Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Defining a "sandbox" MMO
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Take a wild guess.
First, could you humor me and suggest why you think the one character per server limit was implemented to begin with? Or perhaps more to the point, would you have objected had SOE changed that policy during the "pre-CU" era? If so, why?
As for bypassing interdependency, I'll go you one better. I'll happily explain how I achieved that status, with a single account/character. It was quite simple, actually. My template was TKM/Master Rifleman/Fencer/Scout (and something else that now eludes me). Essentially, I reached a point in my character's development where I could participate in most (if not all) aspects of the game without the need for buffs, armor, weapons, or heals.
I was entirely self-sufficient. Anything I purchased was exclusively for cosmetic or convenience value... by no means a necessity. The game's mechanic of "decay" had no meaning for me. I could generate a bottomless supply of credits —with ease— without ever spending a dime.
And in my opinion, that was wrong.
What a steaming pile of shameless rationalization. So you wanted X (pardon, *needed* X), but the community on hand couldn't provide you with it? Rather than going without or dipping a little harder into the community to find it, you simply swapped over to another account and meta-gamed yourself up an easier solution?
Do you fail to recognize you're making my point for me? The entire pupose of interdependency wasn't to create a need for multiple "toons" to accomplish things — it was to create a need for multiple PLAYERS.
Well, could it be, perhaps, that other PLAYERS were not online to fulfill these needs? Which I had previously explained to you twice...
How is this destructive of the game's integrity in any way?
BTW, we might have multiple toons to buff, to make armor, to provide vehicles, etc, but you still had a bunch of PLAYERS working together to hunt krayts, or to collect resources. The social aspect was ENHANCHED by not spending your time trying to hunt down a widget to complete a crafting schematic for a factory run, or 10k of intrusive ore. The support roles might have been the same players, but you had multiple avatars doing all these things.
Having multiple toons fulfilling a variety of needs allowed us each to do something supportive of the group when others were not available, and gave us more time together to do social things that required multiple players to accomplish, like a 'vette run or a kimo hunt.
What you call "shameless rationalization" I call an attempt to communicate with you that you're utterly unwilling to acknowledge. Your mind is closed; unless one only had one toon constantly LFGing, one apparently was one of those hated asocial MMO players looking to "beat the game" by defying the interdependency paradigm.
Oh, and my AFK MD/MCM sometimes got calls for rezzes from players using search, my MBE/MChef sold pets, tissues, nutrition supplements, food, and drink to other players. The PA may have been close to self-sufficient, but not entirely; we often dealt with other crafters for components or finished crafted goods, I bought organic supplies from rangers and scouts, I traded energy and other harvested goods with other crafters.
Mind you, you will find few other people around here more enthusiastic about SWG preCU's interdependency than I am. How having multiple accounts with toons that could only do so much is somehow undermining the system is beyond me. Some of the most rabidly social players I met in the game had multiple accounts, because they loved so many aspects of the game and wanted to experience them all, and interact with others in a variety of ways...as an entertainer, as an armorsmith, as a pikeman, as a pistoleer, as a bounty hunter.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
My original point stands, however. If the "freedom" to choose all kinds of professions, to mix and match an almost limitless number of skills, and the "social microcosm" of dependence on other players was so fantastic... why did you feel the need to have multiple accounts?
I can answer this incredibly easily. Now I know you love to spout about players wanted to dominate everything, or be self sufficient, but in all honesty to be completely self sufficient you would need like 10 accounts, so your argument doesn't hold water.
Why did I buy a second account?(which I didn't even get to use, because the game was destroyed by the NGE before I could finish leveling the character) Simple. I wanted to try other aspects of the game. I had my fighting character(Master Carbineer, Master Rifleman, Combat Medic 4XXX), and I absolutely loved the build I had. But I also wanted to try crafting, or maybe being a doctor, or maybe just another combat profession. There were so many play options to choose from, that I couldn't possibly see half of it on my one character without constantly regrinding him. And I really didn't feel like putting the time and effort into another character on another server that would have no effect, and could get no help from my main character, and my main guild. So alas, I bought a second account, and started grinding up an armorsmith/tailor.
Wow. I'm a horrible person. I'm a horrible gamer. I completely ruined the game by having more then one account.
BTW, contrary to what you claim, the majority of the players didn't have multiple accounts. Out of the core 30-40 members of our guild, I can only think of 6-7 that had multiple accounts.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Take a wild guess.
First, could you humor me and suggest why you think the one character per server limit was implemented to begin with? Or perhaps more to the point, would you have objected had SOE changed that policy during the "pre-CU" era? If so, why?
