Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What do "skills" have to do with sandbox games? Nothing.
gillvane1
Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 1,503
Why do so many people mention "skills" instead of levels when they talk about sandbox games? IMO, a sandbox game just means a game where players can affect the gameworld.
For example, in EVE, you can take over territory and hold it. That's what makes it a sandbox game, and it has nothing to do with "skills". EVE would still be a sandbox game if there were classes.
I like skills, as long as there are limits so everyone doesn't become a tank mage, but classes work just fine if they are done well with several variations in each class.
One form of progression I really don't like, is doing something over and over to raise a skill. Like shooting my bow, raises my bow skill, or swinging my sword raises my sword skill. That, IMO, is retarded, and very unrealistic. It's just an invite for macros to raise skills, and what's the point of that?
Plus, instead of making choices that are logical when it comes to which skill to use, you make choices that make no sense at all, just to raise your skill. Should I use my fireball spell, or my sword, or my dagger? I don't care which one does the most damage, which one has an advantage over my enemy, I'll use the one that raises the skill I want to increase. Over and over. 
I would like to see a skill system in an MMORPG similar to KOTOR. You can choose any skill you want, but there are penalties for taking skills outside of your specialty. That allows for variety, but makes sure everyone doesn't become a tank mage.
But again, "sandbox" is about changing the world, not about changing your character. Every MMO lets you change your character, that doesn't make it a sandbox.
Comments
A sandbox game is a game where you can do anything you want. Hence the idea of sandbox, you just play with it.
Classes don't let you do anything you want, they push you into a specific role, and if you don't fit that role, you're marginalised.
Imagine being a guardian in KotOR II, and using force powers mainly. You'd probably die quickly as you ran out of power quicker than a consular.
Skills do the same thing. If you can take any skill you want, then there will be something that is close to an optimal build, no matter how you design the skill system.
Most players, not being stupid, will choose that optimal build, so every player ends up with the exact same character. Where's the choice in that?
And obviously, if you can do "anything" you want, you've kept the sandbox part, but gotten rid of the game part. Now it's not a sandbox game, but just a sandbox. If I can do "anything" I want, then I'm going to shoot atomic bombs out of my butt that blow up everything in the game. Not much point in playing that. So if you want to keep the "game" part, obviously there HAVE to be restrictions on what your character can do, and how powerful it can become. That's the same if you have skills or classes. Otherwise everyone is invulnerable, with the touch of death. I can kill any mob with one touch, and no mob can hurt me. Gee, that's a fun game.
I like skill systems where you get skill points to spend, and you can put them where you want them. However, there are limits, like if you have 5 healing skills, you get the 6th at half price of the points, or nuke skills cost double.
This allows players to customize their characters, but does not allow for the tank mage, where every players has the exact same optimized character, with the perfect balance of offensive and defensive skills. If every player is going to be either exactly the same, or gimped, then why have skills at all? Just give everyone the same character to begin with.
Your folly is in thinking that everyone will build the same character.
Skills as opposed to classes allow people to make their character unique to their style of play. Just because a bunch of over competitive dillweeds want to build the same uber template that will only end up getting nerfed in the end doesnt meant that EVERYONE plays that way. I knew a lot more people in SWG before the invincibility buffs and comp armor clone wars who just played what they liked. They didnt care about being uber. They just wanted to play it their way.
I like the idea that I can take a little bit of this and that as i please and not get pigeonholed into some cookie cutter class like 99% of MMOs force you to do. So far there has never been a game that held my interest as firmly as early SWG did because of the amount of freedom to build my character my way. If you ask anyone on these forums who played SWG in "the bronze age" how the game and the community it spawned was compared to SWG now or any other current MMO I think you will find that it contradicts your assumptions about how people played the game.
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
Sandbox is where you create your own content like garry's Mod.
I rather call games like SWG and UO and EVE non linear because you don't go down a one direction route like games such as WOW.
----------------------------------------
Talking about SWG much?
