No worries Rockgod we're both mature enough to admit our failings. Which makes a refreshing change in here to say the least
Given the two extremes in MMO design, it's pretty obvious that themeparks appeal to a lot more people than sandbox games do. However, the MMO industry shouldn't ignore the sandbox design IF it is deemed financially profitable.
But that doesn't mean that the people who enjoy each wouldn't take to more "hybrid" designs. I'm a firm believer that it IS possible to make an MMO that caters for multiple playstyles. After all, its been done before. Not necessarily a 100% success in keeping EVERYONE happy. But at least Blizzard and others have tried to make MMO's that cater for soloing, grouping and raiding.
But, until now and unlike the different playstyles, the "sandbox" and "themepark" MMO designs have been kept well away from each other. But it doesn't have to be that way. Because we can learn from the past to make a better future. "Sandbox" designs tend not to be so developer intensive as "themepark" designs. So it's easier to incorporate sandbox elements into a themepark MMO (thus enriching the game as a whole) than to do it the other way around.
Its kind of ironic how SWG was closer than SOE gave it credit in reaching this "hybrid" model goal. But they failed to realise it and instead took a more "extreme" approach, which basically destroyed the very essence of what made it "different".
Anyhow, I won't talk any more about hybrids as its irrelevant to your OP
My only issues with the design are , a capless system and gathering crafting focus.
I think there should be clear limits to what you can learn. And I hate gathering and crafting, some of the most boring content ever made, so I definately do not want a game that focuses on that.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I think there should be clear limits to what you can learn. And I hate gathering and crafting, some of the most boring content ever made, so I definately do not want a game that focuses on that.
But what if crafting and gathering was actually optional and therefore you wouldn't necessarily need to be involved in it?
After all, in the majority of MMO's, crafting and harvesting is nearly ALWAYS optional. Even though some may have a sizeable focus on crafting / harvesting as well as PVE, it's still optional in nearly all cases.
You could then force on the pve content and let other players who also like crafting and gathering get on with it.
My only issues with the design are , a capless system and gathering crafting focus.
I think there should be clear limits to what you can learn. And I hate gathering and crafting, some of the most boring content ever made, so I definately do not want a game that focuses on that.
All a gathering and crafting focus means is you have an option to strictly do that if you want to. You would be completely viable in the game world if you choose that route. also it would be optional since this is a sandbox game.
Capless systems can by culled in certain ways. For an example in ryzom while the game is capless it has gear restrictions. Lets say i skill into being a melee dps character, healing, elemental spells and rifle use. If i toss on heavy armor i would be efficient as a melee/tank but i would struggle as a healer caster and with the use of my rifle, with a item swap into light armor im more profficient as a caster/healer but as a melee character i would take too much damage and the stats on my light armor wouldnt support that role. If i switch to medium armor i would be proficient as a riflemen but less so as a melee/tank and caster/healer.
This is how you put a capless system in check. you let players progress forever but you dont let them use every skill at the same time. Eve did this also with ship classes.
I do understand the gripe people have with capless systems, you want a players character choice to matter and have more thought behind it and its true thats mroe prevelant in a capped game where you have to worry about screwing up your character.
I think there should be clear limits to what you can learn. And I hate gathering and crafting, some of the most boring content ever made, so I definately do not want a game that focuses on that.
But what if crafting and gathering was actually optional and therefore you wouldn't necessarily need to be involved in it?
After all, in the majority of MMO's, crafting and harvesting is nearly ALWAYS optional.
You could then force on the pve content and let other players who also like crafting and gathering get on with it.
It is an issue of time, the devs only have so much time to spend developing a game, the more time and effort they put into content I do not like the less time they can put into something I do like. So even if it is optional it's impact is still felt.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Capless skill system? Like you repeatedly do a task over and over to increase your skill? . Time to brush up on autohotkey. . I'd probably wait for word-of-mouth on the game. If people I know liked it, I'd give it a try.
I think there should be clear limits to what you can learn. And I hate gathering and crafting, some of the most boring content ever made, so I definately do not want a game that focuses on that.
But what if crafting and gathering was actually optional and therefore you wouldn't necessarily need to be involved in it?
After all, in the majority of MMO's, crafting and harvesting is nearly ALWAYS optional.
You could then force on the pve content and let other players who also like crafting and gathering get on with it.
