Hmm.. in all honestly. Social interaction have to be forced some way or another. We do social interaction when it suits us, but just rather rarely.
Look at a game like GW2, there is no need for social interaction (except for dungeons) for whatever reason, and therefore the chat and any social interaction is really a rare breed in that game.
But if you force social interaction upon the player, like requirement of a group to do anything, or pvp, you will get a lot more social interaction. It is the nature of us humans, we always go the easiest route. And the easiest route is maybe not always the route with the most fun longterm.
Forcing people is a really bad idea. Encouraging people is good, but you get a lot longer with a carrot then a stick.
People should be rewarded for playing together but MMOs must always have options.
I do remember when doing dungeons in EQ2 leveled you up faster while giving you better gear, there were loads of more social interactions then until they made it so running soloquests in the open world was actually both faster and easier. The game went downhill fast after that. The game didn't force you to do anything in either case but people usually take the easiest option.
Soloing should be harder and take longer than the group content but there still should be some solocontent or many parts of a game will be unplayable a few months after launch since there will be so few players of the right level. Well, there are other options like no levels as well or downleveling like GW2 but that doesn't mean you should force players anyways.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, Age of Wushu etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
Maybe because MMO publishers are sick of launching PvE themeparks catering to the "PvE focused gamers" who might not "greatly outnumber" PvPer by as much as they think they do, and watching them crash and burn.
PvP focused games like World of Tanks, Battletech, League of Legends, not to mention the whole slew of online FPS games, have been incredible moneyspinners, while the PvE focused MMO market has stagnated and declined. Newsflash: it's not 2009 any more, WoW doesn't still have 12M subs, Star Wars: The Old Republic was a massive failure, TSW fell far short of its goals, and so on. Your assumption that the only valid business model is to cater to PvEers needs some better support from the facts, because not many businesses have done all that well out of trying to follow that model.
And...you can't seriously complain that PvE focused MMOs haven't been launched in a variety of genres and themes. But even though the PvE-focused MMOers might have the "great numbers", they're not subscribing to those MMOs. In which case, they don't matter.
And so the wheel turns. The MMO industry is going to go with more PvP focused games for a while, after almost a decade of almost pure PvE focus projects which broke one after the other on the treacherous rocks of trying to be a better WoW than WoW.
I don't disagree with you. There is a happy medium though. You allow everything to be single player mode and no one interacts as you have said. However if everything requires a group then people get frustrated easily. The best solution is to have certain things that require a group in order to accomplish, but other things that you can do alone that are still meaningful.
I agree. It is all a matter of balance. But as i already said.. we humans tend to go the easiest route. With that said, you have to balance the reward, too. For everything requiring social interaction, or more people you have to dish out a higher reward. And i don't talk about loot here. It is more about accomplishments. Alone you should be able to build a house, with a community you should be able to build a city.. and to be part of a city should be much more rewarding as to have a lonely house.
The same is true for pvp as soical interaction. If you face the difficulty and danger of pvp(even more as a pve player), you should be rewarded accordingly. EvE does a good job in that aspect, although the possibilities of solo players or smaller groups are there, but rather limited.
I honestly feel like it's not nearly as complicated as people make it out to seem.
By yourself you should be able to level easily and get the gear that allows you to do so successfully. If your game has things like Merits or reward items that you can get through quests, these also should be something that can be available. The only major trick is giving more things that people can do once they hit end game that is meaningful that can be useful. Monetary gains should easily be one of them, however further advancements in your character can be another. Additionally, the bulk of the story should be available.
A small group should allow you to get better gear than what is available through single player play. There should as well be some meaningful things you can get here, but there shouldnt be more than what you can get in single player, and they should be different if possible. Obviously better gear suits this and faster exp suits this model. There can be other available goodies that aren't available to single player like permanent upgrades and so on.
A large group should allow you to get the best gear available as well as the best upgrades. The things offered here should by no question be better than what you could get in single player or small group play. There shouldn't be more meaningful upgrades in large group play than single or small group play, however the upgrades should be far superior. Better gear, amazing exp, paragon items, permanent upgrades and so on could fall in this catagory.
In short, you should have plenty of small but meaningful upgrades provided in single player, slightly less but more meaningful upgrades in small multiplayer, and even less but far greater in large multiplayer. This ultimately will reward and encourage players to play in medium and large groups, however it will also give players a legitimate reason and option to unwind and play by themselves.