If it is a "game" then non-linear is almost synonymous with sandbox. Whether or not players can make content has nothing to do with whether a game is a sandbox game. For example, players can make mods of half life. That doesn't mean half life is a sandbox game.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. If the possibility exists for players to build and uber template, then IMO, that is a design flaw of the game.
I don't believe in putting in features in a game, then telling players not to use those features, and if they do, then blaming the players for the game being broken.
You can ninja loot. But don't do that, cause if you do you're a bad player and we will spank you! Then why'd you put the ability to ninja loot in the game dillweeds? That's just bad, or lazy, game design.
Sandbox means that you when you login from the first time can do whatever yoy want to. Choose a profession, skills or playstyle. You dont choose before you begin to play your character.
And to the OP regarding your idea of skill training. In real life doing the same thing over and over is the way you raise a skill. Only problem that you forget is that you think of a linear MMO where grinding IS the whole game.
In a sandbox style MMO, the skills are second to the gameplay. You spend maybe one week or so getting the perfect charatcer you want to play....then you play it. And the "living" in the gameworld are the game. Not the grind.
QFE.
Sandbox is more than a combat wombat grind. Has more play choices too.
Being a staunch supporter of sandbox games and skill based progression, I would actually have to agree with the OP on the unnecessity of a skill based progression system over a class based one.
Class based progression could imo work in allowing freedom to shape a character if implemented less restricted than overall current and most basic implementation we've seen so far. I tend to believe it is not necessarily the class system that marginalises roles or the availability of options to pursue, there is skill based systems out there that do the same through design.
Where our regular class based system is the primary example of vertical progression, the trend seems to cross over often enough in skill based systems. (progression in skill systems can be gated just as well, limiting the availability of skills by prerequisites, capping of spending skill points, ... which can lead to marginalising roles and character progression choices)
Imo it doesn't come all down to which system is used but rather on what possibilities of progression are offered in the gameworld. Skill systems set in a game that only allows for progression through combat or combat centric quests do not leave much player choice or freedom for instance. But a more customizable class/profession system designed with the ability to choose from various progression paths kept in mind, and which doesn't marginalise one option over another, (social, combat, exploration, economics, quest/missions) offers a much wider scope of possibilities and sense of freedom.
As I posted before, if you can do "WHATEVER" you want to, then there is no game, it's just a sandbox. Unless there are rules and restrictions to what you can do, where's the "game"? Why don't you post some examples of games you are talking about?
If you're referring to something like Second Life, yes it's a big sandbox, but not much of a "game", unless you loosely define "game" as anything you do on the computer. Sure you can design a play ground where everyone cybers as furry creatures, but is that really a "game"?
The difference in real life, is you don't do something retarded, just to raise a skill. I could hammer this nail with a hammer. But I need to raise my screwdriver skill, so I'll hammer the nail with a screwdriver to raise my screwdriver skill. Obviously it will take me a long time to drive the nail with the screwdriver, but that's great, because it lets me work even more on my screwdriver skill. That's what you get in a game where doing things over and over raises your skill, so IMO, it's not "realistic" at all.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. If the possibility exists for players to build and uber template, then IMO, that is a design flaw of the game.
I don't believe in putting in features in a game, then telling players not to use those features, and if they do, then blaming the players for the game being broken.
You can ninja loot. But don't do that, cause if you do you're a bad player and we will spank you! Then why'd you put the ability to ninja loot in the game dillweeds? That's just bad, or lazy, game design.
You may disagree, it doesn't change the fact you are wrong. I've yet to see a game where "everyone" plays an optimal template. Many people may play one, but there are always those who try something different,, hence making skill based games more of a sandbox vs any game with classes.
EVE is a great example. Virtually no one has the exact same build. Sure, certain ships lead to similarities, but I assure you, very few folks ever kit out a ship the exact same way, nor do they train up the skills the exact same.
"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
As I posted before, if you can do "WHATEVER" you want to, then there is no game, it's just a sandbox. Unless there are rules and restrictions to what you can do, where's the "game"? Why don't you post some examples of games you are talking about?