It is an issue of time, the devs only have so much time to spend developing a game, the more time and effort they put into content I do not like the less time they can put into something I do like. So even if it is optional it's impact is still felt.
SOE managed to do it in SWG Pre-CU, and CCP managed it in Eve. Both of which are sandbox games. The advantage of designing a sandbox game is that, in theory, the resources that would be normally dedicated to quests and stories in themepark games are not needed in sandboxes (I'm not discounting the resources required to develop sandbox elements, but let face facts, developing a whole quest system that ties into a world story is a pretty big undertaking).
Therefore, such resources can be diverted elsewhere (like in developing greater gameplay in other areas such as crafting and harvesting).
However, themepark MMO's have also managed to incorporate optional and yet in depth crafting and harvesting elements, such as EQ2 and Vanguard.
Capless skill system? Like you repeatedly do a task over and over to increase your skill?
.
Time to brush up on autohotkey.
.
I'd probably wait for word-of-mouth on the game. If people I know liked it, I'd give it a try.
I think what Rockgod is refering to is having a system that doesn't have "hard caps" but instead has "soft caps" and encouragements to do things in certain ways.
e.g. a "wizard" would possibly benefit more from wearing cloth, than heavy armour. Even though technically he/she could wear either, its not necessarily in the wizards best interests to wear heavy armour. In this instance, the player isn't being stopped from wearing whatever they like, it just may not be in their best interest to do so.
However, all games require a "hard cap" of some description when it comes to skills, or else the game just allows for massive imbalances between players. Therefore, a mixture of both hard and soft caps would be more beneficial and retain a certain flexibility.
Capless skill system? Like you repeatedly do a task over and over to increase your skill?
.
Time to brush up on autohotkey.
.
I'd probably wait for word-of-mouth on the game. If people I know liked it, I'd give it a try.
I think what Rockgod is refering to is having a system that doesn't have "hard caps" but instead has "soft caps" and encouragements to do things in certain ways.
e.g. a "wizard" would possibly benefit more from wearing cloth, than heavy armour. Even though technically he/she could wear either, its not necessarily in the wizards best interests to wear heavy armour. In this instance, the player isn't being stopped from wearing whatever they like, it just may not be in their best interest to do so.
However, all games require a "hard cap" of some description when it comes to skills, or else the game just allows for massive imbalances between players. Therefore, a mixture of both hard and soft caps would be more beneficial and retain a certain flexibility.
Lets say someone released a sandbox mmo with a capless skill system.
The game focuses on non instanced dungeons, gaining fame with factions, world/rare boss monsters with a clear focus on co-op play and solo viability in a pve environment.
The game has a heavy crafting and non-combat (gathering, social) mechanic focus also.
While having a more pve/social focus the game offers pvp. A basic faction system with a couple dedicated pvp (flag enabled) zones that are completly optional.
Would you play this game.
A sandbox with pve progression from day 1, the option to pvp but it isnt forced and a real focus on social activities, rp and crafting/gathering.
Again would you play this?
Yes, I wasn't Pre-CU SWG back. Oh wait! That wasn't the question? :P
Alright, now that I got that out of my system, if someone could make a spiritual successor to SWG (speaking of mechanics, not sci-fi/starwars theme per se), I'd be very interested. I mean, SWG had the "themepark" quest lines, player driven content and economy, and player interdependance that I would look for in such a game. I suppose some things, like the storyteller features in the current version of SWG might be good additions as well. I suppose the only think missing is the "capless skill system" which I would be on the fence on. I like pre-CU cap system and I like EvEs capless system :P.
Sage of Ryzom sounds like it could fill some of those options as well, but I didn't find that game as enjoyable as I did pre-CU (though, to be fair, it's been a while since I played either).
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers. Do something wrong, no one forgets" -from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Like everything in MMO's, its all about balancing advantages and disadvantages to players actions and choices. A bigger gun may hit harder, but its cycle time may be slower and take up more of your power reserves.
By providing elements wereby their strengths are still encouraging even though they have weaknesses as well, developers are then able to offer players choices in what they do.
Sometimes the arguments between sandbox lovers and themepark lovers seem to forget that BOTH types of products require this kind of balance in every aspect of the game. This goes for itemisation, death penalties, class choices, playstyles, etc, etc.
Providing VIABLE choices for the player based on strengths and weaknesses of the gameplay elements is what I believe to be the KEY ingredient to a good MMO.
For instance, if a Rapier doesn't have strengths over a Broadsword and vice versa, then there really isn't a choice. its only an illusion.