As for bypassing interdependency, I'll go you one better. I'll happily explain how I achieved that status, with a single account/character. It was quite simple, actually. My template was TKM/Master Rifleman/Fencer/Scout (and something else that now eludes me). Essentially, I reached a point in my character's development where I could participate in most (if not all) aspects of the game without the need for buffs, armor, weapons, or heals.
I was entirely self-sufficient. Anything I purchased was exclusively for cosmetic or convenience value... by no means a necessity. The game's mechanic of "decay" had no meaning for me. I could generate a bottomless supply of credits —with ease— without ever spending a dime.
And in my opinion, that was wrong.
Purchasing from others is a form of interdependency - even if it was cosmetic (i.e. image designer).
*upon further reflection I'd have to say that with your pre-occupation with self-sufficiency implies to me that it's more likely that you did rely on inter-dependency. How efficient would you have been without doc/entertainer buffs? Master Artisan crafted weapon power-ups? Chef supplied foods? Architectual houses and harvestors? Doctor crafted stim-paks?
If you didn't rely on many of these things to be more "efficient" then it's likely that you were content to kill durnis for 2 years - which of course is ok if that's all you wanted from this Star Wars society.
Wow lol (pardon the pun :P), I see quite a debate has opened up in my brief absence.
I only had one account btw ^_^.
So this was my experience: When I wanted a hairdo (yes I"m quite vain ingame lol), I would find an image designer friend. That was interdependence. I'd get myself a topknot, maybe some new tatoos, maybe a stat migration tweak, and we'd chat the whole while about whatever. Very nice
.
When I wanted a mind enhancement or to heal battle fatigue, I would find an entertainer friend. She'd heal my mind, and we'd chat, and it was quite nice
.
When I wanted a doctor (black-barred again! lol), I'd find a doctor friend in the med centre. I met some great guys that were good docs.
I had chef friends who had the best food and drink buffs, and I had armoursmith friends and tailor friends who made the best stuff (best looking too--remember I'm quite vain -_^).
I could go on and on about all the further interdependencies that were part of the game (e.g. someone to train a mount for me) but I think you get the idea.
I had some friends that had multiple accounts. One friend for example had an entertainer (primarily), and a creature handler (primarily) on the same server. So, when we'd go hunting together, she'd bring her creatures to, you know...eat stuff for us lol. When we were all banged up after a night's battles, she'd get her entertainer and I'd get my mind wounds all healed up. While healing, we'd chat about our shared adventures, and that was also quite nice. The fact that she had two accounts didn't seem to take anything away from the interaction at all.
Oh I should mention that for the longest time, many of us had multiple professions on one account. I was Teras Kasi/musician for a while, so I could fight when I felt like it, and do some mind healing if I liked as well. I also took some scout skills to pitch a camp so that I could do some on the spot mind buffs. That was a great combination, and people hunting with me really appreciated the on the spot buff capability.
The whole idea of being able to mix and match skills just enhanced all the possible ways you could benefit other players. It was a realy strong point to pre-cu
So, I see all these possible tools, options and interdependency as "sandboxy" still. I see having to choose one profession (and no others) and having less interdependent skills as less "sandboxy".
I happen to like more
Oh, something else just occurred to me. I suppose you could create multiple accounts and remove for yourself the necessity of interdependence on other players. I can certainly see that option. You'd have to pay a whack of cash to do it though, and you'd be working against the architecture of the game you were playing. Meanwhile other games that are designed to support your style of play are available. At the same time, however, the option of interdependence would always be there for you. If you wanted to interact with people on the basis of complementary skills, and if you wanted to mix and match your own skill-set, you always could. If you chose to be self-sufficient, well that was your choice, no one one was imposing that on you.
In the more linear version of SWG, many of these less sandboxy elements were imposed, and sadly unwanted. Less choice for me = less sand, and more box if you get my meaning.
Btw, nice post up above there Fisher, some good observations I think. I do see Smed as a guy who invited me to play in his sandbox for a fee, then broke my castles and threw sand in my eye lol. I also think his cat took a dump in the corner :P.
thats a good analogy for the game. pre-cu is to sandbox as nge is to catbox.
Take a wild guess.
First, could you humor me and suggest why you think the one character per server limit was implemented to begin with? Or perhaps more to the point, would you have objected had SOE changed that policy during the "pre-CU" era? If so, why?
