I think what most fail to realize is even a sandbox has walls to hold the sand in. Open world with flagged pvp and/or certain areas of open pvp are fine. FFA pvp is nothing more than turning a game into a prison rape yard. The internet and mmos in general have proven the point that with out some kind of law or government that most people are violent animals with few if any redeemable qualities. The behavior of people in pvp areas , in cities after a big sports win or a natural disaster prove just how quickly people revert to more primitive behavior and how thin the curtain of civility really is.
Well we all looking for a game we can like and enjoy.
But DocBrody seems to be too aggressive in his opinions to talk here further more.
Ill hope you find your hardcore/only PVP "sandbox" game out there.
He has Eve, Darkfall, and Mortal Online. Not sure what his problem is, but he's certainly angry about something.
Simple solution for devs who are so weird that they actually want more than a handful of players over the years: Muliple servers, multiple rulesets. Get all the money and much less people crying. Except the gankers, of course, but who cares?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
The majority of UO's population played in Trammel, not Felucca, so PvE with flagging worked well in the sandbox game that started the genre. SWG seemed to do just fine with PvP flags. A Tale in the Desert doesn't even have combat and apparently Istaria is the same way. If Sandbox required PvP, then Minecraft single player would be all but impossible. Minecraft co-op multiplayer seems to work just fine too. Sandbox style game play does not require PvP, and it could be argued that far more people have played without PvP than with it in Sandbox games and in sandbox MMORPGs.
And Trammel was a major step AWAY from being a sandbox. If sandbox is synonymous with any word, it's freedom. Being allowed to take matters into your own hands is freedom.
Being "a sandbox" doesn't require pvp, but that's only because there's no game that is a true sandbox. The only true sandbox is the real world, and that does have open world pvp. Every game is part sandbox and part themepark. Where it falls on that spectrum is based on the systems in the game, one of which is pvp. Having open world pvp is a sandbox-y element. Having it in your game makes it MORE of a sandbox.
Well we all looking for a game we can like and enjoy.
But DocBrody seems to be too aggressive in his opinions to talk here further more.
Ill hope you find your hardcore/only PVP "sandbox" game out there.
He has Eve, Darkfall, and Mortal Online. Not sure what his problem is, but he's certainly angry about something.
The internet is for looking at pictures of cats, and fighting with people on forums.
True. Both very valid uses of time.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
you are quoting me wrong in your first sentence already. I said the definition of sandbox mmo = player driven, player competition
besides the "freedom" you think you only get in a sandbox MMO, what does it even mean, this is just unprecise drivel.
WHICH freedom exactly can NOT be in your favourite themepark, so that you think you suddenly NEED a sandbox MMO instead?
the funny thing is the people who just jump on the bandwagon to be with "the cool kids" because sandbox MMOs are suddenly "hip" and in reality they just try again what they did 15 years ago, dumbing down sandbox MMOs until they end up as themepark AGAIN.
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
The freedom sandbox is talking about is just freedom. The fact that "people" are only talking about a limited type of freedom, doesn't mean the term sandbox doesn't include other types of freedom, it means those players aren't interested in those sandbox elements. Pvp is a sandbox element.
Can a game be a true sandbox with just the idea of creation? The simpler answer is no. A true sandbox game requires creation AND destructive elements. Stopping people from destruction is a LIMITATION. A sandbox is a game that strives to remove all LIMITATIONS thus making games without Open world PvP limiting and not a true sandbox.
That being said, I don't agree with a full anything goes PvP system, personally I advocate an eve-like system. Yes you can kill anyone anywhere but do you really want to face the consequences of doing so? You have to weight the risk of killing that ship in a high-sec systems vs the rewards of the lucrative loot. Likewise the crafter has to weight the protection of high-sec systems vs the reduced revenue from only staying in them.
Decisions like this add so much MORE to a game. You start to feel a true attachment to your character on the basis that you could loose everything at any time. Yes, it sucks to loose a character and we've all done it at some point, but it also makes you want to do better the next time.