Maybe because MMO publishers are sick of launching PvE themeparks catering to the "PvE focused gamers" who might not "greatly outnumber" PvPer by as much as they think they do, and watching them crash and burn.
PvP focused games like World of Tanks, Battletech, League of Legends, not to mention the whole slew of online FPS games, have been incredible moneyspinners, while the PvE focused MMO market has stagnated and declined. Newsflash: it's not 2009 any more, WoW doesn't still have 12M subs, Star Wars: The Old Republic was a massive failure, TSW fell far short of its goals, and so on. Your assumption that the only valid business model is to cater to PvEers needs some better support from the facts, because not many businesses have done all that well out of trying to follow that model.
And...you can't seriously complain that PvE focused MMOs haven't been launched in a variety of genres and themes. But even though the PvE-focused MMOers might have the "great numbers", they're not subscribing to those MMOs. In which case, they don't matter.
And so the wheel turns. The MMO industry is going to go with more PvP focused games for a while, after almost a decade of almost pure PvE focus projects which broke one after the other on the treacherous rocks of trying to be a better WoW than WoW.
That is actually a good point. The games you mentioned do have plenty of players.
However is the reason for that the fact they those games aren't just copies of older games (well, LOL is DOTA influenced), they have special mechanics that works for the game in question.
PvP sandboxes needs to make specific mechanics for them as well if they want to get it right. Just copying UO, SWG or even Eve isn't enough to make a game a huge success, you need to think outside the box (no pun intended).
I fear that we will just get other games to copy instead of devs that try to make something fun and unique.
I really hope that CCP get's WoDO just right, because it have a lot of ideas I been looking for a long time. It is a sandbox with some themepark ideas, it have unique mechanics and it is a pen and paper RPG that the team is converting from the beginning to a MMO instead of going the way through M59, UO, EQ or Wow.
Originally posted by apocoluster Might as well give it to them bro. If the Pvp- tardy need a forum to wave their Ipeens at each other or they will implode
And what is raiding for loot but waving your ipeen at everyone while on your flying mount.
So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
The consensus among a small part of those who played it, actually. They believe that so hard because they wish their "play style" is something many people enjoy.
Raph Koster himself, who was in charge back then, said that they had to do something to stop the player base from bleeding away because of the continual ganking. So they added Trammel, and it SAVED the game. UO would be long dead without Trammel. I don't make up numbers, I repeat what the lead designer of the game said back then. I was there, can't cheat me.
Another example... Darktide, the FFA PvP server of Asheron's Call, never passed more than 8% of the total player base during the prime years of that game.
PvP servers are fun for a niche, PvE servers (with optional PvP) make games earn money. And both can perfectly coexist in good games, as it has been proved many times in the past.
Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented. As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
I never played UO. I don't know what the Trammel patch did. Was Trammel's only change PvP/PvE?
Trammel added a mirror version of the world (exact copy) that is without forced PvP. Felucca, the old FFA PvP world, still existed too.
So what was the outcome of this change? Did one server flourish while the other struggled? Did they both succeed equally? Did they both struggle equally?
What is the point of this "Trammel killed UO" comment? Did it kill the PvP server?
I know you did not make the comment and I do appreciate your help in my understanding
Many people choose to play on Trammel most of the times, which should ring a bell for those who claim FFA PvP is "popular". And many people who didn't like being ganked while crafting or simply standing at the bank did come back to the game, along with new people, restoring the lost population and ending more than doubling the previous highest population.
TLDR: Trammel stopped the population drop, restored and then doubled the player base of the game.
Actually what we claim is that without it games are typically more shallow and won't last. And that's true. I totally agree that if given the choice people will flock towards the safer server or safer "zone", but that doesn't mean they're going to stick around. As myself and others have pointed out, themepark games without ffa pvp flare up and then die very quickly. That's not a coincidence.
Also, where are you getting your data about trammel doubling the population?
Up to you to believe what you want - some made up graph or the lead developer of the game. I know who I believe... the official source, specially when what the source says is quite negative, something which official sources don't usually do happily.
Ummm.... do you think you could at least post the SOURCE of what the developer said?
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
You need more PvP games like EVE or DF?
Wait why aren't you playing DF or EVE then? Why do you need a third one?
Lets see, you recently got TERA, SWTOR, GW2, TSW and probably more.
And what did we get?? What PvP game did we get, that is like EVE or DF:UW????
How many of what we got were sandboxes? That's what this thread is about
Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented.