If you're referring to something like Second Life, yes it's a big sandbox, but not much of a "game", unless you loosely define "game" as anything you do on the computer. Sure you can design a play ground where everyone cybers as furry creatures, but is that really a "game"?
The difference in real life, is you don't do something retarded, just to raise a skill. I could hammer this nail with a hammer. But I need to raise my screwdriver skill, so I'll hammer the nail with a screwdriver to raise my screwdriver skill. Obviously it will take me a long time to drive the nail with the screwdriver, but that's great, because it lets me work even more on my screwdriver skill. That's what you get in a game where doing things over and over raises your skill, so IMO, it's not "realistic" at all.
Ok, first. In a game where you can do whatever you want....the players themselves make the quests, wars, economics and so on. Second Life is a good example,exept it lacks a storyline.... example in SWG.
And i have no idea what you talk about regarding the skills. Im a carpenter myself and i know it takes years before you can use a screwdriver the ways a pro does. But i agree that you cant have to many skills. I would settle for about 20 skills for every profession.
That way you wont be a "master" at every skill, so you would have to interact with other people when you ned other skills : )
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. If the possibility exists for players to build and uber template, then IMO, that is a design flaw of the game.
I don't believe in putting in features in a game, then telling players not to use those features, and if they do, then blaming the players for the game being broken.
You can ninja loot. But don't do that, cause if you do you're a bad player and we will spank you! Then why'd you put the ability to ninja loot in the game dillweeds? That's just bad, or lazy, game design.
You may disagree, it doesn't change the fact you are wrong. I've yet to see a game where "everyone" plays an optimal template. Many people may play one, but there are always those who try something different,, hence making skill based games more of a sandbox vs any game with classes.
EVE is a great example. Virtually no one has the exact same build. Sure, certain ships lead to similarities, but I assure you, very few folks ever kit out a ship the exact same way, nor do they train up the skills the exact same.
Tell me this.
What if EVE had classes instead, with each class having several builds within it? Would it cease to be a "sandbox game"? IMO, it would not.
Or, how about this. A game is designed so that you can build a bridge to open up a short cut to new areas. Other players or guilds can tear down the bridge, to block the route, or MOBS might attack the bridge regularaly, and you have to organize a defense of the bridge, otherwise the route disappears. You can build a city, almost anywhere on the map. If you are successful, trading routes can be built which allow faster access to your city, but other players can block access to your city, until it withers and dies, OR you can ally with them, and have mutual trade.
Players can band together to build large objects that give all players in their faction a bonus in PvE or PvP. For example, you can build a University, and then research "flame defense" and all players in your faction gain a defense to flame based attacks. If the university is not maintained, it falls into disrepair, and everyone loses the defense to flame based attacks.
Why do this? One reason is then your faction can explore the deep volcanoes, and bring back resources which allow your crafters to make items with flame damage. Or, you might want to go somewhere else, for different resources, so you might research something else, or build some other monument, depending on your goals. What to build a moon rocket, so your faction can travel back and forth to the moon? you need to mine radioactive ore, but must first develop armor that protects from radiation. The choice is yours.
You can open a trading post anywhere on the map, so players can trade in their items without having to go to town. Once you've got so many traded items, you can organize a caravan back to town to sell them all. Other players or mobs can attack your caravan, so you might need to enlist other players to help guard it on the way to town.
You can take over and hold territory, like in EVE.
Would this feel like a sandbox game to you? It would to me. Would it matter, if the players had skills or classes? IMO, it would not.
What you call skills ?
Smashing buttons in certain order is one skill.
Interacting and working with ppl is another skill.
So... what is MMO about ?
Smashing button skills can only work to a degree since other factors will control the outcome more than your skills. Distance from servers and internet connection is still controlling the outcome in 90% of any MMO - so that kinda skill can not and will not be key factor in the game.