Likewise, if crafting and harvesting are seen as viable alternatives to PVE (in terms of the depth of activity provided for the players) then they are seen as viable choices. However, if crafting is useless in terms of the actual game (i.e. it doesn't have a synergy with the economy and doesn't provide alternative means for obtaining good items to PVE), then there really isn't a choice in the matter. Crafting will then just be seen as a pointless waste of time, just like it is in AOC and STO.
More viable choice for players = happier playerbase = more money = greater life expectancy of the product.
I think there should be clear limits to what you can learn. And I hate gathering and crafting, some of the most boring content ever made, so I definately do not want a game that focuses on that.
But what if crafting and gathering was actually optional and therefore you wouldn't necessarily need to be involved in it?
After all, in the majority of MMO's, crafting and harvesting is nearly ALWAYS optional.
You could then force on the pve content and let other players who also like crafting and gathering get on with it.
It is an issue of time, the devs only have so much time to spend developing a game, the more time and effort they put into content I do not like the less time they can put into something I do like. So even if it is optional it's impact is still felt.
SOE managed to do it in SWG Pre-CU, and CCP managed it in Eve. Both of which are sandbox games. The advantage of designing a sandbox game is that, in theory, the resources that would be normally dedicated to quests and stories in themepark games are not needed in sandboxes (I'm not discounting the resources required to develop sandbox elements, but let face facts, developing a whole quest system that ties into a world story is a pretty big undertaking).
Therefore, such resources can be diverted elsewhere (like in developing greater gameplay in other areas such as crafting and harvesting).
However, themepark MMO's have also managed to incorporate optional and yet in depth crafting and harvesting elements, such as EQ2 and Vanguard.
I guess it could, but in experience games like SWG and Eve had very unsatisfying to boring combat. They are also games that have a strong focus on economy so I assumed the poor combat was due to the heavy focus on crafting. Of course it could just a choice of certain combat styles that I do not like.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
I guess it could, but in experience games like SWG and Eve had very unsatisfying to boring combat. They are also games that have a strong focus on economy so I assumed the poor combat was due to the heavy focus on crafting. Of course it could just a choice of certain combat styles that I do not like.
Don't get me wrong, Eve is awful for PVE (in my opinion) and so was SWG Pre-CU. But nevertheless, they are/were both good examples of sandbox designs which incorporated good crafting / harvesting elements (if you like that kind of thing). And most importantly, the crafting and harvesting activities were/are optional.
Unfortunately, the typical "sandbox" design doesn't provide very much for those who like PVE beyond the simple "grind" mechanics. But that's a different problem entirely and involves the use of "hybrid" MMO design rather than true "sandbox" design.
Its not a case of dedicating more resources to PVE in order to make it more appealing. Simple "grinding" just doesn't appeal to many who aren't predominantly "sandbox" minded. So removing resources from developing crafting and harvesting mechanics actually wouldn't necessarily solve the issue in terms of depth in PVE content.
In short, its one thing to just place mobs everywhere to grind on, but another thing to give it all purpose, meaning and direction. Unfortunately to some, this is where sandbox design often fails, and where the themepark design begins to show its advantages. This is when the sandbox design relies on the player giving themselves purpose and meaning. But to some players who aren't so "sandbox" minded, this is seen as laziness by the devs.
It boils down to what makes a fun game? . Well, what makes a good movie? . What makes a good book? . If you can answer the last two questions, you'd be a millionaire. . A fluid responsive combat system would keep many entertained, sandbox or no.
If you can answer the last two questions, you'd be a millionaire.
.
A fluid responsive combat system would keep many entertained, sandbox or no.
Very true indeed. And whilst you could say that the definition of "fun" or "entertainment" is subjective, there are trends which suggest that on a basic level, many can agree on certain traits which define those words.
This is why the success of the "themepark" MMO's shouldn't be ignored. And neither should certain unique elements found in sandbox designs.
I suppose, the big question is, would a game based almost completely on the SWG Pre-CU skill-based design be "successful" in todays market? I'm not talking about it being a STARWARS game, just one that emulates many of the qualities that were found in the original design of SWG.
Personally, I have my doubts because it falls short in certain areas. Mainly because its a little *too* sandboxy. But this thread is about the sandbox design, so we have to remain within those contraints.
