It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
<snip>
It has been a complete failing in MMORPGs to actually reward the RP aspect of it. Toss in a chat box, and the developers think they've made an MMORPG. By that standard, Total Annihilation was an RPG.
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, what is the problem with coding that to generate reputations? You could even include factions and player run organizations. It could be especially relevant to religion.
What really hurts is that no company has really tried. Define RP in some way, and we'll try it. If we like it, we'll do it.
Not quite true, there was such a game, was called Faces of Mankind, an 8 faction MMOFPS where players controlled everything from the manufacturing of all foods, to voting for player leaders of each in game faction.
Totally FFA PVP, all "quests" not only created by players, but even being permitted to run them depended on the faction leadership granting permission to do so.
As you might imagine it appears to have made for some of the best of times but quite often the worst of times as seldom does letting players control everything turn out very well.
It launched / failed / relaunched / failed several times and there was talk about a fan based resurrection of it in recent years but not sure if it ever happened.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
<snip>
It has been a complete failing in MMORPGs to actually reward the RP aspect of it. Toss in a chat box, and the developers think they've made an MMORPG. By that standard, Total Annihilation was an RPG.
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, what is the problem with coding that to generate reputations? You could even include factions and player run organizations. It could be especially relevant to religion.
What really hurts is that no company has really tried. Define RP in some way, and we'll try it. If we like it, we'll do it.
Very difficult I expect as player conduct reporting systems can still be used to grief people. Allowing players to rate the performance of others would be so used as well, probably even more so as that rated is more subjective.
Social media doesn't control harassment well. It is rather quite the opposite, being often used as an effective tool to harass.
The problem with coding that to generate reputations is that it is subject to abuse that will inevitably happen.
It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
<snip>
It has been a complete failing in MMORPGs to actually reward the RP aspect of it. Toss in a chat box, and the developers think they've made an MMORPG. By that standard, Total Annihilation was an RPG.
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, what is the problem with coding that to generate reputations? You could even include factions and player run organizations. It could be especially relevant to religion.
What really hurts is that no company has really tried. Define RP in some way, and we'll try it. If we like it, we'll do it.
Very difficult I expect as player conduct reporting systems can still be used to grief people. Allowing players to rate the performance of others would be so used as well, probably even more so as that rated is more subjective.
Social media doesn't control harassment well. It is rather quite the opposite, being often used as an effective tool to harass.
The problem with coding that to generate reputations is that it is subject to abuse that will inevitably happen.
My ideas about controlling the voting (from my 2002 idea) was:
Limit votes to 3 per day per character.
Only vote once for another character.
Must have interacted with the other character that session.
Votes would be for RPing specific attributes on 7 2-ended scales. A vote for that scale would move the 'reputation' towards one end. For instance, there were scales for Miserly..Generous, Cowardly..Brave, etc. A single vote for Brave would move that scale 1 notch towards Brave (and away from Cowardly). Reward levels were at 5, 15, 30 votes. I had a pantheon of gods each of which favored 5 different social attributes. Reward levels were generally +1, +2, and +3. (Which on a 3d10 system, could total some very powerful bonuses).
Limited number of votes per character per day. Can only be applied to another character you've met that session, with a max of one vote per session. The game could add other restrictions behind the scenes, too.
Sure, a system like that *could* be manipulated. But manipulation really isn't in the spirit of RPing. But equally, that kind of system *could* be used to reward good actions/dialog/convey ideas to others.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
<snip>
It has been a complete failing in MMORPGs to actually reward the RP aspect of it. Toss in a chat box, and the developers think they've made an MMORPG. By that standard, Total Annihilation was an RPG.
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, what is the problem with coding that to generate reputations? You could even include factions and player run organizations. It could be especially relevant to religion.
What really hurts is that no company has really tried. Define RP in some way, and we'll try it. If we like it, we'll do it.
Very difficult I expect as player conduct reporting systems can still be used to grief people. Allowing players to rate the performance of others would be so used as well, probably even more so as that rated is more subjective.
Social media doesn't control harassment well. It is rather quite the opposite, being often used as an effective tool to harass.
The problem with coding that to generate reputations is that it is subject to abuse that will inevitably happen.
My ideas about controlling the voting (from my 2002 idea) was:
Limit votes to 3 per day per character.
Only vote once for another character.
Must have interacted with the other character that session.