That's why I think that any game that puts a hard limitation on PvP cannot be called a sandbox. Like I said before, a sandbox is a game without limits and no-PvP is simply a limitation.
A building only "sandbox" wont work. If theres no asset destruction and open pvp with full loot, the cycle wont be complete. The game wont have enough space for everyone making their own structures, ppl wont need crafters since they dont lose their gear thus no economy, etc.
what if I wanna roleplay a bandit?? If the game wont let me, then its limiting my freedom isnt it??
jean luc ur analogy is flawed, yes there are laws in the real world to dsicourage ppl from commeting crimes BUT these laws dont magically stop them from shooting or stabbing someone... Theres still murders even with all our laws, its like the civilized world is high sec like in eve, and Somalia, etc. would be the null sec zones where its indeed anarchy...
And I dont think ANY one is asking for a FFA pvp game without consewuences, because that would basically be a death match arena.
Sandbox means ganking, not pvp. you wanna see pvp? go play fps games where all the players are on same leveled field; no one has any advantage over other except for their skills. sandbox have always been example of how pvp should never be done.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Originally posted by DocBrody idiotic 20%, a Pve heavy MMO is of course a themepark because it's shallow beating up scripted AI robots with a stick.
there is no such thing as a PvE driven sandbox MMO if it were it would simply end up being a THEME PARK, that is the ultimate truth, period...
See, some folks assert sandbox = pvp, but I think PVP'ness has nothing to do with that question.
you can think what you want, but you are dead wrong , sandbox MMO have everything to do with player driven/player competitom.
your definitions of open world / "game does not tell you what to do" fits for WOW or any other run off the mill themepark too.
You can pick up any quest you want and go where you want, there. Open World Themepark made for you.
Actually, just no. If you had played SWG, in its Sandbox phase, then you would have known that it was a PvE game, with optional PvP, the majority of the gameplay was really centered around player co-dependance rather than competition, not that competition wasn't present, particularly among the crafting community, oddly enough, the focus on PvP became heavier as SOE switched from Sandbox game mechanics, to Themepark ones (NGE).
It's not exactly synonymous but an essential foundation of an MMORPG - in my view, all MMORPGs should be sanbbox by nature, the rest are solo with cooperative components and PvP battlegrounds, and a chat.
PvP is essential because the deep implications it has over player-driven politics, economy, strategies, narratives and, therefore, the development of networks of interdependency. It's all about emergent content, longevity and the notion that you're part of a simulated world in accordance with the laws dictated by the game's lore. Only the presence PvP with a solid consequence system can achieve this.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
i think to the point in a true sandbox questing should not be a form of character progression.
none of this you are the champion solo story bull.
no levels.. i mean you can but a truely open skill system is better so long as said skills provide a group role, trinity is still a must.
no zones with blue rats you can kill at level 12 and red rats that are too hard to kill till level 22, a rat is a rat no matter what zone you're in a goblin should be a goblin, you shouldnt have to be different levels to kill the same creatures that are different colors, there should just be templates for mobs each mob has a difficulty level and rewards accordingly.
No auction house, player trading and vendoring.
No minimap... i mean a sandbox can have one, but it's better without.
Complex Crafting.
Massive seamless world that goes on for days.
Player designed housing and cities, with structurable defenses etc...
i dunno it's a big list of things a sandbox should have. that being said Archeage is not a true sandbox.
Originally posted by DocBrody idiotic 20%, a Pve heavy MMO is of course a themepark because it's shallow beating up scripted AI robots with a stick.
there is no such thing as a PvE driven sandbox MMO if it were it would simply end up being a THEME PARK, that is the ultimate truth, period...
See, some folks assert sandbox = pvp, but I think PVP'ness has nothing to do with that question.
you can think what you want, but you are dead wrong , sandbox MMO have everything to do with player driven/player competitom.
your definitions of open world / "game does not tell you what to do" fits for WOW or any other run off the mill themepark too.
You can pick up any quest you want and go where you want, there. Open World Themepark made for you.