I guess it could, but in experience games like SWG and Eve had very unsatisfying to boring combat. They are also games that have a strong focus on economy so I assumed the poor combat was due to the heavy focus on crafting. Of course it could just a choice of certain combat styles that I do not like.
In short, its one thing to just place mobs everywhere to grind on, but another thing to give it all purpose, meaning and direction. Unfortunately to some, this is where sandbox design often fails, and where the themepark design begins to show its advantages. This is when the sandbox design relies on the player giving themselves purpose and meaning. But to some players who aren't so "sandbox" minded, this is seen as laziness by the devs.
For me at least, the issue I have isn't with why I am doing something but how.
I mean I could get a quest to kill badgers or I could kill badgers for some contrived reason I made up either way it is boring because the process of killing badgers is boring, it doesn't matter why I am doing something if the process of doing it is dull.
That is what I think games need to focus on. Basic gameplay, is it fun to kill things? Is it fun to craft things? Worry about the reasons why later because if your gameplay is dull no ammount of epic storylines nor world simulation can save it.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
ive never found much entertainment from non player challenge. there is no sense of urgency, or threat of consequences. my potential for failure never feels like it will matter, and this doesent generate much enjoyment for me.
Shadowbane was the opposite, everything had an impact, and working with so many conflicting player egos, in your groups, your guild, guild alliances, and even enemies, made everything thrilling and heavy.
I guess it could, but in experience games like SWG and Eve had very unsatisfying to boring combat. They are also games that have a strong focus on economy so I assumed the poor combat was due to the heavy focus on crafting. Of course it could just a choice of certain combat styles that I do not like.
In short, its one thing to just place mobs everywhere to grind on, but another thing to give it all purpose, meaning and direction. Unfortunately to some, this is where sandbox design often fails, and where the themepark design begins to show its advantages. This is when the sandbox design relies on the player giving themselves purpose and meaning. But to some players who aren't so "sandbox" minded, this is seen as laziness by the devs.
For me at least, the issue I have isn't with why I am doing something but how.
I mean I could get a quest to kill badgers or I could kill badgers for some contrived reason I made up either way it is boring because the process of killing badgers is boring, it doesn't matter why I am doing something if the process of doing it is dull.
That is what I think games need to focus on. Basic gameplay, is it fun to kill things? Is it fun to craft things? Worry about the reasons why later because if your gameplay is dull no ammount of epic storylines nor world simulation can save it.
I understand where you're coming from, just compare the crafting of Vanguard or EQ2 to that of WoW or AOC and you see a stark difference in gameplay from a crafting perspective.
On the other hand, look at the melee combat in AOC compared to that of WoW and again you see a difference.
I agree that "what you do" is important, but also "why you are doing it" is equally as important. This is because whilst one person may not care as to why they are going to kill 10 rats, IF there is an illusion as to why you are doing it then theres a chance that the game as a whole will seem less of a grind.
Just compare the "grinding" in Anarchy Online to the quests you get in AOC and WoW. In all cases, the end goal is the same (to get more XP in order to level up), but in the latter there is a less emphasis on grinding because the player is immersed in a story line (the quest).
I like PVP and I can play a PVP focused sandbox, but that's not really want I want to play. I would much rather to play a true sandbox, that doesn't focus on either PVE or PVP, but a good combination of the 2. Darkfall with better crafting (which should in turn lead to a better economy) and Raiding would be awesome, imho. (and a few other tweaks, like skill degredation) The problem is, that's very resource intensive in the development process
i would for sure play it, since it is a bit like my dream game (which would be focused on 3 things - crafting (with teraforming), community and world (story) progression, with no pvp at all (maybe later there would be added dueling system, but different from anything i ever saw in current games))
i would for sure play it, since it is a bit like my dream game (which would be focused on 3 things - crafting (with teraforming), community and world (story) progression, with no pvp at all (maybe later there would be added dueling system, but different from anything i ever saw in current games))
Personally I wouldn't want enforced pvp. Consensual pvp (a flagging system like in SWG Pre CU) or pvp in certain areas I'd prefer.