On the other hand. MMOs are great source of meeting ppl from all over the world - creating goals to reach and work together. If that is not the objective of a MMO gamer - he really should just spend his "skills" in a single player or FPS games where effects of connections and distance from server can be personalised.
THere are ppl around that think MMO can be about button smashing skills.... Kinda funny - isn't it ?
only 1 post from me for this thread because too me this is like breathing in fresh air. That simple.
Sandbox games are about having the freedom to be anything you want. If I want to be a pure crafter then let me.
Game Developer Classes impede that freedom. If you force me to choose a Class at char creation then you are not a sandbox unless the Classes are extremely loose (like Elder Scrolls)
Skill-based is a loose term. It does not directly imply Use Based. In pen and paper the GM awarded you skill points after you complete an objective. Then you distribute this to your favorite skill. This was really just earning XP however you have freedom to distribute it to any skill (see Scion, etc)
In EVE Online they invisioned this with Timed Based XP. In Crackdown this was a combo of Use Based and Objectives.
Pretty much any good definition of Sandbox MMORPG you can find on the web will specifically state that you should have the freedom to pursue any career
I will not debate Balance because no Class based game is balanced. That comes with asymetrical builds. Show me a perfectly balanced Class based game. Even pure FPS Class based games struggle with Balance.
That's it for me. I don't want to get drawn into an argument about this because too me it's like breathing in fresh air.
Yeah, it's totally unrealistic to have to practice at something to get better at it...
Repetition is the mainstay of MMO's, welcome to online gaming.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. If the possibility exists for players to build and uber template, then IMO, that is a design flaw of the game.
I don't believe in putting in features in a game, then telling players not to use those features, and if they do, then blaming the players for the game being broken.
You can ninja loot. But don't do that, cause if you do you're a bad player and we will spank you! Then why'd you put the ability to ninja loot in the game dillweeds? That's just bad, or lazy, game design.
In my opinion there will always be players looking for an "I win" button in every game and so far there has been no game skill or class based that doesn't have one or more that people who are willing to spend enough time looking cant find. People complain too much about balance. There is no such thing. There is always going to be something that counters another characters strengths and exploits their weaknesses. If you expect a "fair fight" which is a fallacy in itself between every class then you will never ever get a game out of it. The uber templates built by people in skill based games are still only effective in certain situations and someone elses template will be the counter to that.
people spend way too much time looking for some level playing field that will never exist. The whole point of having a multi player game is to surround yourself with mates who's strengths make up for your weaknesses instead of a me against the world solo attitude.
Its a flawed player philosophy not bad game mechanics that have ruined MMOs.
Critical thinking is a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture.
Skills do the same thing. If you can take any skill you want, then there will be something that is close to an optimal build, no matter how you design the skill system.
Most players, not being stupid, will choose that optimal build, so every player ends up with the exact same character. Where's the choice in that?
And obviously, if you can do "anything" you want, you've kept the sandbox part, but gotten rid of the game part. Now it's not a sandbox game, but just a sandbox. If I can do "anything" I want, then I'm going to shoot atomic bombs out of my butt that blow up everything in the game. Not much point in playing that. So if you want to keep the "game" part, obviously there HAVE to be restrictions on what your character can do, and how powerful it can become. That's the same if you have skills or classes. Otherwise everyone is invulnerable, with the touch of death. I can kill any mob with one touch, and no mob can hurt me. Gee, that's a fun game.
I like skill systems where you get skill points to spend, and you can put them where you want them. However, there are limits, like if you have 5 healing skills, you get the 6th at half price of the points, or nuke skills cost double.
This allows players to customize their characters, but does not allow for the tank mage, where every players has the exact same optimized character, with the perfect balance of offensive and defensive skills. If every player is going to be either exactly the same, or gimped, then why have skills at all? Just give everyone the same character to begin with.
(Bored... saw this thread... must answer it...)