Votes would be for RPing specific attributes on 7 2-ended scales. A vote for that scale would move the 'reputation' towards one end. For instance, there were scales for Miserly..Generous, Cowardly..Brave, etc. A single vote for Brave would move that scale 1 notch towards Brave (and away from Cowardly). Reward levels were at 5, 15, 30 votes. I had a pantheon of gods each of which favored 5 different social attributes. Reward levels were generally +1, +2, and +3. (Which on a 3d10 system, could total some very powerful bonuses).
Limited number of votes per character per day. Can only be applied to another character you've met that session, with a max of one vote per session. The game could add other restrictions behind the scenes, too.
Sure, a system like that *could* be manipulated. But manipulation really isn't in the spirit of RPing. But equally, that kind of system *could* be used to reward good actions/dialog/convey ideas to others.
The problem is that a few troublemakers can stir up a lot of trouble, usually with false claims and multiple accounts. Once one appears, others will happily join in. Loudly.
Raph Koster said it once, in a speech at a convention. "The players are your enemy", and it's true. Not all of them, understand, but enough that you always have to look at them that way if you're running a game.
It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
<snip>
It has been a complete failing in MMORPGs to actually reward the RP aspect of it. Toss in a chat box, and the developers think they've made an MMORPG. By that standard, Total Annihilation was an RPG.
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, what is the problem with coding that to generate reputations? You could even include factions and player run organizations. It could be especially relevant to religion.
What really hurts is that no company has really tried. Define RP in some way, and we'll try it. If we like it, we'll do it.
Very difficult I expect as player conduct reporting systems can still be used to grief people. Allowing players to rate the performance of others would be so used as well, probably even more so as that rated is more subjective.
Social media doesn't control harassment well. It is rather quite the opposite, being often used as an effective tool to harass.
The problem with coding that to generate reputations is that it is subject to abuse that will inevitably happen.
What many players forget is that any system/feature that can be used "for good" can also used to grief and manipulate. We have to put on our "evil hats" <shudder> to see how systems and features can be corrupted with ill intent.
Is "What's good for goose is good for the gander" fitting here?
- Al
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
It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
<snip>
It has been a complete failing in MMORPGs to actually reward the RP aspect of it. Toss in a chat box, and the developers think they've made an MMORPG. By that standard, Total Annihilation was an RPG.
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, what is the problem with coding that to generate reputations? You could even include factions and player run organizations. It could be especially relevant to religion.
What really hurts is that no company has really tried. Define RP in some way, and we'll try it. If we like it, we'll do it.
Very difficult I expect as player conduct reporting systems can still be used to grief people. Allowing players to rate the performance of others would be so used as well, probably even more so as that rated is more subjective.
Social media doesn't control harassment well. It is rather quite the opposite, being often used as an effective tool to harass.
The problem with coding that to generate reputations is that it is subject to abuse that will inevitably happen.
What many players forget is that any system/feature that can be used "for good" can also used to grief and manipulate. We have to put on our "evil hats" <shudder> to see how systems and features can be corrupted with ill intent.
Is "What's good for goose is good for the gander" fitting here?
"Is "What's good for goose is good for the gander" fitting here?"
Most definitely not. You have to cook that goose before it gets out and starts chasing everyone around, pecking and biting, until the people leave.
My point mostly was around scope. You point anecdotally to things players have done in the likes of UO, but that leads to the question of how many players were directly involved in creating and operating those endeavors, versus how many players were there in the game more broadly.
It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
But looping back to the first paragraph, more pointedly to the subject of quests than RP in general, was the point that people finding or creating an internal motivation and building something larger off of that, is arguably not the common state of play. IT's a smaller group of people, or even individuals, that are doing something for the broader community.
And the situation then asks "what do you do when those types of players aren't present"? Because ultimately you can't rely on such people always being around. Motivation to go and engage with the game world has to still come from somewhere. It needs a surrogate to offer that, and that then ends up being NPCs.
Shorthand being, NPCs are a still fundamentally beneficial mechanic and component of sandbox play, both in prompting players to to on quests, even in a more loosely defined sense, as well as for fleshing out situations like the spider cult or otherwise.
Because it's a component of play to help pad out the overall world, and offer some sort of fallback when the creative driving forces behind something aren't around.
"Creative driving forces"? How much does that take? Decide to go to a dungeon (you like it or never been there, where the world isn't divided by levels and is mostly open to your whim). Get supplies (reagents, feathers for arrows, leathers, etc.) to make your own. Follow up on a lead you already have. Explore. DISCOVERY (through exploration or not, as clues might be missed until something else is known). Etc., etc., etc.