I am a little confused as to what makes that game a sandbox. In a sandbox the players create the content, which is why it lends itself to PVP. Instanced dungeons and PVP scenarios are very much not like what I think of as a sandbox game.
i would for sure play it, since it is a bit like my dream game (which would be focused on 3 things - crafting (with teraforming), community and world (story) progression, with no pvp at all (maybe later there would be added dueling system, but different from anything i ever saw in current games))
Personally I wouldn't want enforced pvp. Consensual pvp (a flagging system like in SWG Pre CU) or pvp in certain areas I'd prefer.
problem with any pvp is, that even if it is not enforced, it strongly influence pve, since you have to balance skills for pvp rather then for pve. seriously i dont understand why when they are putting both pvp and pve into a mmorpg, why they dont just separate skills for pvp and pve - there is more or less no way, you could under current system (tank/dps/healer) balance skills for both pvp and pve
If the gameplay suited my style of play, for MMO's, sure why not. I can get into either persitent sandbox worlds, or heavily instanced game if the gameplay is exciting, fast paced, and fun party raids on epic bosses. A note on gameplay mechanics I prefer... something ala Hellgate, Neocron or Borderlands... in other words, fps/3rd person shooter/mmropg hybrids.
Comments
No worries Rockgod
we're both mature enough to admit our failings. Which makes a refreshing change in here to say the least 
Given the two extremes in MMO design, it's pretty obvious that themeparks appeal to a lot more people than sandbox games do. However, the MMO industry shouldn't ignore the sandbox design IF it is deemed financially profitable.
But that doesn't mean that the people who enjoy each wouldn't take to more "hybrid" designs. I'm a firm believer that it IS possible to make an MMO that caters for multiple playstyles. After all, its been done before. Not necessarily a 100% success in keeping EVERYONE happy. But at least Blizzard and others have tried to make MMO's that cater for soloing, grouping and raiding.
But, until now and unlike the different playstyles, the "sandbox" and "themepark" MMO designs have been kept well away from each other. But it doesn't have to be that way. Because we can learn from the past to make a better future. "Sandbox" designs tend not to be so developer intensive as "themepark" designs. So it's easier to incorporate sandbox elements into a themepark MMO (thus enriching the game as a whole) than to do it the other way around.
Its kind of ironic how SWG was closer than SOE gave it credit in reaching this "hybrid" model goal. But they failed to realise it and instead took a more "extreme" approach, which basically destroyed the very essence of what made it "different".
Anyhow, I won't talk any more about hybrids as its irrelevant to your OP
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
The main challenge when developing a sandbox system is so it's controlable.
Players will apply pressure on the system to maximise results.
The key to this is to make sandbox points difficult to understand. Complex and cross-referencing eachother.
-Would you like cheddar or swiss cheese?
-Yes.
-...
I actually like PvE better than PvP usually,
My only issues with the design are , a capless system and gathering crafting focus.
I think there should be clear limits to what you can learn. And I hate gathering and crafting, some of the most boring content ever made, so I definately do not want a game that focuses on that.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
But what if crafting and gathering was actually optional and therefore you wouldn't necessarily need to be involved in it?
After all, in the majority of MMO's, crafting and harvesting is nearly ALWAYS optional. Even though some may have a sizeable focus on crafting / harvesting as well as PVE, it's still optional in nearly all cases.
You could then force on the pve content and let other players who also like crafting and gathering get on with it.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
All a gathering and crafting focus means is you have an option to strictly do that if you want to. You would be completely viable in the game world if you choose that route. also it would be optional since this is a sandbox game.
Capless systems can by culled in certain ways. For an example in ryzom while the game is capless it has gear restrictions. Lets say i skill into being a melee dps character, healing, elemental spells and rifle use. If i toss on heavy armor i would be efficient as a melee/tank but i would struggle as a healer caster and with the use of my rifle, with a item swap into light armor im more profficient as a caster/healer but as a melee character i would take too much damage and the stats on my light armor wouldnt support that role. If i switch to medium armor i would be proficient as a riflemen but less so as a melee/tank and caster/healer.
This is how you put a capless system in check. you let players progress forever but you dont let them use every skill at the same time. Eve did this also with ship classes.
I do understand the gripe people have with capless systems, you want a players character choice to matter and have more thought behind it and its true thats mroe prevelant in a capped game where you have to worry about screwing up your character.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
It is an issue of time, the devs only have so much time to spend developing a game, the more time and effort they put into content I do not like the less time they can put into something I do like. So even if it is optional it's impact is still felt.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Capless skill system? Like you repeatedly do a task over and over to increase your skill?
.
Time to brush up on autohotkey.
.