Normally there are restrictions or limitations to skill-based system (such as skill points to spent, or two unrelated skill trees cost more than two related ones... depend on the design really.) Like in real life since one man can't learn everything in the course of a life-time. Sandbox game revolve around a evolving dynamic world, hence reflects some aspect of real-life. So in design there would be limitations/restrictions to the skill-based system to make it more fit.
As for "optimal" builds, it's all up to the design of the skill-based system. But there are "optimal" builds for different situations. Skill-based systems just better suited to incorporate these builds in relation to the player's own play-style instead of selected few "optimal" builds which labeled as class.
You think people would pick the same build because it is "optimal", but there are different situation in a game where these "optimal" builds doesn't work... Also, you forgot to account for the players' own play-styles into their decision.
So when compare skill vs class, we can see that one offers much more freedom and allow players to play the game their way, and one focus on making everyone fit into the selected few builds to play the game. Also, in most games players cannot change classes (I can only remember a few games which allows such change in classes or some multi-classes method, other follows the set class and cannot change...)
By the way, the idea of capable roles (tank/dps/heal/cc/..., and the idea of tank mage) needs to be re-design a bit in order to work well in sandbox world, and even though it linked to the character progression design, it's another topic for another day...
Current MMO: FFXIV:ARR
Past MMO: Way too many (P2P and F2P)
Skills do the same thing. If you can take any skill you want, then there will be something that is close to an optimal build, no matter how you design the skill system.
Most players, not being stupid, will choose that optimal build, so every player ends up with the exact same character. Where's the choice in that?
And obviously, if you can do "anything" you want, you've kept the sandbox part, but gotten rid of the game part. Now it's not a sandbox game, but just a sandbox. If I can do "anything" I want, then I'm going to shoot atomic bombs out of my butt that blow up everything in the game. Not much point in playing that. So if you want to keep the "game" part, obviously there HAVE to be restrictions on what your character can do, and how powerful it can become. That's the same if you have skills or classes. Otherwise everyone is invulnerable, with the touch of death. I can kill any mob with one touch, and no mob can hurt me. Gee, that's a fun game.
I like skill systems where you get skill points to spend, and you can put them where you want them. However, there are limits, like if you have 5 healing skills, you get the 6th at half price of the points, or nuke skills cost double.
This allows players to customize their characters, but does not allow for the tank mage, where every players has the exact same optimized character, with the perfect balance of offensive and defensive skills. If every player is going to be either exactly the same, or gimped, then why have skills at all? Just give everyone the same character to begin with.
I appears as if you haven't ever played any real mainstream sandbox-skill-based games. Listen, most skill based games I know of will cap you and limit your skill points, sure you can craft what you feel is the best character, but the fact of the matter is you have to put all your skill points somewhere if you want the ultimate mage. Likewise, if you want a warrior you have to lay off all the magic stuff. In otherwords, you can't make a maxed out character that is perfect in everything.
Think of early UO when you think of this type of game. That's why people loved that game so much. If you weren't fortunate enough to play early UO then that sucks because you would of seen why we all cry out for sandbox and skill-based games so much. The two really do go hand in hand.
So you would rather just kill things over and over and over gaining experience and hearing the ding? Thats a lot different and more realistic way of training your character then actually using the skills that you prefer to use.
This post actually makes no sense at all. It's realistic to kill things, gain experience, ding, and automatically get whatever abilities you get for that class, but it's not realistic to train your skills through actually using them.
Of course this invites bots to raise the different skills through repetition. Wait doesn't gaining experience and levels do exactly the same thing except that it's done in a far more unrealistic and restrictive way.
I've liked the level system a lot, but your points as to why the level system is better make no sense at all. All reasons you point out why a skill system is bad can also be applied to a class system, but IMO it applies even more so to a class system.
The unspoken assumption that the OP makes in every post, and hasn't been directly challenged is that every player is operating in the min/max I want to be uber mode.
Which is decidedly not true.
Skill based games tend to have template of the month type builds, as developers buff/nerf certain skill sets in respose to player choices. SWG's devs monitored what professions were hte most popular then tried to discern why they were popular and then took out the nerf bats.