Keep in mind here that what I'm trying hard to explain is the Sandbox side of things vs. the same-old-same-old. That doesn't mean that the Sandbox game can't have typical quests, as long as they don't have large numbers of Characters all being "the one", which sort of breaks the world simulation down.
With that in mind, of course a Sandbox game can have NPC quests. That would help smooth the issue out on this roll-over of gaming styles. But that's not what this topic is about.
While I mostly agree, I would say sandbox is entirely subject to the "same old same old" problem. When an individual has to provide themselves a task, there are simply many that don't.
All the tasks suggested are not antithetical to having an NPC or even another player generating tasks around them to provide players prompts to go experience elements of the game's world.
I don't think any game needs "typical" quests in the context of some dude expressly telling you "go here and kill X" or something, but having in world narrative prompts goes a long way towards providing structure to an experience that many may find lacking, which without can quickly lead to becoming bored with a game they barely scratched the surface of, if only because the game does not engage back with the players.
My point mostly was around scope. You point anecdotally to things players have done in the likes of UO, but that leads to the question of how many players were directly involved in creating and operating those endeavors, versus how many players were there in the game more broadly.
It's also in your college example on the point that the mechanics were not there to support the concept. You could set up a college, you could RP in it, but the game wouldn't really reciprocate. That's a failing in many sandbox games, where the RP is just a veneer and easily wears thin fast because the mechanics are not there to support it.
But looping back to the first paragraph, more pointedly to the subject of quests than RP in general, was the point that people finding or creating an internal motivation and building something larger off of that, is arguably not the common state of play. IT's a smaller group of people, or even individuals, that are doing something for the broader community.
And the situation then asks "what do you do when those types of players aren't present"? Because ultimately you can't rely on such people always being around. Motivation to go and engage with the game world has to still come from somewhere. It needs a surrogate to offer that, and that then ends up being NPCs.
Shorthand being, NPCs are a still fundamentally beneficial mechanic and component of sandbox play, both in prompting players to to on quests, even in a more loosely defined sense, as well as for fleshing out situations like the spider cult or otherwise.
Because it's a component of play to help pad out the overall world, and offer some sort of fallback when the creative driving forces behind something aren't around.
"Creative driving forces"? How much does that take? Decide to go to a dungeon (you like it or never been there, where the world isn't divided by levels and is mostly open to your whim). Get supplies (reagents, feathers for arrows, leathers, etc.) to make your own. Follow up on a lead you already have. Explore. DISCOVERY (through exploration or not, as clues might be missed until something else is known). Etc., etc., etc.
Keep in mind here that what I'm trying hard to explain is the Sandbox side of things vs. the same-old-same-old. That doesn't mean that the Sandbox game can't have typical quests, as long as they don't have large numbers of Characters all being "the one", which sort of breaks the world simulation down.
With that in mind, of course a Sandbox game can have NPC quests. That would help smooth the issue out on this roll-over of gaming styles. But that's not what this topic is about.
While I mostly agree, I would say sandbox is entirely subject to the "same old same old" problem. When an individual has to provide themselves a task, there are simply many that don't.
All the tasks suggested are not antithetical to having an NPC or even another player generating tasks around them to provide players prompts to go experience elements of the game's world.
I don't think any game needs "typical" quests in the context of some dude expressly telling you "go here and kill X" or something, but having in world narrative prompts goes a long way towards providing structure to an experience that many may find lacking, which without can quickly lead to becoming bored with a game they barely scratched the surface of, if only because the game does not engage back with the players.
Well yeah, any good game has to provide feedback to the players. The difference that I'm trying to point out in Sandbox should be that it comes from doing things, rather than being instructed.
There's no fun in being instructed "how to." But there's a lot of fun in finding it out on your own. And that should not be hard at all in the basic form. Just do anything and find more things to do, but you don't have to if that particular thing doesn't interest you.
So you kill a MOB. They could drop Treasure Maps (simple), or old Lore based items (written and symbolic) for a very deep puzzle game, and anything in between. Dungeons and Ruins can have carvings that act as clues to things. Even crafting skills might have a chance to give the player something extra, such as clues to how to do it a little better, or do some other crafting a little better. I'm thinking more along the lines of Discovery, rather than just a skill bump.