You trust unofficial data. I trust the lead developer of the game. To each his own.
As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Even that data doesn't show such a thing since the player base increases after Trammel. All that the data shows is that an aging game with an isometric graphic engine began to lose some players when new, more modern full 3D games were released, which is normal evolution. Had the population drop started with Trammel, you'd have a point if we disregard the fact that those numbers are from a third party website. But it hasn't, so all you're saying here are only wishful thinkings.
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented.
You trust unofficial data. I trust the lead developer of the game. To each his own.
As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Even that data doesn't show such a thing since the player base increases after Trammel. All that the data shows is that an aging game with an isometric graphic engine began to lose some players when new, more modern full 3D games were released, which is normal evolution, and that happened years after Trammel. Had the population drop started with Trammel, you'd have a point if we disregard the fact that those numbers are from a third party website. But it hasn't, so all you're saying here are only wishful thinkings.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
Ummm.... do you think you could at least post the SOURCE of what the developer said?
Sorry, I have better things to do that to search for something that a developer working for a company that no longer exists (Origin) said 13+ years ago. And since your source of data is not official at all, I'm gonna keep on trusting the guy in charge I've known since I was in the UO early beta. Why would he have said such a thing which gives bad press if it wasn't true?
Honestly, not to nitpick, but the data doesn't show any of what you guys are talking about. The data shows a positive trend from 1997-2001 and a negative one from 2003-2007. (and I get this is pretty much what Jean-Luc is arguing)
Since correlation is not necessarily causation, anything you attribute to those trends is just speculation. A simple plot like this doesn't convey any of the information about what trammel did or didn't do or what the dated graphics did. That is all speculation, or deduction based on factors outside of this graph.
It is unwise to view a simple graph like this, find a time-based link between a point on the plot and an event, and just make a judgment about causation based solely on that. You may win some internet arguments that way but it isn't very good science.
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented.
You trust unofficial data. I trust the lead developer of the game. To each his own.
As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Even that data doesn't show such a thing since the player base increases after Trammel. All that the data shows is that an aging game with an isometric graphic engine began to lose some players when new, more modern full 3D games were released, which is normal evolution, and that happened years after Trammel. Had the population drop started with Trammel, you'd have a point if we disregard the fact that those numbers are from a third party website. But it hasn't, so all you're saying here are only wishful thinkings.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
Ummm.... do you think you could at least post the SOURCE of what the developer said?
Sorry, I have better things to do that to search for something that a developer working for a company that no longer exists (Origin) said 13+ years ago. And since your source of data is not official at all, I'm gonna keep on trusting the guy in charge I've known since I was in the UO early beta. Why would he have said such a thing which gives bad press if it wasn't true?
Honestly, not to nitpick, but the data doesn't show any of what you guys are talking about. The data shows a positive trend from 1997-2001 and a negative one from 2003-2007. (and I get this is pretty much what Jean-Luc is arguing)
Since correlation is not necessarily causation, anything you attribute to those trends is just speculation. A simple plot like this doesn't convey any of the information about what trammel did or didn't do or what the dated graphics did. That is all speculation, or deduction based on factors outside of this graph.
It is unwise to view a simple graph like this, find a time-based link between a point on the plot and an event, and just make a judgment about causation based solely on that. You may win some internet arguments that way but it isn't very good science.
It's evidence of the claim I'm making. I never said it was proof. If you think the only thing that matters when making a case for something is proof, then I don't know why to tell you.
Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented.
You trust unofficial data. I trust the lead developer of the game. To each his own.
As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Even that data doesn't show such a thing since the player base increases after Trammel. All that the data shows is that an aging game with an isometric graphic engine began to lose some players when new, more modern full 3D games were released, which is normal evolution, and that happened years after Trammel. Had the population drop started with Trammel, you'd have a point if we disregard the fact that those numbers are from a third party website. But it hasn't, so all you're saying here are only wishful thinkings.
Originally posted by JeremyBowyer
Ummm.... do you think you could at least post the SOURCE of what the developer said?
Sorry, I have better things to do that to search for something that a developer working for a company that no longer exists (Origin) said 13+ years ago. And since your source of data is not official at all, I'm gonna keep on trusting the guy in charge I've known since I was in the UO early beta. Why would he have said such a thing which gives bad press if it wasn't true?