Actually, just no. If you had played SWG, in its Sandbox phase, then you would have known that it was a PvE game, with optional PvP, the majority of the gameplay was really centered around player co-dependance rather than competition, not that competition wasn't present, particularly among the crafting community, oddly enough, the focus on PvP became heavier as SOE switched from Sandbox game mechanics, to Themepark ones (NGE).
well without PvE you cant build, create, cook, gather, craft etc ... and without these parts you dont an MMORPG, sandbox or themepark (ok themepark you might have :P )
Sandbox by design will likely have the ideal of PvP because player content is the name of the game. It's not required but many making them dream of kingdoms rising and falling which requires PvP.
The problem comes along that some people don't want PvP and too many people play the role of bandits but don't want the punishing hard life that goes along with it. I think more people would go along with FFAPVP if the bandits could be dealt with. But you will have PvPers stuck on might makes right and others questioning the freedom of having undesired PvP if you're going to try to curb it.
But if you want true player politics, intrigue, sieges and alliances you're going to need PvP.
I think that the problem is on your side because you probably cannot think of an effective regulatory mechanism for regulating PvP which is why you think that FFA OWPvP cannot be regulated, hence it is better for the players to disallow it completely regardless of the fact that it negatively affects immersion and credibility of the game.
In reality, you can simply allow the option of FFA OWPvP which is a realistic design, implement effective regulatory mechanisms which will have the potential to regulate the amount of pvp to be ranging from almost none to fantasy RPG arena depending on the strength of the mechanism.
In reason and argument language:
Your strong inductive argument is uncogent as the premise that the effective regulatory mechanism of FFA OWPvP cannot be implemented in an MMORPG is false.
Actually, the opposite has happened.
People on this forum have suggested multiple regulatory systems that should be able to keep Player Killing in check. However, the PvPers then whined that such a system was too harsh, unfair and you might as well just take PvP out of the game rather than implementing a system like that.
The conflict comes from the fact that the non-PvP players want a system that seriously discourages unwanted PvP from happening. The PvPers want another mini-game that they can game to their adventage so they can get what they want and avoid the risks.
pve or pvp ... a sandbox game can have both things, but pvp limits pve and vis versa pve does have a huge balancing effect on pvp. if you remove f.e. pvp from a game, pve classes and abilities can flourish because devleopers don't have to keep an eye on balancing three sides (the character itself - the encounter - the enemy player). i wish someone would have the guts to develop a complex pve only sandbox game based on monthly fee and without any cashshop. it sure wouldn't have hundred of thousands players, but those who will play will stay for a long long time and are glad to pay for it.
The majority of UO's population played in Trammel, not Felucca, so PvE with flagging worked well in the sandbox game that started the genre. SWG seemed to do just fine with PvP flags. A Tale in the Desert doesn't even have combat and apparently Istaria is the same way. If Sandbox required PvP, then Minecraft single player would be all but impossible. Minecraft co-op multiplayer seems to work just fine too. Sandbox style game play does not require PvP, and it could be argued that far more people have played without PvP than with it in Sandbox games and in sandbox MMORPGs.
And Trammel was a major step AWAY from being a sandbox. If sandbox is synonymous with any word, it's freedom. Being allowed to take matters into your own hands is freedom.
Being "a sandbox" doesn't require pvp, but that's only because there's no game that is a true sandbox. The only true sandbox is the real world, and that does have open world pvp. Every game is part sandbox and part themepark. Where it falls on that spectrum is based on the systems in the game, one of which is pvp. Having open world pvp is a sandbox-y element. Having it in your game makes it MORE of a sandbox.
Trammel saved UO.
And about the real world being a true sandbox with open world PvP... I don't know in what country you live, but you may want to try to go live in some place like e.g. Somalia. Then you will come back to us and tell us how fantastic true open world PvP is in the real world.
Freedom doesn't exist without limitations (aka laws) to make sure everybody has an equal share of freedom, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says so adequately. Anarchy is not freedom, and that's what FFA PvP is in those failed games. The real world is no damned "Mad Max" world, and neither should well designed sandbox games be. I mean, games people would actually want to play.
