges and responsability come with. The highest position would be a member of the war council(lets say there are 13 members, in the beginning just NPCs), which will decide fundamental things like declare war/peace to other factions, raises Taxes, allows lease/sale of land in newly conquered territory and all that stuff. Other positions could be like a city council with authority over a city. - Player created Factions/Clans. At the same time it should be possible to create a player faction with similar preset structures like the npc factions, just filled from day one with players, which could arise from huge clans/alliances. - Conquering Land/Territory (PvP/PvE state) The overall land should be divided into counties(countship), some free cities and the like. Every county should have his own council to set some local rights, every council does have his own pve/pvp state. Contested county, full pvp, no faction owns all castles, controls the complete county. Just guards within the range of your owned castle(think DAoC, ESO) Every border county should be automaticly pvp.. there may be some npc guards depending on how many castles do you have control roaming around the county. (rather long reaction time, beatable guards) Every county in bordering a border county will be pvp, but with increased protection of guards through different controlling castles/cities. (reaction time of guards will not be immeditately, but rather fast, guards are not completely invinceable, but rather tough) Every county bordering above will be rather safe(think EvE safe zones) with heavy guards interfering immediately. Territory/not claimed counties apart from any faction will be wilderness (ffa pvp without any restriction, any consequences, any laws) Any county can change their state and become any of the above. Security depends closeness to the border and how many building with different effects are in there.. so that any castle will increase roamign guards or power of guards. There could be different building with different effects. (imagine some games like Anno or other strategic games) - PvP/criminals within a faction You can theoretically attack anyone. In the so called safe zone(EvE like) you will get caught, and penalized. This may be different things like jail time, fine or to lose faction status(you will be executed and respawn on a wilderness county) depending on the act of crime(stealing, murder, whatever). How much you will be penalized depends on a council(courthouse), which can be occupied from players.. those set laws and the like. (every position is granted for a limited time.. like one month) In zones with less guards you may get away uncaught, but it will be more difficutly as safer a zone is.(see list above) PvP/criminal action may range from player killing, pickpocketing, burglary, rioting and similar acts. - Economy/land allocation/land loss In the beginning there are a lot of land available for lease/sale. It may either be economically used like to build up a sawmill, lumber camp, farm, mine or whatever imaginable, or for persoanl use to build your home. Difference between leasing and buying. If you buy land, it is completely yours, but if the county will get conquered it is completely your loss. If you leased a land, you have to pay monthly/weekly for it, but can build whatever you want. The price will depend on how safe a county is, and can be set up from one council(in the beginning in NPC factions, it will be pre defined). With other words land in a border county will be rather cheap(because of the high risk of losing) and land in the heartland will be rather expensive. Trading/Resources will be local. You may have something like a local marketplace or auctionhouse(see EvE or anything like that) were you can buy/sell your stuff. Trading goods have to be transported overland, with carriage or the like. Inventory should be limited in size and weight for both player and different mounts. Appearence of resources will differ from region to region and so may the prices and goods transportation will be required and may be dangerous(depending on the safety of the county). PS: I may have left out some important parts, but that should be a good starting point for a interesting gameworld. Though i am full aware that it will require a lot of adjustment to the core game, and will be with it more than unlikely to ever happen. Nevertheless this would be some kind of sandbox pvp server i would like to play in. Any comments are welcome. PPS: I know my english, grammar and spelling sucks.. after all it isn't my first language. So if anyone interested in a similar system, and would like to fix the grammar and spelling you are free to post it on the EQN board.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by Xssiv If you're going to rely on the developer to generate the content and conflict, then you're not really playing a sandbox. If you want the freedom of a sandbox without any consequences, there's always Minecraft.
If you want PvP, there's always Call of Duty. See what I did there? Kind of silly, don't you think?
Yeap.. but those things in your post is not exactly a sandbox... it is more like a themepark with rides other than combat. As example Wildstar added the build your home ride in your personal instance.. but does wildstar become a sandbox, because you can build your home? I don't think so. The same with a simple crafting system. As long as a world stays static it is barely a sandbox.. but maybe you can explain in more detail.. or maybe my imagination of a sandbox is just different and for you wildstar is actually a sandbox.
