Eh, my number one rule of a sandbox is that a crafting character must be just as viable as combat character. Not something that gets tacked onto combat characters - but crafting must be something people can do, INSTEAD of combat, with gameplay that makes that feel like just as important as going out and killing stuff.
Funny how my number one rule is completely unrelated to your number one rule..
I agree with that, but its funny that you state that your number one rule is unrelated. Its actually more related than you think. If you want a pure crafter than you need an economy to support it. In UO it worked well because people always had to replace/upgrade/repair gear. But hey, I guess you'll have fun just crafting unbreakable weapons/items that no one will ever need to replace and thus, never order again either.
*edit - thinking about it further, I guess it could work without destructible items if you sold everything to NPC's and had something meaningful to spend your new found cash on. Otherwise if things aren't destructible I suppose you'll only be making money on items you use up such as ammo.
Guess you're right, it's not entirely unrelated. I might have been exaggerating a bit, for effect
Originally posted by Waterlily Many ridiculous posts. EQ franchise is about PVE, no one gives one iota about PVP in EQ games.
True, EQ was and always will be PVE first and foremost but PVP will play a part. Anyone thinking EQNext will be a PVP game with PVE add on is dreaming.
And I'm not a PvPer, but have been clamoring for a sandbox game, ever since.. well UO.
Even back then, I wanted a sandbox game that had 3d graphics, because the top-down isometric style has always been difficult for me to get into. Especially in a sandbox MMO, where it seems like immersion is so important.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
My main concern if EQ Next is truly a sandbox is that they avoid the dreaded FFA PVP mentality that seems to come with just about every single sandbox.
Originally posted by Theocritus My main concern if EQ Next is truly a sandbox is that they avoid the dreaded FFA PVP mentality that seems to come with just about every single sandbox.
PVP will never be prelevant in EQ games, it's a PVE bastion. The only PVP server Everquest has right now is more used to make jokes about than to actually play on.
Sony wanted to shut it down and merge it but the truth of the matter is that the PVE players didn't want the PVP players on their server, since most are scum and hackers, as you would expect from FFA PVP players, so they're stuck on their dead server forever. Even if they ever managed to get onto a PVE server, the community would shun them and never let them inside a PVE guild.
Everquest has 14 PVE servers and 1 dead PVP server.
Most people here have no clue as to what a themepark or sandbox game is. It isn't as easily defined as you think. Many are sort of right but most are mostly wrong.
Defining exactly what they are isn't the point ... and that is the point everyone is f#cking missing. Any subject will go nowhere if this is the only thing you are hung up about.
I expect to be in the minority with this, but I think it is something that greatly improves gameworld economy:
Only 1 toon/account.
This allows dedicated crafters to have a important role in the game. If "everyone" has a crafter alt, it kills the market, inflation starts its ugly work from day 1 and soon lower level equipment has next to no value at all.
Just curious; do you really expect corporations to discard profit (on that magnitude)?
Idealism is a cool thing. It would be great if our MMO companies went back to MUD-sized player bases and income models.
But looking at it realistically, I don't really expect corporations to throw away cash voluntarily. There's no 'social conscience' to appeal to.
----------
Of course, you could claim that you're giving them more profits; 1 toon/1account means they have to pay for multiple accounts! But I expect the beans wouldn't quite count out that way. Nor would players 'trapped' in a bad spec or just-nerfed class be thanking you very much.
On what magnitude? What I've seen over the years, people generally create alts in themepark games because they run out of content. Sandboxes don't really have this problem (I should just say EVE, every other sandbox sucks), content is endless. The biggest reason to create an alt in EVE is for "crafting" purposes. So I don't think all that many sandbox fans would turn down a game just because of 1 char/acc.
The highest numbers of accounts that I've ever heard of was in EVE, 26 accounts.
1char/acc doesn't mean that you cannot reroll/reallocate/ect.
Asheron's Call had the best loot system of all time, any none of the items could be crafted, but all could be modified.
Also none of them decayed, yet the economy was steller
and it was not a sandbox.
are you kidding me??? Asheron's Call was a complete sandbox, obviously you never played it
One of my favorite MMOs, played it for about a year and a half.. but no, have to cast another vote for "not a sandbox." Didn't even have crafting, really. No mining, no fishing, nothing like that. Not even player housing, or player-run merchants. The gameplay was all about levelling up for combat, the #1 rule of themeparks. Wide open world does not make it a sandbox.