By the way, do you guys realize that in a true open world PvP real world, aka anarchy, you guys would most if not all be at the BOTTOM of the food chain? People who are only getting their tan from the light of a computer monitor aren't known to be top notch warriors. You'd be the ones bullied by the strongest. You wouldn't like that at all.
Oh dear....
1. As I've pointed out to you before. Trammel brought a boost in population that was shortlived. About a year after Trammel was implemented, the population started to decline and only stopped (briefly) when AOS was implemented. And that's exactly what I'd expect. It was a knee-jerk reaction that didn't work for people in the long run. I believe UO's current population is lower than its pre-trammel population.
Not only that, even if Trammel HAD saved UO (it didn't), that doesn't mean it's the only thing that could've saved UO. A more organic, sandbox approach to the problem of PKing could have (and probably would have) been better for the game in the long run.
In addition, I didn't say anything about how successful trammel was. I said it was anti-sandbox. Which it is.
2. I didn't say the world being ow pvp was a good thing, did I? I simply said it was. Sandbox is about freedom. Simply turning pvp off with the push of a button is not freedom and it's not sandbox. PERIOD.
3. OW PvP does NOT mean anarchy. A true sandbox would let people gather together and form laws. But those laws wouldn't alter the laws of the universe in such a way that makes you immune to being hit by a bow or a sword or a spell, they would simply impose consequences on criminals. Think of UO or EVE. Technically you could attack somebody in "safe" zones, but you'd be punished for it.
However, since giving people the ability to make laws for themselves is probably too complicated for a video game, and maybe too technically demanding, sandbox games implement things like alignment systems, which work as laws in their stead. That's a sandbox way of dealing with griefing. Simply turning off pvp or making it optional IS NOT.
what if I wanna roleplay a bandit?? If the game wont let me, then its limiting my freedom isnt it??
And why aren't you a bandit in real life? Simple, because in civilized democratic countries, there are laws protecting the others from such behaviors, making sure everyone has a share of freedom, and you'd end hunted down and defeated.
Problem is, in a game, you can't instill the fear of the law that is possible in real life. People are safe, hidden behind a computer screen, and consequences for being an asshat to everyone else are limited. There's no 10 years of jail or death penalty, you respawn and can continue being a pain in the side of everyone else. That's the problem with you guy's so nice sounding "total freedom" theory, which should actually not be total freedom to really work.
And yet people still do "play" as a bandit in real life. They're given the option, even though there are laws dissuading them from doing so. That's why in an MMO, there should be the OPTION to play a bandit, but consequences for it.
There's no 10 years of jail because the crime you're committing is also not as severe lmao. There's no death penalty, because there's no actual murder. The guy you murdered wakes up a few seconds later, depending on what game you're playing. I've seen you make this ridiculous argument before and it makes absolutely no sense. I'm sure it won't stop you from continuing to make it though.
Didn't UO lose its population to other games . So even if Trammel saved UO it was only a matter of time before other games would have taken people away from it. So any decline after trammel can be attributed to other games being more interesting esp with 3d like Everquest and AC.
Originally posted by kitarad Didn't UO lose its population to other games . So even if Trammel saved UO it was only a matter of time before other games would have taken people away from it. So any decline after trammel can be attributed to other games being more interesting esp with 3d like Everquest and AC.
That's an assumption. But even if it were true, it's not really honest to say "trammel saved UO" if you also think that nothing saved UO. Not that YOU are saying that, just mean the universal "you."
Comments
Well we all looking for a game we can like and enjoy.
But DocBrody seems to be too aggressive in his opinions to talk here further more.
Ill hope you find your hardcore/only PVP "sandbox" game out there.
He has Eve, Darkfall, and Mortal Online. Not sure what his problem is, but he's certainly angry about something.
Simple solution for devs who are so weird that they actually want more than a handful of players over the years: Muliple servers, multiple rulesets. Get all the money and much less people crying. Except the gankers, of course, but who cares?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
The internet is for looking at pictures of cats, and fighting with people on forums.