As for bypassing interdependency, I'll go you one better. I'll happily explain how I achieved that status, with a single account/character. It was quite simple, actually. My template was TKM/Master Rifleman/Fencer/Scout (and something else that now eludes me). Essentially, I reached a point in my character's development where I could participate in most (if not all) aspects of the game without the need for buffs, armor, weapons, or heals.
I was entirely self-sufficient. Anything I purchased was exclusively for cosmetic or convenience value... by no means a necessity. The game's mechanic of "decay" had no meaning for me. I could generate a bottomless supply of credits —with ease— without ever spending a dime.
And in my opinion, that was wrong.
The one per account limit was imposed because Koster believed in the same myth you do -- that everyone does the same thing. They don't. If one person strives for self sufficiency as his goal, that in no way implies that all or most do. In factm they don't -- and not enough do to significantly impact any economy.
MOST people don't care about self-sufficiency -- and most of those who are self sufficient are so because they enjoy doing the things that make them self suffiient. That's also fine.
fishermage.blogspot.com
heheh yeah I forgot about that cat poo inthe corner....
fishermage.blogspot.com
Take a wild guess.
First, could you humor me and suggest why you think the one character per server limit was implemented to begin with? Or perhaps more to the point, would you have objected had SOE changed that policy during the "pre-CU" era? If so, why?
As for bypassing interdependency, I'll go you one better. I'll happily explain how I achieved that status, with a single account/character. It was quite simple, actually. My template was TKM/Master Rifleman/Fencer/Scout (and something else that now eludes me). Essentially, I reached a point in my character's development where I could participate in most (if not all) aspects of the game without the need for buffs, armor, weapons, or heals.
I was entirely self-sufficient. Anything I purchased was exclusively for cosmetic or convenience value... by no means a necessity. The game's mechanic of "decay" had no meaning for me. I could generate a bottomless supply of credits —with ease— without ever spending a dime.
And in my opinion, that was wrong.
Funny things that I even with 2 accounts was able to get into the community game the game offered, even with me having 2 account I was able to "serve" the community in much better ways then I saw many people into the greed game, with me having 2 accounts I was able to fill up the gap of professions in our guild cause even when having searched for long times to find people filling the profession gab often most people where more into combat or we met people who felt crafting was either boring or to complex.
And the problem seems not to be with people having 2 account, it is with people who play a game knowing or feeling it is wrong yet they continue to play it that way, like YOU just explained and that did more harm to the game then those with multiple accounts that actually made sure the economics and community aspect kept intact.
We also couldn't depend on everyone at every time, for example when I want to craft or get orders for specific items, of course I could wait to find someone online to help me, but I wasn't playing the game 24/7 thought I must admit I did spend allot of time with SWG, but to get back to my point, a person orders something with me, now as a ingame business man you want to provide your paying customer with the goods he or she ordered and as far I can tell people do not order things to wait weeks or months before they can get it, sure sometimes it could take a few day's or weeks depending on the item and resources available, but most often it was quick service, there for multiple accounts made me serve the community better, for some people it might be to think that it serves themselves better, but that is not the way I play MMORPG, I play it for it's community value and not for it's solo value, and yet you tell us you play it fully solo and need no one yet you feel we are wrong?
Hey Arc,
Long time no "CB"
Yes a play on words from 1970's "BJ and the Bear" days. I don't expect anyone to get it.
Moving on. For anyone that cares I have my opinion regarding sandbox.
At least with "sandbox" you have to have the abilility to make the world your own. It can have quest scripts. It can have some linear design. But it must have an outlet to shape and impact how the world is impacted by the decisions you make.
For me and me alone in opinion starting in CU SWG, it was the player economy. I have played NGE. Dare I say even have had some fun (boo hiss, I know). I didn't last long.
The point is regardless of the mechanics, if you can not effect the transfer of valued energy within a system ( credits in this case) you ultimately are not impacting the system and thus not impacting the game or world. Or sanbox feel in MMOs in this case. In human society everything follows the money (energy) right or wrong, Regardless of whether or not it holds to idealism. It is why we can justify wars, allow we let people live in poverty, or buy a big screen T.V.
In short following the laws of Thermodynamics; energy cannot be created or destroyed only transffered. Money if you think about it is a perfect example. It allows us to compare a farmer to a mechanic and to a bum in front of Barnes and Noble begging for change as we walk inside to buy our books. Money is a concept for a transfer of energy. It is not a real tangible object to hold even though we have paper to hold in our wallets that allow us to think we do. It is a human concept based on arbitrary value. Generally speaking we do not even equate it to a real item like gold of silver. Back in at the turn of the 20th century it was backed by gold and silver. Now it is not. As such it is only as vauable as we as a society agrees it is. What we percieve as value is in our minds. This is in RL, IMO.