Personally, I would love to see a mesh of EQ1 and Age of Wushu. I think that EQ1 is really one of the truest sandbox games out there. When you logged in your new character, you didn't have any idea of where to go or what to do. You had to figure it out, which is very much lacking in todays games. Now this could be cause of the type of players we have or expectations of players but I think it is something that is sorely missed. It helped create communication for players (make people ask others how to do things), it also helped foster immersion (there is no instruction manual for life). I think both of these are actual game mechanics, even though some may really hate them.
Not to mention that EQ1 I think had some of the best OW dungeons. They were zones unto themselves, but I have never had a problem finding my way in any dungeons without a map, except EQ1. You can easily get turned around in SolB or lguk/uguk that you are completely in the wrong place and not sure where you are headed. You didn't have certain tools to help you, like a map that showed your location, or a minimap to show exactly where you were.
EQ1 also had no AH's. You wanna trade, you need to find where the market is and go and sell your wares. It wasn't a menu, where you set prices and then go off and do other things, hoping when you get back you made some money. You had to put time into it, much like selling something in todays world.
There are more from EQ1 that I could go into, but these are just some examples, IMO, that make a PVE sandbox MMO work, which people chalk up now a days, to bad game design, merely cause they don't understand the concept. Sometimes, it's not a lack of understanding, just not wanting to put that kinda thought/time into a game. However there are people who want these kind of WORLDS to live in. This was the main draw of MMO's back in the day, an escape into another WORLD that you could live in for a time for a break from ours.
I played Age of Wushu a couple months back and had a real blast playing it. I think how they did their tradeskill systems, as well as doing, what I will call "mini-quests" at each city for faction/coin/rewards would help as well. There were certain things, like protecting a trade cart, that gave rep to your guild, to help progress the guild as well as gave you a couple rewards. There was a base "Story line per your character" that you could do "quests" with, but other wise you had to go out and find the quest givers and not have a specific path to follow.
There was instanced dungeons, that you could do with a group if you so wanted, with rewards that were worth it. However, the real draw I think, was the PVP, which was all controlling cities. If a guild captured multiple cities in a zone they could control taxes at the neutral cities and make money for the guild. This would be the hardest thing to replicate for a PVE game, but I think one of the above posters had it right. Make a certain faction/mob empire that is taking over things and now the PVE players have the same type of system.
This would require a very good AI as well as constant updates from the devs, but I think it is something the market is already going towards. Off the top of my head, EQ:N is trying to do the exact thing, make AI dynamic, automatically in the code. Boom Done... time will tell if it works, but at least someone is working on it.
In all honesty, my whole point, is that I think a lot of the PVE Sandboxes that ppl are asking for have already been partly made, they just need the features to be joined. Sure not all of it has been made, the AI being the main part that needs to be developed, but I think I made a good enough argument to show that the market is already working on it. Some of my design decisions may be deal breakers for others, but I think you can see how most of these examples would help create that PVE Sandbox game that some are looking for.
At least I know I am looking for it, time will tell if I'll get it. Although I'm also looking for a natural successor to EQ1, so full disclosure there..
the difference is NPCs arent dicks. The reason why open world PvP is hated by the majority of players is because people are dicks. There is a small but far from insignificant group of players that use open world PvP as a means to ruin others play experience.
PvP brings out the absolute worst in human behavior. Yes, it can bring out positives as well, such as community banding together to stop the asses, but it makes for a lot of people gaming time (relaxation/escapism time) not fun. And while overcoming obstacles and setbacks is often a positive part of gameplay, knowing that the person that caused a big loss is getting satisfaction out of it is a big turn off.
What many consider to be the best sandbox ever was a predominantly PvE sandbox. SWG had a wonderful PvP option as well, but it was far from the most popular aspect of the game and most didnt even touch it. However people were not excluded from anything other than PvP itself if they opted out, unlike games like ArcheAge.
Problem is, there are asshats who are not playing the computer game that you or I might be. They are playing a game of 'make a person at the other end of a computer feel bad'. These yahoos flock to games that allow them to do this the easist. Lacking robust design or decisions by the developers to counter this, they create problems for other players, and financial losses to the game company.