But while a certain subset of players WILL reliably try to min/max their way to the perfect "I win" template, the fact of the matter is in sandbox games a lot of players will find other ways than min/max PvP to play the game. SWG preCU had template options that allowed you to play without ever harming the hair of a gnort, which shows us that everything in an MMO does not have to revolve around combat.
Even within the subset of combat itself, not everyone went for the same cookiecutter minmax template. Some players like to tank, others like to nuke, and still others like crowd control, and would build their templates accordingly. Not everyone falls into the "duel me!" rut.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
To say a MMORPG either is or isn't sandbox is not correct. It's a matter of varying degrees.
"Sandbox" is a concept that can be applied to multiple different game mechanics.
A sandbox style character ability system allows you to choose skills to customise your overall characters abilities as opposed to linear class systems.
A sandbox crafting might not use fixed recipes as in WoW but a more open system such as WARs which allows for more experimentation and variation in results.
Linear questing progression is the opposite of sandbox content. I'm trying to think of content that could be labelled as sandbox, maybe WARs public quest and influence system where you have various ways and places to achieve the necessary requirements to gain your rewards.
Basically sandbox is the direct opposite of linearity. I'm sure the point can be applied to other areas too.
MMORPG
MMORPGs are NOT sims. If you want to mimic the real world, you play a sim, like sim city, or a flying sim, etc.
MMORPGs are GAMES. I like games that give me skill points and let me spend them. That'/s fun. Make swing a sword over and over to raise my sword skill, even though I COULD kill the thing with my fireball, that's not a fun game, that's retarded. Oh gee, I could kill this thing with one fireball. BUT, I need to raise my sword swinging skill, so instead, I'll hit it 8 million times with my sword to raise my sword skill.
NO, it's NOT realistic, nevver will be, because it's a game. If you want realism, play a sim, but IMO, that's a different genre than aN MMORPG.
Sandbox games let players change the world. Doesn't matter whether you character progresses in skills or classes, if they progress, it's pretty much the same thing.
So, most "skill based sandboxes" limit the skills you have, so you can't be "skilled" in everything? Guess what, that's what a class is. So how can the same thing, with a slightly different twist make the difference between a sandbox game and a linear game? It can't. Skills, or classes, it really doesnt' matter. If you can't have every skill in the game, or the game mechanics prevent you from making a tank mage, then it's the same thing as classes, with a different name.
But if having skills instead of classes, even though you CAN'T make a tank mage, or have every skill in the game, makes you THINK you're playing in a sandbox, that's fine.
Just don't make the skills raise by use, that's incredibly boring and unrealistic. Your motivation is not to do what works the best, but what's the most repetitive to raise your skill. I'd rather blast something to bits with my fireball, get some skill points nad spend them on my dagger skill if I want to raise that, rahter than hit something 8 million times with my dagger, just because I want to raise the skill, even though I COULD kill the thing in a moment with my fireball. That's incredibly silly.
For god's sake, use your imagination. You went off into the woods, and threw your dagger at a tree 8 million times to practice. Do I REALLY need to actually DO that in the game? Can't we just imagine I did that, and keep the game fun?
No game will ever be a complete sandbox. However, games are designed with the 'spirit' of the sandbox play style in mind. Wurm Online is a great example. You can morph the land however you want, build tunnels through mountains, and if you really wanted to, make a giant island at sea by carrying LOADS of dirt out there. However, there are 'limits'. You cannot do 'anything' you want. However, the 'spirit' behind the game is that of a sandbox.
And, also, I disagree with your notion concerning skills. Ryzom is another game that is an excellent example of a 'sandbox' style skill progression system. You can choose to level this skill or that, when you want and where you want. You're not 'locked' into a class like WoW, EQ, or basically most of the MMOs out there. You have the freedom to create your character like you want. . . hence the 'sandbox' expression.
So, instead of the literal meaning, although that does apply to a certain extent, a more appropriate connection would be the spirit of the sandbox.
Blessings,
MMO migrant.