And Trammel was a major step AWAY from being a sandbox. If sandbox is synonymous with any word, it's freedom. Being allowed to take matters into your own hands is freedom.
Being "a sandbox" doesn't require pvp, but that's only because there's no game that is a true sandbox. The only true sandbox is the real world, and that does have open world pvp. Every game is part sandbox and part themepark. Where it falls on that spectrum is based on the systems in the game, one of which is pvp. Having open world pvp is a sandbox-y element. Having it in your game makes it MORE of a sandbox.
True. Both very valid uses of time.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
You can still have "player driven" and not have the competition of pvp. Also, above you said "themeparks are npc driven". and I agree.
But as I said, removing pvp doesn't "empower" the npc's any more than they already are.
As far as the freedom goes, I've yet to see a thempark that allowed "freedom" in the way players mean.
I can't tell you how many times I tried to enter an area in a themepark only to be told that I wasn't of a certain level or on a certain quest.
The freedom people are talking about is the ability to go anywhere you want and do anything you want provided you can "make it happen".
You want to go into a cave? you can. No matter the level and no quest required. You want to all join a raid? You can and don't have to enter an instance with only "x" amount of people.
You want to craft and not fight monsters? You can, and it's a viable play style. You want to soley be a merchant? You can and it's a viable playstyle.
Does that make it more precise? It should.
And if a group of players want to build and craft and sell and fight monsters and not engage in pvp then removing the pvp doesn't mean that crafting and selling and fighting monsters is any less of an activity.
And as I asked, what is your particular sandbox of choice? You saying "sandbox sandbox sandbox" is equally imprecise. Because I'm betting we can remove pvp from your favorite sandbox and all the other components will still be viable.
edit: also, when I refer to "npc driven" I'm refering to npc's disseminating game play such as quests and the like. Not being "enemies".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The freedom sandbox is talking about is just freedom. The fact that "people" are only talking about a limited type of freedom, doesn't mean the term sandbox doesn't include other types of freedom, it means those players aren't interested in those sandbox elements. Pvp is a sandbox element.
Can a game be a true sandbox with just the idea of creation? The simpler answer is no. A true sandbox game requires creation AND destructive elements. Stopping people from destruction is a LIMITATION. A sandbox is a game that strives to remove all LIMITATIONS thus making games without Open world PvP limiting and not a true sandbox.
That being said, I don't agree with a full anything goes PvP system, personally I advocate an eve-like system. Yes you can kill anyone anywhere but do you really want to face the consequences of doing so? You have to weight the risk of killing that ship in a high-sec systems vs the rewards of the lucrative loot. Likewise the crafter has to weight the protection of high-sec systems vs the reduced revenue from only staying in them.
Decisions like this add so much MORE to a game. You start to feel a true attachment to your character on the basis that you could loose everything at any time. Yes, it sucks to loose a character and we've all done it at some point, but it also makes you want to do better the next time.
That's why I think that any game that puts a hard limitation on PvP cannot be called a sandbox. Like I said before, a sandbox is a game without limits and no-PvP is simply a limitation.
what if I wanna roleplay a bandit?? If the game wont let me, then its limiting my freedom isnt it??
And I dont think ANY one is asking for a FFA pvp game without consewuences, because that would basically be a death match arena.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
Actually, just no. If you had played SWG, in its Sandbox phase, then you would have known that it was a PvE game, with optional PvP, the majority of the gameplay was really centered around player co-dependance rather than competition, not that competition wasn't present, particularly among the crafting community, oddly enough, the focus on PvP became heavier as SOE switched from Sandbox game mechanics, to Themepark ones (NGE).
You needed another option "neither" sandbox has nothing to do with PvP or PvE its a equal component in the design decsion.
PvP
and or
PvE
Sandbox
and or
ThemePark
When making the design decsion Sandbox is not a sub section of either PvP or PvE its a completely separate design choice.
It's not exactly synonymous but an essential foundation of an MMORPG - in my view, all MMORPGs should be sanbbox by nature, the rest are solo with cooperative components and PvP battlegrounds, and a chat.