..and I don't really buy the "hybrid" label, either. These hybrid sandpark themebox games have no more in common with indisputable sandbox games (UO, SWG, EVE) than indisputable themeparks do.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Asheron's Call had the best loot system of all time, any none of the items could be crafted, but all could be modified.
Also none of them decayed, yet the economy was steller
and it was not a sandbox.
are you kidding me??? Asheron's Call was a complete sandbox, obviously you never played it
One of my favorite MMOs, played it for about a year and a half.. but no, have to cast another vote for "not a sandbox." Didn't even have crafting, really. No mining, no fishing, nothing like that. Not even player housing, or player-run merchants. The gameplay was all about levelling up for combat, the #1 rule of themeparks. Wide open world does not make it a sandbox.
..and I don't really buy the "hybrid" label, either. These hybrid sandpark themebox games have no more in common with indisputable sandbox games (UO, SWG, EVE) than indisputable themeparks do.
actually the no 1 rule of a themepark is quests to level, AC had none. Also, while it didnt have crafting its open tinkering system was far better because of the loot system it had in place. Since when does mining and fishing make it a sandbox? AC had player housing, Villas and Mansions. Everyone also had their own player merchant as well if they used Decal which they all did, Turbine was smart to not waste resources on coding that Decal provided the players
A Sandbox means you can go wherever you want in the game, at any point in the game and have any skill you want, without being typecast into a specific role to me. It also had full loot pvp which is another sandbox thing
Themepark= must be level max to enter this dungeon
Sandbox= can enter dungeon whenever you want
AC follows the second. There was no restrictions on any character based on level, not loot, not where you could go, not even what you could hunt.
Asheron's Call had the best loot system of all time, any none of the items could be crafted, but all could be modified.
Also none of them decayed, yet the economy was steller
and it was not a sandbox.
are you kidding me??? Asheron's Call was a complete sandbox, obviously you never played it
One of my favorite MMOs, played it for about a year and a half.. but no, have to cast another vote for "not a sandbox." Didn't even have crafting, really. No mining, no fishing, nothing like that. Not even player housing, or player-run merchants. The gameplay was all about levelling up for combat, the #1 rule of themeparks. Wide open world does not make it a sandbox.
..and I don't really buy the "hybrid" label, either. These hybrid sandpark themebox games have no more in common with indisputable sandbox games (UO, SWG, EVE) than indisputable themeparks do.
actually the no 1 rule of a themepark is quests to level, AC had none. Also, while it didnt have crafting its open tinkering system was far better because of the loot system it had in place. Since when does mining and fishing make it a sandbox? AC had player housing, Villas and Mansions. Everyone also had their own player merchant as well if they used Decal which they all did, Turbine was smart to not waste resources on coding that Decal provided the players
A Sandbox means you can go wherever you want in the game, at any point in the game and have any skill you want, without being typecast into a specific role to me. It also had full loot pvp which is another sandbox thing
Themepark= must be level max to enter this dungeon
Sandbox= can enter dungeon whenever you want
AC follows the second. There was no restrictions on any character based on level, not loot, not where you could go, not even what you could hunt.
ER, no, quests were added to theme-parks in 2004, but prior to that titles such as DAOC pretty much directed a player from zone to zone based on their level and there was little variation in the forumla. A sandbox style game can in fact have quests, EVE is full of them with their missions and story arcs yet it's still a sandbox.
BTW, most dungeons in WOW can be entered at any level (prior to the raid content), does that make WOW a sandbox? Sure, you'll die horribly if you go in before your level is appropriate, but that's no different than an open world game either now is it.
Very difficult to try and define a sandbox game based on the certain set of features it contains. It's possible to make a sandbox style MMO without PVP, or with classes, or with instant travel times.
Truth is there is almost no MMO mechanical feature or design that can't be utilized in either a sandbox or theme park style game, it's not what makes a game more like one or another.
Which is why there's so much disagreement over what really is a sandbox game, usually ends up with people pointing to the more famous sandbox titles of the past (UO, SWG, EVE) and comparing the feature set to them and saying, if not the same, must not be a sandbox. Probably not 100% accurate in every case.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Hahaha...just by judging from this thread alone I can already foresee the amount of heat in the EQNext forums. Sandbox games have A LOT to nitpick on and even the players can't agree amongst themselves. Not including the fact that SOE made that claim about making the biggest Sandbox game, automatically raising player expectations.
I think it's a strange idea, that the absence of some sort of content makes a game more of a sandbox. Like, if you take a themepark, and remove all the quests, it suddenly becomes a sandbox. No wonder some people hate the very idea of a sandbox, if that's what they think it means.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Comments
Yeah, I am way worse for that.