In the virtual world it is the same. Whether you call it "credit," "gold," or "ISK." The perceived value is based on what we as players consider value and a transfer of enegy. In very scripted MMOs the value is little even if you have billions because everyone has billions. In RL govts. that print billions to make up for debt devalue their currency. It is known to anyone that has taken an economics class. In a virtual world the same rules apply. If everyone one receives the same amount of cash for what they do differently, the cash has no value whether it is a dollars worth of work (energy) or a thousand. In a virtual world it is nothing more than a "high score" as if you are playing Donkey Kong or PacMan. In the RL stock markets crash and your 401k loses half its value over night.
The short, short of it is this. Any system that does not include the transference of energy is not a "sandbox." It never will be, It never can be. The best transference of energy is money whether called "isk," "credits," or "gold." To have everyone getting billions off of the same work is nothing more than a "high score" and is arbitrary and irrellavent to "sandbox." It is Donkey Kong.
The short, short, short, short of it is not "sandbox please". It is "player economy please!!!..." As it is, non-player economy games are just a hyped up game of "Donkey Kong"...not Chess Plus maybe with some of a micro economy; the clueless would learn a few games of life intsead of the "i win button." Isn't that after all what life is about. Isn't that what games are supposed to teach us.
If not , I can think of better things to spend my broadband money on; like cyberporn. The RL ones only take gold.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
Could it be, perhaps, the developers never intended for you to get everything you want, when you want it?
So what's your point? Player interdependence was great, except when you found it inconvenient? Or that on some occasions, the very mechanics of player interdependence were an obstacle to socializing and enjoying the game?
When did I make that claim? Regardless, you do appreciate 6-7 of 30-40 amounts to 15-23%?
Sure, so long as you don't distinguish any difference between luxury and necessity.
I was plenty efficient; Defense Stacking (not to mention KD+Dizzy) was undeniably broken, and that was the cornerstone of my build. Worst case scenario I may have been occasionally (aka: quite rarely) defeated when buffs, powerups and 99.999% resist compo armor would have assured virtual invincibility, but other than a blow to my pride, what was I out? I didn't have to get in line all over again for buffs. I didn't have to repair/replace armor or weapons. One quick meditation and my wounds were healed and I was right back into the thick of action. Oh, and I assure you, I could do a little bit better than just durnies.
So in other words, the necessity of *imposed* player-interdependence was indeed a fallacy?
Could it be, perhaps, the developers never intended for you to get everything you want, when you want it?
So what's your point? Player interdependence was great, except when you found it inconvenient? Or that on some occasions, the very mechanics of player interdependence were an obstacle to socializing and enjoying the game?
When did I make that claim? Regardless, you do appreciate 6-7 of 30-40 amounts to 15-23%?
Sure, so long as you don't distinguish any difference between luxury and necessity.
I was plenty efficient; Defense Stacking (not to mention KD+Dizzy) was undeniably broken, and that was the cornerstone of my build. Worst case scenario I may have been occasionally (aka: quite rarely) defeated when buffs, powerups and 99.999% resist compo armor would have assured virtual invincibility, but other than a blow to my pride, what was I out? I didn't have to get in line all over again for buffs. I didn't have to repair/replace armor or weapons. One quick meditation and my wounds were healed and I was right back into the thick of action. Oh, and I assure you, I could do a little bit better than just durnies.
So in other words, the necessity of *imposed* player-interdependence was indeed a fallacy?
Absolutely. Freedom itself promotes interdependency. The more choices you have, the more of everything you have: interdependency, self-sufficiency, and the combination of the two.
That is how it works in reality and virtual reality. Force fails. Choices for the win.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Then I'm pleased to say we're on the same page.
Then I'm pleased to say we're on the same page.
Far from it. We aren't even in the same book.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Then I'm pleased to say we're on the same page.
Far from it. We aren't even in the same book.
In regard to forced interdependence, I'd say we are. But if you'd like to believe otherwise, so be it.
Then I'm pleased to say we're on the same page.
Far from it. We aren't even in the same book.
In regard to forced interdependence, I'd say we are. But if you'd like to believe otherwise, so be it.
No I would say we are in completely different books, but in one small instance we seem to agree on the surface. In that you aren't arguing a clear position on anything here, however, it is possible we are -- but one would never know from your manner.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I'd say Love is a pretty good example of sandbox gameplay.