New spells and special attacks or defensive moves can be learned by seeing them from MOBs, or Tomes, or inscriptions on walls. Same for any other skills such as Thieves or Alchemists.
A good game should be loaded with extras, rather than just "do that for this reward."
The whole point is to give players something to think about. They'll get the idea in short order, and start thinking in their games rather than just doing what they're told. And these things should start out simple, and get a little more detailed as you play.
There is fun in figuring things out, even simple things. A player feels rewarded in a personal way, and an actual sense of pride starts to build.
But it's important to note that you still need the basics of hack and slash=loot, churning out craftsman things, harvesting herbs, etc.
Feel like that kinda speaks to a similar ultimate logic. You're still using game systems to egg players to engage in content by providing prompts. The primary distinction mostly revolves around your focus on the prompts remaining indirect.
I don't disagree with that idea in principle, but I also think there's place in more direct interactions as well, assuming they are handled better contextually.
Example, there should never be a farmer staticly standing in a field complaining about goblins stealing their sheep. If there's a farm, and there's a nearby group of goblins, there should be an opportunity for such an event to trigger, but it should be at that dynamic/emergent level of play.
At that point, I see no problem having the NPC farmer actually set a bounty and a semi-formal quest, posting it to a local bounty board or something. But it shouldn't be a constant. Instead, it's a way to pad out the systems that other players could/should be interacting with as well.
IE, that bounty board mentioned should also (and mostly) carry player created bounties. But the NPC/game created layer is still there as a sort of safety net to guarantee at least a base level of player engagement.
Feel like that kinda speaks to a similar ultimate logic. You're still using game systems to egg players to engage in content by providing prompts. The primary distinction mostly revolves around your focus on the prompts remaining indirect.
I don't disagree with that idea in principle, but I also think there's place in more direct interactions as well, assuming they are handled better contextually.
Example, there should never be a farmer staticly standing in a field complaining about goblins stealing their sheep. If there's a farm, and there's a nearby group of goblins, there should be an opportunity for such an event to trigger, but it should be at that dynamic/emergent level of play.
At that point, I see no problem having the NPC farmer actually set a bounty and a semi-formal quest, posting it to a local bounty board or something. But it shouldn't be a constant. Instead, it's a way to pad out the systems that other players could/should be interacting with as well.
IE, that bounty board mentioned should also (and mostly) carry player created bounties. But the NPC/game created layer is still there as a sort of safety net to guarantee at least a base level of player engagement.
This is a good idea. I've had this before myself, but it's part of a Wandering MOBs idea in a "living, breathing world." I'll get back to this soon and explain.
@Uwakionna I was thinking about getting into my deep concept of Wandering MOBs, but I guess I don't need to. I'll use the simplest version. Any game, while simulating a world, has options ranging from simple to easy, and they all work.
The problem with your idea, which you may realize, is that it needs something more. If it's just preset code, it's going to be "rinse and repeat", which doesn't simulate "world" very well at all.
The easiest way to simulate a "living world" in this regard, Wandering MOBs, is to trigger "MOB home base" areas to randomly spawn occupants based on what MOBs have wandered into the larger area. Maybe nothing "moves in", or maybe any of the wanderer MOBs in the area.
Once something occupies a home base, caves, riverside settings, glens, ruins, whatever are set as bases for whatever MOB types, it can then generate spawns in the area. These MOBs wander around and make moves on whatever they run into that fits their "wants" list. There should probably be a pool, a set number, of
So your farm, on a semi-regular basis, gets raided by your Goblins because they are living in the area.
Now the Farmer starts putting out notices. To travelling Players, and to nearby villages, town, or cities.
Players can search the area for wandering MOBs, or attack the nest and clear it.
Keep in mind that there could be any number of these bases, being occupied, sending around wanderer MOBs. Things can get pretty lively, and keep players busy if they are looking for "work."
For something like a Dragon, it should be that Dragon that leaves the "base" and Wanders in search of food and treasure.
This can be set up any way that the Devs decide. Some ideas:
Base occupant numbers can grow with retrieved food and loot, or just with time. Larger occupations can send out more, and larger, spawns. Spawn distances can be set based on occupation numbers too.
Base denizens can hoard retrieved valuables.
There's a variety of ideas that can be explored here.
Note also that highly populated Player areas (cities with lots of local villages around, will have a natural perimeter that's kept clean, but wilder areas can be full of spawns from various base camps.
Full Dungeons would be very active around them, unless they are regularly visited by Players.