I'd probably wait for word-of-mouth on the game. If people I know liked it, I'd give it a try.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
SOE managed to do it in SWG Pre-CU, and CCP managed it in Eve. Both of which are sandbox games. The advantage of designing a sandbox game is that, in theory, the resources that would be normally dedicated to quests and stories in themepark games are not needed in sandboxes (I'm not discounting the resources required to develop sandbox elements, but let face facts, developing a whole quest system that ties into a world story is a pretty big undertaking).
Therefore, such resources can be diverted elsewhere (like in developing greater gameplay in other areas such as crafting and harvesting).
However, themepark MMO's have also managed to incorporate optional and yet in depth crafting and harvesting elements, such as EQ2 and Vanguard.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I think what Rockgod is refering to is having a system that doesn't have "hard caps" but instead has "soft caps" and encouragements to do things in certain ways.
e.g. a "wizard" would possibly benefit more from wearing cloth, than heavy armour. Even though technically he/she could wear either, its not necessarily in the wizards best interests to wear heavy armour. In this instance, the player isn't being stopped from wearing whatever they like, it just may not be in their best interest to do so.
However, all games require a "hard cap" of some description when it comes to skills, or else the game just allows for massive imbalances between players. Therefore, a mixture of both hard and soft caps would be more beneficial and retain a certain flexibility.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
^
What Tarka said.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Yes, I wasn't Pre-CU SWG back. Oh wait! That wasn't the question? :P
Alright, now that I got that out of my system, if someone could make a spiritual successor to SWG (speaking of mechanics, not sci-fi/starwars theme per se), I'd be very interested. I mean, SWG had the "themepark" quest lines, player driven content and economy, and player interdependance that I would look for in such a game. I suppose some things, like the storyteller features in the current version of SWG might be good additions as well. I suppose the only think missing is the "capless skill system" which I would be on the fence on. I like pre-CU cap system and I like EvEs capless system :P.
Sage of Ryzom sounds like it could fill some of those options as well, but I didn't find that game as enjoyable as I did pre-CU (though, to be fair, it's been a while since I played either).
-mklinic
"Do something right, no one remembers.
Do something wrong, no one forgets"
-from No One Remembers by In Strict Confidence
Like everything in MMO's, its all about balancing advantages and disadvantages to players actions and choices. A bigger gun may hit harder, but its cycle time may be slower and take up more of your power reserves.
By providing elements wereby their strengths are still encouraging even though they have weaknesses as well, developers are then able to offer players choices in what they do.
Sometimes the arguments between sandbox lovers and themepark lovers seem to forget that BOTH types of products require this kind of balance in every aspect of the game. This goes for itemisation, death penalties, class choices, playstyles, etc, etc.
Providing VIABLE choices for the player based on strengths and weaknesses of the gameplay elements is what I believe to be the KEY ingredient to a good MMO.
For instance, if a Rapier doesn't have strengths over a Broadsword and vice versa, then there really isn't a choice. its only an illusion.
Likewise, if crafting and harvesting are seen as viable alternatives to PVE (in terms of the depth of activity provided for the players) then they are seen as viable choices. However, if crafting is useless in terms of the actual game (i.e. it doesn't have a synergy with the economy and doesn't provide alternative means for obtaining good items to PVE), then there really isn't a choice in the matter. Crafting will then just be seen as a pointless waste of time, just like it is in AOC and STO.
More viable choice for players = happier playerbase = more money = greater life expectancy of the product.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I guess it could, but in experience games like SWG and Eve had very unsatisfying to boring combat. They are also games that have a strong focus on economy so I assumed the poor combat was due to the heavy focus on crafting. Of course it could just a choice of certain combat styles that I do not like.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
Don't get me wrong, Eve is awful for PVE (in my opinion) and so was SWG Pre-CU. But nevertheless, they are/were both good examples of sandbox designs which incorporated good crafting / harvesting elements (if you like that kind of thing). And most importantly, the crafting and harvesting activities were/are optional.
Unfortunately, the typical "sandbox" design doesn't provide very much for those who like PVE beyond the simple "grind" mechanics. But that's a different problem entirely and involves the use of "hybrid" MMO design rather than true "sandbox" design.
Its not a case of dedicating more resources to PVE in order to make it more appealing. Simple "grinding" just doesn't appeal to many who aren't predominantly "sandbox" minded. So removing resources from developing crafting and harvesting mechanics actually wouldn't necessarily solve the issue in terms of depth in PVE content.