Really it just needs to be open, no set time for anything to happen. Mobs shouldn't just wander around, they should interact. So in short, the complete opposite of WoW.
What in particular is unclear?
That I don't hold the same reverence, admiration and nostalgia for pre-CU SWG (or any of its iterations) as the OP and others? That I don't idealize it as shining example of what an MMO (sandbox or otherwise) should be?
It was a game mired in flaws; flaws in design, execution, and practice. To omit that is irresponsible and misleading.
What in particular is unclear?
That I don't hold the same reverence, admiration and nostalgia for pre-CU SWG (or any of its iterations) as the OP and others? That I don't idealize it as shining example of what an MMO (sandbox or otherwise) should be?
It was a game mired in flaws; flaws in design, execution, and practice. To omit that is irresponsible and misleading.
It is funny that you are preaching this to a person who has been very critical of this game throughout all of its iterations.
--------
Ten Golden Rules Of Videogame Fanboyism
"SOE has probably united more gamers in hatred than Blizzard has subs"...daelnor
What in particular is unclear?
That I don't hold the same reverence, admiration and nostalgia for pre-CU SWG (or any of its iterations) as the OP and others? That I don't idealize it as shining example of what an MMO (sandbox or otherwise) should be?
It was a game mired in flaws; flaws in design, execution, and practice. To omit that is irresponsible and misleading.
I don't think you'll find many vets that would argue the original game was deeply flawed. All we asked for was the flaws to be addressed...not to have the entire game ripped apart and replaced with the NGE.
What in particular is unclear?
That I don't hold the same reverence, admiration and nostalgia for pre-CU SWG (or any of its iterations) as the OP and others? That I don't idealize it as shining example of what an MMO (sandbox or otherwise) should be?
It was a game mired in flaws; flaws in design, execution, and practice. To omit that is irresponsible and misleading.
What is clear is that you are crapping on the opinions of people who don't agree with you. Then seem to have some issue understanding why they crap on you.
Mired in flaws... design flaws... execution.. practice.. misleading?
Odd I ran 9 accounts in pre-cu... there is no other game I've ever done that for. I guess we played different games odd huh? To bad they listened to people with that opinion and screw a few hundred thousand people out of their game. (thanks by the way).
So what MMO besides WoW is still holding more than the 250,000 or 300,000 pre-cu had a year or 1.5 years out of the box?
That's the funny part to me.... the game sucked so bad yet all these games setting sales records are dropping down the subscription ladder so fast in a few months.. good thing the companies that release them don't pop an nge.
If you didn't like the game you probably moved on... I don't like the game now so I moved on. Oddly enough I don't like any MMO now.
However, its what is called subjective matter... your point of view is most likely not going to be the same as mine. I can certainly say its not the same.. on any aspect of gaming and overall I can see how well the MMO industry is doing.. which tells me what *I* need to know.
As to the title of this thread... we've had some semi-sandboxes (my term) UO.. Pre-CU.. Ryzom and a couple others.
When we have a real sandbox it will take the concept of Second Life's user created content but in a fully supported and "actual" mmorpg... where not only will it be "your saga" but you are free to design your world (to some extent at least).
When that happens.. the sandbox will be open. Ryzom actually did this a tiny little bit..
What in particular is unclear?
That I don't hold the same reverence, admiration and nostalgia for pre-CU SWG (or any of its iterations) as the OP and others? That I don't idealize it as shining example of what an MMO (sandbox or otherwise) should be?
It was a game mired in flaws; flaws in design, execution, and practice. To omit that is irresponsible and misleading.
It is funny that you are preaching this to a person who has been very critical of this game throughout all of its iterations.
Yup, but I don't think he is here preaching ANYTHING -- I actually think he is just trolling -- at least that is how it appears. he is using many of the usual trolling tactics: deliberate misreprentation, arguing through ad hominem and the like.
fishermage.blogspot.com
What in particular is unclear?
That I don't hold the same reverence, admiration and nostalgia for pre-CU SWG (or any of its iterations) as the OP and others? That I don't idealize it as shining example of what an MMO (sandbox or otherwise) should be?
It was a game mired in flaws; flaws in design, execution, and practice. To omit that is irresponsible and misleading.
I don't think you'll find many vets that would argue the original game was deeply flawed. All we asked for was the flaws to be addressed...not to have the entire game ripped apart and replaced with the NGE.
Yup, but taht is the typical tactic of the SOE apologist: misprepresent the opposition and its positions.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Then why do you spend so much time and energy carrying water for SOE?