Newbies could start out typically in the outer perimeter of a larger civilized area.
The key here is that it simulates a realistic setting. It also keeps things happening without direct GM input. And it changes over time, with bases being cleared out.
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
I see you misunderstood my post. Re-reading it, I can understand why. The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time. If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
I see you misunderstood my post. Re-reading it, I can understand why. The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time. If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
Of course, anyone admonishing another so harshly has to be an EVE player right?
If not, they don't really understand what a sandbox MMO should be.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
I see you misunderstood my post. Re-reading it, I can understand why. The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time. If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
Of course, anyone admonishing another so harshly has to be an EVE player right?
If not, they don't really understand what a sandbox MMO should be.
Hey, I have a loose kinship with Eve type players. I say "loose" because I love GOOD PvP. I just don't play Eve because I'm a fantasy type, swords and dragons and spellcraft and all that. Plus, Eve doesn't have a full character to play, to walk around and explore with, etc. Eve's just a different sort of MMORPG, a great one by all accounts, but not my cup of tea. Besides, I don't get too worked up over negative feedback unless it's got an agenda that's unseemly. I can take @mekhere's sort of comment and work with that, and it's all good. You, good @Kyleran, do the same as I've noticed. So I think you are just having a little fun here.
Edit to update.... I've read another post by @mekhere and I got to say that I don't know where he's coming from. I think he's got an unreasonable stick up his arse, or something.
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, [...]
How difficult would it be to have players 'vote' on how well others played? Most of the problem would be controlling the 'vote' to prevent harassment/exploiting. If 'social media' can do that, [...]
Social media can do WHAT now ???
Never said that 'social media' actually does that, just that they could.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
I see you misunderstood my post. Re-reading it, I can understand why. The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time. If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
Of course, anyone admonishing another so harshly has to be an EVE player right?
If not, they don't really understand what a sandbox MMO should be.
Hey, I have a loose kinship with Eve type players. I say "loose" because I love GOOD PvP. I just don't play Eve because I'm a fantasy type, swords and dragons and spellcraft and all that. Plus, Eve doesn't have a full character to play, to walk around and explore with, etc. Eve's just a different sort of MMORPG, a great one by all accounts, but not my cup of tea. Besides, I don't get too worked up over negative feedback unless it's got an agenda that's unseemly. I can take @mekhere's sort of comment and work with that, and it's all good. You, good @Kyleran, do the same as I've noticed. So I think you are just having a little fun here.
Edit to update.... I've read another post by @mekhere and I got to say that I don't know where he's coming from. I think he's got an unreasonable stick up his arse, or something.
You're not wrong. I do have a stick up my butt. I'm mad at gaming. It just seems like ever since crypto, then covid, that the gaming community has become mean. It's like the hunger games now irl. Even game developers don't seem to care anymore. Why is everything such a mess?
What is sandbox MMORPG?
Back to the point. A sandbox MMO, typically allows a player to make a character and then defines his or her role through gameplay and choices made while playing. Similarly, the freedom to explore and experience a game in any way the participants see fit is a major element within a sandbox MMO. how did I get categorized into the eve genre? I haven't played that since like 2009.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
I see you misunderstood my post. Re-reading it, I can understand why. The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time. If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
Of course, anyone admonishing another so harshly has to be an EVE player right?
If not, they don't really understand what a sandbox MMO should be.
Hey, I have a loose kinship with Eve type players. I say "loose" because I love GOOD PvP. I just don't play Eve because I'm a fantasy type, swords and dragons and spellcraft and all that. Plus, Eve doesn't have a full character to play, to walk around and explore with, etc. Eve's just a different sort of MMORPG, a great one by all accounts, but not my cup of tea. Besides, I don't get too worked up over negative feedback unless it's got an agenda that's unseemly. I can take @mekhere's sort of comment and work with that, and it's all good. You, good @Kyleran, do the same as I've noticed. So I think you are just having a little fun here.
Edit to update.... I've read another post by @mekhere and I got to say that I don't know where he's coming from. I think he's got an unreasonable stick up his arse, or something.
You're not wrong. I do have a stick up my butt. I'm mad at gaming. It just seems like ever since crypto, then covid, that the gaming community has become mean. It's like the hunger games now irl. Even game developers don't seem to care anymore. Why is everything such a mess?
What is sandbox MMORPG?