PvP is essential because the deep implications it has over player-driven politics, economy, strategies, narratives and, therefore, the development of networks of interdependency. It's all about emergent content, longevity and the notion that you're part of a simulated world in accordance with the laws dictated by the game's lore. Only the presence PvP with a solid consequence system can achieve this.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
i think to the point in a true sandbox questing should not be a form of character progression.
none of this you are the champion solo story bull.
no levels.. i mean you can but a truely open skill system is better so long as said skills provide a group role, trinity is still a must.
no zones with blue rats you can kill at level 12 and red rats that are too hard to kill till level 22, a rat is a rat no matter what zone you're in a goblin should be a goblin, you shouldnt have to be different levels to kill the same creatures that are different colors, there should just be templates for mobs each mob has a difficulty level and rewards accordingly.
No auction house, player trading and vendoring.
No minimap... i mean a sandbox can have one, but it's better without.
Complex Crafting.
Massive seamless world that goes on for days.
Player designed housing and cities, with structurable defenses etc...
i dunno it's a big list of things a sandbox should have. that being said Archeage is not a true sandbox.
Pre CU for life!
The problem comes along that some people don't want PvP and too many people play the role of bandits but don't want the punishing hard life that goes along with it. I think more people would go along with FFAPVP if the bandits could be dealt with. But you will have PvPers stuck on might makes right and others questioning the freedom of having undesired PvP if you're going to try to curb it.
But if you want true player politics, intrigue, sieges and alliances you're going to need PvP.
Actually, the opposite has happened.
People on this forum have suggested multiple regulatory systems that should be able to keep Player Killing in check. However, the PvPers then whined that such a system was too harsh, unfair and you might as well just take PvP out of the game rather than implementing a system like that.
The conflict comes from the fact that the non-PvP players want a system that seriously discourages unwanted PvP from happening. The PvPers want another mini-game that they can game to their adventage so they can get what they want and avoid the risks.
Oh dear....
1. As I've pointed out to you before. Trammel brought a boost in population that was shortlived. About a year after Trammel was implemented, the population started to decline and only stopped (briefly) when AOS was implemented. And that's exactly what I'd expect. It was a knee-jerk reaction that didn't work for people in the long run. I believe UO's current population is lower than its pre-trammel population.
Not only that, even if Trammel HAD saved UO (it didn't), that doesn't mean it's the only thing that could've saved UO. A more organic, sandbox approach to the problem of PKing could have (and probably would have) been better for the game in the long run.
In addition, I didn't say anything about how successful trammel was. I said it was anti-sandbox. Which it is.
2. I didn't say the world being ow pvp was a good thing, did I? I simply said it was. Sandbox is about freedom. Simply turning pvp off with the push of a button is not freedom and it's not sandbox. PERIOD.
3. OW PvP does NOT mean anarchy. A true sandbox would let people gather together and form laws. But those laws wouldn't alter the laws of the universe in such a way that makes you immune to being hit by a bow or a sword or a spell, they would simply impose consequences on criminals. Think of UO or EVE. Technically you could attack somebody in "safe" zones, but you'd be punished for it.
However, since giving people the ability to make laws for themselves is probably too complicated for a video game, and maybe too technically demanding, sandbox games implement things like alignment systems, which work as laws in their stead. That's a sandbox way of dealing with griefing. Simply turning off pvp or making it optional IS NOT.
And yet people still do "play" as a bandit in real life. They're given the option, even though there are laws dissuading them from doing so. That's why in an MMO, there should be the OPTION to play a bandit, but consequences for it.
There's no 10 years of jail because the crime you're committing is also not as severe lmao. There's no death penalty, because there's no actual murder. The guy you murdered wakes up a few seconds later, depending on what game you're playing. I've seen you make this ridiculous argument before and it makes absolutely no sense. I'm sure it won't stop you from continuing to make it though.
That's an assumption. But even if it were true, it's not really honest to say "trammel saved UO" if you also think that nothing saved UO. Not that YOU are saying that, just mean the universal "you."