In short, its one thing to just place mobs everywhere to grind on, but another thing to give it all purpose, meaning and direction. Unfortunately to some, this is where sandbox design often fails, and where the themepark design begins to show its advantages. This is when the sandbox design relies on the player giving themselves purpose and meaning. But to some players who aren't so "sandbox" minded, this is seen as laziness by the devs.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
It boils down to what makes a fun game?
.
Well, what makes a good movie?
.
What makes a good book?
.
If you can answer the last two questions, you'd be a millionaire.
.
A fluid responsive combat system would keep many entertained, sandbox or no.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Very true indeed. And whilst you could say that the definition of "fun" or "entertainment" is subjective, there are trends which suggest that on a basic level, many can agree on certain traits which define those words.
This is why the success of the "themepark" MMO's shouldn't be ignored. And neither should certain unique elements found in sandbox designs.
I suppose, the big question is, would a game based almost completely on the SWG Pre-CU skill-based design be "successful" in todays market? I'm not talking about it being a STARWARS game, just one that emulates many of the qualities that were found in the original design of SWG.
Personally, I have my doubts because it falls short in certain areas. Mainly because its a little *too* sandboxy. But this thread is about the sandbox design, so we have to remain within those contraints.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
For me at least, the issue I have isn't with why I am doing something but how.
I mean I could get a quest to kill badgers or I could kill badgers for some contrived reason I made up either way it is boring because the process of killing badgers is boring, it doesn't matter why I am doing something if the process of doing it is dull.
That is what I think games need to focus on. Basic gameplay, is it fun to kill things? Is it fun to craft things? Worry about the reasons why later because if your gameplay is dull no ammount of epic storylines nor world simulation can save it.
All men think they're fascinating. In my case, it's justified
ive never found much entertainment from non player challenge. there is no sense of urgency, or threat of consequences. my potential for failure never feels like it will matter, and this doesent generate much enjoyment for me.
Shadowbane was the opposite, everything had an impact, and working with so many conflicting player egos, in your groups, your guild, guild alliances, and even enemies, made everything thrilling and heavy.
I understand where you're coming from, just compare the crafting of Vanguard or EQ2 to that of WoW or AOC and you see a stark difference in gameplay from a crafting perspective.
On the other hand, look at the melee combat in AOC compared to that of WoW and again you see a difference.
I agree that "what you do" is important, but also "why you are doing it" is equally as important. This is because whilst one person may not care as to why they are going to kill 10 rats, IF there is an illusion as to why you are doing it then theres a chance that the game as a whole will seem less of a grind.
Just compare the "grinding" in Anarchy Online to the quests you get in AOC and WoW. In all cases, the end goal is the same (to get more XP in order to level up), but in the latter there is a less emphasis on grinding because the player is immersed in a story line (the quest).
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
No.
I like PVP and I can play a PVP focused sandbox, but that's not really want I want to play. I would much rather to play a true sandbox, that doesn't focus on either PVE or PVP, but a good combination of the 2. Darkfall with better crafting (which should in turn lead to a better economy) and Raiding would be awesome, imho. (and a few other tweaks, like skill degredation) The problem is, that's very resource intensive in the development process
Hopefully one day.
Like Trading Card Games? Click Here.
i would for sure play it, since it is a bit like my dream game (which would be focused on 3 things - crafting (with teraforming), community and world (story) progression, with no pvp at all (maybe later there would be added dueling system, but different from anything i ever saw in current games))
Personally I wouldn't want enforced pvp. Consensual pvp (a flagging system like in SWG Pre CU) or pvp in certain areas I'd prefer.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
I am a little confused as to what makes that game a sandbox. In a sandbox the players create the content, which is why it lends itself to PVP. Instanced dungeons and PVP scenarios are very much not like what I think of as a sandbox game.
problem with any pvp is, that even if it is not enforced, it strongly influence pve, since you have to balance skills for pvp rather then for pve. seriously i dont understand why when they are putting both pvp and pve into a mmorpg, why they dont just separate skills for pvp and pve - there is more or less no way, you could under current system (tank/dps/healer) balance skills for both pvp and pve
If the gameplay suited my style of play, for MMO's, sure why not. I can get into either persitent sandbox worlds, or heavily instanced game if the gameplay is exciting, fast paced, and fun party raids on epic bosses. A note on gameplay mechanics I prefer... something ala Hellgate, Neocron or Borderlands... in other words, fps/3rd person shooter/mmropg hybrids.