Back to the point. A sandbox MMO, typically allows a player to make a character and then defines his or her role through gameplay and choices made while playing. Similarly, the freedom to explore and experience a game in any way the participants see fit is a major element within a sandbox MMO. how did I get categorized into the eve genre? I haven't played that since like 2009.
You're not alone in being upset about games. It's just crazy.
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
I see you misunderstood my post. Re-reading it, I can understand why. The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time. If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
Of course, anyone admonishing another so harshly has to be an EVE player right?
If not, they don't really understand what a sandbox MMO should be.
Hey, I have a loose kinship with Eve type players. I say "loose" because I love GOOD PvP. I just don't play Eve because I'm a fantasy type, swords and dragons and spellcraft and all that. Plus, Eve doesn't have a full character to play, to walk around and explore with, etc. Eve's just a different sort of MMORPG, a great one by all accounts, but not my cup of tea. Besides, I don't get too worked up over negative feedback unless it's got an agenda that's unseemly. I can take @mekhere's sort of comment and work with that, and it's all good. You, good @Kyleran, do the same as I've noticed. So I think you are just having a little fun here.
Edit to update.... I've read another post by @mekhere and I got to say that I don't know where he's coming from. I think he's got an unreasonable stick up his arse, or something.
You're not wrong. I do have a stick up my butt. I'm mad at gaming. It just seems like ever since crypto, then covid, that the gaming community has become mean. It's like the hunger games now irl. Even game developers don't seem to care anymore. Why is everything such a mess?
What is sandbox MMORPG?
Back to the point. A sandbox MMO, typically allows a player to make a character and then defines his or her role through gameplay and choices made while playing. Similarly, the freedom to explore and experience a game in any way the participants see fit is a major element within a sandbox MMO. how did I get categorized into the eve genre? I haven't played that since like 2009.
You're not alone in being upset about games. It's just crazy.
Can't really complain about the sandbox genre if you don't play any of the currently available options.
Sort of like refusing to travel the world until they perfect anti gravity or teleportation.
You utilize what's available until better options become available.
But sure, like most people don't play EVE for "reasons", I have my own certainly but I don't bemoan the lack of sandbox options since I'm choosing to ignore the obvious ones available.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Just put me in the middle of nowhere and let me figure it out.
My favorite way to play an MMO!
Exactly. I guess some players like being led by the hand along linear quest trails that will be the same for every character they ever make in their game. Weird.
Sharp criticism that's well deserved; I shall point out, however, that quest trails don't have to be linear: neither do they have to be the same for every character.
Something I keep in mind as I design:
"Opportunity knocks but once"
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
People have made the comment that Sandbox games are harder to play because without Quests, there's no direction.
I don't subscribe to that thinking. I think a good Sandbox game would simply change the way you get "quests." Instead of going to some NPC and picking up a rinse-and-repeat quest, you pick up your quests by playing the game.
You hear NPCs say that something happened or they need a certain resource, that's a quest. That NPC may even be a "town crier" (UO had them). You go to a dungeon, and see a wall carving with either stories or distinctive images, that's a quest. Rewards would be included in the drops and chests, etc.
There are loads of ways for a game World to set in motion things, quests, for players to do. And adding in new stuff into the existing world can keep such a game very interesting for a very long time.
They're called console games. Go buy an Xbox or a PlayStation. A sandbox is a world that you explore. You control the experience. It's a player-based economy. A console game controls you. Go buy the submissive experience you crave at GameStop and stay out of people's sandboxes.
I see you misunderstood my post. Re-reading it, I can understand why. The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time. If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
Of course, anyone admonishing another so harshly has to be an EVE player right?
If not, they don't really understand what a sandbox MMO should be.
Hey, I have a loose kinship with Eve type players. I say "loose" because I love GOOD PvP. I just don't play Eve because I'm a fantasy type, swords and dragons and spellcraft and all that. Plus, Eve doesn't have a full character to play, to walk around and explore with, etc. Eve's just a different sort of MMORPG, a great one by all accounts, but not my cup of tea. Besides, I don't get too worked up over negative feedback unless it's got an agenda that's unseemly. I can take @mekhere's sort of comment and work with that, and it's all good. You, good @Kyleran, do the same as I've noticed. So I think you are just having a little fun here.
Edit to update.... I've read another post by @mekhere and I got to say that I don't know where he's coming from. I think he's got an unreasonable stick up his arse, or something.