True, EQ was and always will be PVE first and foremost but PVP will play a part. Anyone thinking EQNext will be a PVP game with PVE add on is dreaming.
EQNext =Hybrid.
And I'm not a PvPer, but have been clamoring for a sandbox game, ever since.. well UO.
Even back then, I wanted a sandbox game that had 3d graphics, because the top-down isometric style has always been difficult for me to get into. Especially in a sandbox MMO, where it seems like immersion is so important.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
PVP will never be prelevant in EQ games, it's a PVE bastion. The only PVP server Everquest has right now is more used to make jokes about than to actually play on.
Sony wanted to shut it down and merge it but the truth of the matter is that the PVE players didn't want the PVP players on their server, since most are scum and hackers, as you would expect from FFA PVP players, so they're stuck on their dead server forever. Even if they ever managed to get onto a PVE server, the community would shun them and never let them inside a PVE guild.
Everquest has 14 PVE servers and 1 dead PVP server.
are you kidding me??? Asheron's Call was a complete sandbox, obviously you never played it
Well this thread has proven one thing:
Most people here have no clue as to what a themepark or sandbox game is. It isn't as easily defined as you think. Many are sort of right but most are mostly wrong.
Defining exactly what they are isn't the point ... and that is the point everyone is f#cking missing. Any subject will go nowhere if this is the only thing you are hung up about.
You stay sassy!
On what magnitude? What I've seen over the years, people generally create alts in themepark games because they run out of content. Sandboxes don't really have this problem (I should just say EVE, every other sandbox sucks), content is endless. The biggest reason to create an alt in EVE is for "crafting" purposes. So I don't think all that many sandbox fans would turn down a game just because of 1 char/acc.
The highest numbers of accounts that I've ever heard of was in EVE, 26 accounts.
1char/acc doesn't mean that you cannot reroll/reallocate/ect.
One of my favorite MMOs, played it for about a year and a half.. but no, have to cast another vote for "not a sandbox." Didn't even have crafting, really. No mining, no fishing, nothing like that. Not even player housing, or player-run merchants. The gameplay was all about levelling up for combat, the #1 rule of themeparks. Wide open world does not make it a sandbox.
..and I don't really buy the "hybrid" label, either. These hybrid sandpark themebox games have no more in common with indisputable sandbox games (UO, SWG, EVE) than indisputable themeparks do.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
actually the no 1 rule of a themepark is quests to level, AC had none. Also, while it didnt have crafting its open tinkering system was far better because of the loot system it had in place. Since when does mining and fishing make it a sandbox? AC had player housing, Villas and Mansions. Everyone also had their own player merchant as well if they used Decal which they all did, Turbine was smart to not waste resources on coding that Decal provided the players
A Sandbox means you can go wherever you want in the game, at any point in the game and have any skill you want, without being typecast into a specific role to me. It also had full loot pvp which is another sandbox thing
Themepark= must be level max to enter this dungeon
Sandbox= can enter dungeon whenever you want
AC follows the second. There was no restrictions on any character based on level, not loot, not where you could go, not even what you could hunt.
ER, no, quests were added to theme-parks in 2004, but prior to that titles such as DAOC pretty much directed a player from zone to zone based on their level and there was little variation in the forumla. A sandbox style game can in fact have quests, EVE is full of them with their missions and story arcs yet it's still a sandbox.
BTW, most dungeons in WOW can be entered at any level (prior to the raid content), does that make WOW a sandbox? Sure, you'll die horribly if you go in before your level is appropriate, but that's no different than an open world game either now is it.
Very difficult to try and define a sandbox game based on the certain set of features it contains. It's possible to make a sandbox style MMO without PVP, or with classes, or with instant travel times.
Truth is there is almost no MMO mechanical feature or design that can't be utilized in either a sandbox or theme park style game, it's not what makes a game more like one or another.
Which is why there's so much disagreement over what really is a sandbox game, usually ends up with people pointing to the more famous sandbox titles of the past (UO, SWG, EVE) and comparing the feature set to them and saying, if not the same, must not be a sandbox. Probably not 100% accurate in every case.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think it's a strange idea, that the absence of some sort of content makes a game more of a sandbox. Like, if you take a themepark, and remove all the quests, it suddenly becomes a sandbox. No wonder some people hate the very idea of a sandbox, if that's what they think it means.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
When I read about Smed's remarks, and peoples reception of them this comes to mind