Games are always shot through with tons of abstractions, sandboxy or themeparkish. They have to be. You are just proclaiming the primacy of your abstraction. Game companies really have to consider the effect on their user base (and bottom line) for these things, rather than just dealing with them in the abstract. Each decision has a cost.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Originally posted by Spawnblade1. Sandboxes require player interaction on an equal level to any interaction that exists between players and their environment. What I mean by this is, if I, as a player, can kill an NPC, I should be able to kill a PC. Freedom, after all, is the foundation and definition of a sandbox.
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Spawnblade 1. Sandboxes require player interaction on an equal level to any interaction that exists between players and their environment. What I mean by this is, if I, as a player, can kill an NPC, I should be able to kill a PC. Freedom, after all, is the foundation and definition of a sandbox.
the definition of sandBOX is freedom ?...you don't see a problem there...like maybe that's not what it really means ? Why would someone come up with a term that involves BOX if they mean freedom ?
Sandbox is about building and creating not roleplaying a sadist online. Just because two monkeys can bash each other over the head for months without any developer involvement doesn't mean that's the only way to run a game based on creating.
PvE sandbox is easy. One word.
Without meaningful decay that will consume between 20 and 25% of game time, either building currency or making gear, PvE sandbox fails. Yes, there will be RMT. There always has, there always will be. Cock in a whore house, it's just the way it is.
Decay can be crafted and raid/ dungeon token reward but ALL gear must decay and be replaced.
Originally posted by ApraxisOriginally posted by AlBQuirkyCombat has become the "easy to do" fallback for video games. Look at the number of PvPers that can not grasp doing any activity in a video game other than combat. They are hell-bent on saying that there can be nothing else to do in an MMO if their is no PvP. What narrow views they have.
Maybe I am remembering incorrectly, but most of the PvP MMOs I see discussed here have a large pack of PvPers that do not want housing, crafting, or anything else that "takes away from" their killing other players. These features are good for the other players to help distract their victims, but not good for them.
What you describe, I might actually look at. It is the players, not the features, that keep me away.
how about a flying car powered by water?
and by that I mean there is no such thing as a PvE sandbox MMO, it would only end up as another frankensteined shallow themepark
no meaningful player conflict = no sandbox MMO
what do you even MEAN by sandbox, guess you are just attracted by the word, not the actual implications of sandbox MMO?
Originally posted by DocBrody and by that I mean there is no such thing as a PvE sandbox MMO, it would only end up as another frankensteined shallow themepark
SWG was a PvE sandbox
And ironically it ended up a frankensteined themepark (but not shallow) so your statement is technically wrong, but
the most popular sandbox was PvE (with opt in PvP)
Originally posted by Myria Frankly Second Life and games like Minecraft are the only things that come close to being real sandboxes, and as far as I'm aware they don't even include PvP by default. So personally I wonder how a PvP sandbox -- a real sandbox, where you could make whatever you wanted or could imagine, rather than are limited to only making things Devs first create and approve of, and place it where ever or how ever you wanted -- could ever work. How would some semblance of balance be maintained if players had true freedom to create whatever they wished? I'm not really convinced a real PvP sandbox is even possible, just hybrids that, if you at all peek behind the curtain, ultimately aren't nearly as different from 'themeparks' as their proponents wish to believe.
Wurm Online is as sandbox as it gets.
Originally posted by syriinx Originally posted by DocBrody and by that I mean there is no such thing as a PvE sandbox MMO, it would only end up as another frankensteined shallow themepark
I have not played either game, but I have it on good authority that both Istaria and A Tale in the Desert are sandboxes without PvP. ATitD doesn't even have combat.
As you said, SWG was a sandbox with Opt In PvP.
A large part of UO's population lived in Trammel, the PvE world, not Felucca, the PvP world.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To say that "sandbox" and "PvE" do not mix is like saying that there is only up and no down. Sandbox can and has existed in both PvP and PvE worlds as well as non-combat worlds. It is up to the designers as to whether they WANT combat in their game. It is up to them as to offer PvE only; PvE with limited PvP; or all out PvP. It is up to the consumer to decide which they prefer. And, by so choosing, you and I have the freedom to play the game that we LIKE and not the game that someone else wishes to force upon us. Just don't try to redefine what a sandbox game MUST be.
Let's party like it is 1863!