You're not wrong. I do have a stick up my butt. I'm mad at gaming. It just seems like ever since crypto, then covid, that the gaming community has become mean. It's like the hunger games now irl. Even game developers don't seem to care anymore. Why is everything such a mess?
What is sandbox MMORPG?
Back to the point. A sandbox MMO, typically allows a player to make a character and then defines his or her role through gameplay and choices made while playing. Similarly, the freedom to explore and experience a game in any way the participants see fit is a major element within a sandbox MMO. how did I get categorized into the eve genre? I haven't played that since like 2009.
You're not alone in being upset about games. It's just crazy.
Can't really complain about the sandbox genre if you don't play any of the currently available options.
Sort of like refusing to travel the world until they perfect anti gravity or teleportation.
You utilize what's available until better options become available.
But sure, like most people don't play EVE for "reasons", I have my own certainly but I don't bemoan the lack of sandbox options since I'm choosing to ignore the obvious ones available.
Bad options are not options. (Speaking in relation to a "good sandbox world.") Of course this is in my opinion, as far as that goes.
That doesn't mean that I think Eve is a bad game. It only means that it's lacking the physical character that can run around in a sandbox world, which makes for the "good sandbox world" game I desire. There's other issues too, in relationship to the "good" part.
"can't complain about something if you don't current use it"
So I can't say bad food is bad food if I don't currently eat it? What if I can tell by how it looks, knowing something about the food in question? What if reports I read tell me this too?
What kind of BS is this, anyways?
You guys want to defend your whatever, playing these sorts of games? "I fart in your general direction." (It was the bad food.)
Comments
Totally FFA PVP, all "quests" not only created by players, but even being permitted to run them depended on the faction leadership granting permission to do so.
As you might imagine it appears to have made for some of the best of times but quite often the worst of times as seldom does letting players control everything turn out very well.
It launched / failed / relaunched / failed several times and there was talk about a fan based resurrection of it in recent years but not sure if it ever happened.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The problem with coding that to generate reputations is that it is subject to abuse that will inevitably happen.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Raph Koster said it once, in a speech at a convention.
"The players are your enemy", and it's true. Not all of them, understand, but enough that you always have to look at them that way if you're running a game.
Once upon a time....
- Al
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
Most definitely not. You have to cook that goose before it gets out and starts chasing everyone around, pecking and biting, until the people leave.
Thanksgiving is coming, too. Good timing!
Once upon a time....
All the tasks suggested are not antithetical to having an NPC or even another player generating tasks around them to provide players prompts to go experience elements of the game's world.
I don't think any game needs "typical" quests in the context of some dude expressly telling you "go here and kill X" or something, but having in world narrative prompts goes a long way towards providing structure to an experience that many may find lacking, which without can quickly lead to becoming bored with a game they barely scratched the surface of, if only because the game does not engage back with the players.
The difference that I'm trying to point out in Sandbox should be that it comes from doing things, rather than being instructed.
There's no fun in being instructed "how to."
But there's a lot of fun in finding it out on your own. And that should not be hard at all in the basic form. Just do anything and find more things to do, but you don't have to if that particular thing doesn't interest you.
So you kill a MOB. They could drop Treasure Maps (simple), or old Lore based items (written and symbolic) for a very deep puzzle game, and anything in between.
Dungeons and Ruins can have carvings that act as clues to things.
Even crafting skills might have a chance to give the player something extra, such as clues to how to do it a little better, or do some other crafting a little better. I'm thinking more along the lines of Discovery, rather than just a skill bump.
New spells and special attacks or defensive moves can be learned by seeing them from MOBs, or Tomes, or inscriptions on walls. Same for any other skills such as Thieves or Alchemists.
A good game should be loaded with extras, rather than just "do that for this reward."
The whole point is to give players something to think about. They'll get the idea in short order, and start thinking in their games rather than just doing what they're told.
And these things should start out simple, and get a little more detailed as you play.
There is fun in figuring things out, even simple things. A player feels rewarded in a personal way, and an actual sense of pride starts to build.
But it's important to note that you still need the basics of hack and slash=loot, churning out craftsman things, harvesting herbs, etc.
Build this up instead of making quests.
Once upon a time....
I don't disagree with that idea in principle, but I also think there's place in more direct interactions as well, assuming they are handled better contextually.
Example, there should never be a farmer staticly standing in a field complaining about goblins stealing their sheep. If there's a farm, and there's a nearby group of goblins, there should be an opportunity for such an event to trigger, but it should be at that dynamic/emergent level of play.
At that point, I see no problem having the NPC farmer actually set a bounty and a semi-formal quest, posting it to a local bounty board or something. But it shouldn't be a constant. Instead, it's a way to pad out the systems that other players could/should be interacting with as well.
IE, that bounty board mentioned should also (and mostly) carry player created bounties. But the NPC/game created layer is still there as a sort of safety net to guarantee at least a base level of player engagement.
I'll get back to this soon and explain.
Once upon a time....
The problem with your idea, which you may realize, is that it needs something more. If it's just preset code, it's going to be "rinse and repeat", which doesn't simulate "world" very well at all.
The easiest way to simulate a "living world" in this regard, Wandering MOBs, is to trigger "MOB home base" areas to randomly spawn occupants based on what MOBs have wandered into the larger area. Maybe nothing "moves in", or maybe any of the wanderer MOBs in the area.
Once something occupies a home base, caves, riverside settings, glens, ruins, whatever are set as bases for whatever MOB types, it can then generate spawns in the area. These MOBs wander around and make moves on whatever they run into that fits their "wants" list.
There should probably be a pool, a set number, of
So your farm, on a semi-regular basis, gets raided by your Goblins because they are living in the area.
Now the Farmer starts putting out notices. To travelling Players, and to nearby villages, town, or cities.
Players can search the area for wandering MOBs, or attack the nest and clear it.
Keep in mind that there could be any number of these bases, being occupied, sending around wanderer MOBs. Things can get pretty lively, and keep players busy if they are looking for "work."
For something like a Dragon, it should be that Dragon that leaves the "base" and Wanders in search of food and treasure.
This can be set up any way that the Devs decide. Some ideas:
Base occupant numbers can grow with retrieved food and loot, or just with time.
Larger occupations can send out more, and larger, spawns.
Spawn distances can be set based on occupation numbers too.
Base denizens can hoard retrieved valuables.
There's a variety of ideas that can be explored here.
Note also that highly populated Player areas (cities with lots of local villages around, will have a natural perimeter that's kept clean, but wilder areas can be full of spawns from various base camps.
Full Dungeons would be very active around them, unless they are regularly visited by Players.
Newbies could start out typically in the outer perimeter of a larger civilized area.
The key here is that it simulates a realistic setting. It also keeps things happening without direct GM input.
And it changes over time, with bases being cleared out.
Once upon a time....
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Re-reading it, I can understand why.
The point I was trying to make was that you have this Sandbox world, and you find things to do by playing in that world.
In my opinion, the game needs to flesh out the world with depth. Mysteries, Lore, things to find, a plotline, a story, discoveries, and generally things happening all of the time.
If they don't do anything and just leave players to "create their own", it'll get pretty boring.
Once upon a time....
If not, they don't really understand what a sandbox MMO should be.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I just don't play Eve because I'm a fantasy type, swords and dragons and spellcraft and all that. Plus, Eve doesn't have a full character to play, to walk around and explore with, etc. Eve's just a different sort of MMORPG, a great one by all accounts, but not my cup of tea.
Besides, I don't get too worked up over negative feedback unless it's got an agenda that's unseemly. I can take @mekhere's sort of comment and work with that, and it's all good.
You, good @Kyleran, do the same as I've noticed. So I think you are just having a little fun here.
Edit to update....
I've read another post by @mekhere and I got to say that I don't know where he's coming from.
I think he's got an unreasonable stick up his arse, or something.
Once upon a time....
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
how did I get categorized into the eve genre? I haven't played that since like 2009.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
It's just crazy.
Once upon a time....
Sort of like refusing to travel the world until they perfect anti gravity or teleportation.
You utilize what's available until better options become available.
But sure, like most people don't play EVE for "reasons", I have my own certainly but I don't bemoan the lack of sandbox options since I'm choosing to ignore the obvious ones available.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Of course this is in my opinion, as far as that goes.
That doesn't mean that I think Eve is a bad game. It only means that it's lacking the physical character that can run around in a sandbox world, which makes for the "good sandbox world" game I desire.
There's other issues too, in relationship to the "good" part.
Once upon a time....
What if I can tell by how it looks, knowing something about the food in question?
What if reports I read tell me this too?
What kind of BS is this, anyways?
You guys want to defend your whatever, playing these sorts of games?
"I fart in your general direction." (It was the bad food.)
Once upon a time....