That doesn't explain why the population growth stopped within a year of trammel being released. And even assuming your assumption is correct and they left for eve and swg, that doesn't change my argument at all. So people were bored with the game (as indicated by the flat out negative growth and only jumped shop when a better game came along.
You guys can have silent rages all day long but it won't change the fact that your so called PvE sandboxes in reality are nothing but themeparks with loads of fluff which makes your mind happy inside all the available choices. However when it comes to social interaction you want easy routes, like avoiding confrontations at a press of a button. That alone is themepark trait. You cba with something so you want devs to give you instant gratification. It's quite ironic when on the other hand all you do is hate on themeparks which actually evolved into what they are exactly because of what you guys are.
Going this route, I swear some day internet will become sinonim for irony.
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
Do you have ANY sort of evidence that supports any of your blatant attacks on the community?
People like social interaction when it suits them, not when its forced upon them. Thats not some 'new age mamas boy lifestyle', thats just human nature. Even extroverts need a moment or two to get away from it all, coupled with introverts and people in between, and not everyone wants to be in a social interaction 24/7.
It's simple logic. When EVERYTHING requires a group, each additional person necessary multiplies the difficulty of said objective. Have you ever played a game where literally every single form of progression requires 5-30 OTHER people? It becomes extremely tiring just to get anything done. That doesn't mean people don't want to interact with each other, it means that a game that forces you to work with others becomes less game and more work. Allowing people to progress by themselves allows them to go at their own pace and pick and choose WHEN they want to interact with the MMO social environment.
I wasn't discussing practical group mechanics, not sure where you picked that up from, since it's another subject. Nowhere have I claimed meaningful social interaction has to be achieved through forcing group play either.
Idd it would be false to claim mamas boy lifestile equals having an option to choose when an individual feels like socialising or not. In fact that would be dumb to claim, thus I didn't say that either. Reading your claims it's obvious you didn't quite get what I was saying.
-----but keep reading if you're interested in understanding better-----
My reply was to various claims from people who "want PvE sandbox" (or op title implying PvP sandbox) to be a dream world where they can on a press of a button flagg out of pvp and be invulnerable; Instead of living in a world (open world full loot ffa, but not without any mechanics!), where you can achieve just the same but instead of pressing a button you actually have to be a part of community which (can) build on politics, propaganda and all the thrill that comes with it. That's sandbox.
I could go into writing a novel about that but it's much easier pointing at EvE at this point. The next company who makes EvE in a fantasy world with swords and magic will be the next WoW. EvE has it all except theme, and that's also exactly why it managed to get it right before others (and also why it "only" has 500k subs?). Space environment and spreadsheet combat is much easier to programm and create a big world with. Technological and logical wise. It's much simpler and if you try and copy all that into a 3rd person fantasy game in Earth like environment you have a huge task infront of you that indie companies can't handle. For example Darkfall or Mortal, both are skeletons of a sandbox which in hands of an AAA company could turn into an EvE like world and be very successful, however that is just not possible with the resources AV and SV have. Meanwhile big companies invest in games on other side of specter (themeparks) because people just can't handle raw human interaction and require all kind of tools to isolate them.
Gamers around here are in general mistaken when it comes to understanding sandbox. There is no such thing as PvP sandbox, or PvE sandbox. Doing it like that automaticaly tilts you out of real sandbox. That's why I can't stand all the wannabe PvE sandboxers and my previous replies that come with it.
We desperately need more PvP games, but they need to be more like DF:UW or EVE.
Doesn't mean we cant have good PvE, but there is no substitute for playing against another person. Playing against the computer in Raids or other grind fests, gets old real fast.
You need more PvP games like EVE or DF?
Wait why aren't you playing DF or EVE then? Why do you need a third one?
Lets see, you recently got TERA, SWTOR, GW2, TSW and probably more.
And what did we get?? What PvP game did we get, that is like EVE or DF:UW????
How many of what we got were sandboxes? That's what this thread is about
I have named 3 pve sandboxes in a post before.. not successful, not quality AAA sandboxes. But nevertheless.
So you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
The consensus among a small part of those who played it, actually. They believe that so hard because they wish their "play style" is something many people enjoy.
Raph Koster himself, who was in charge back then, said that they had to do something to stop the player base from bleeding away because of the continual ganking. So they added Trammel, and it SAVED the game. UO would be long dead without Trammel. I don't make up numbers, I repeat what the lead designer of the game said back then. I was there, can't cheat me.
Another example... Darktide, the FFA PvP server of Asheron's Call, never passed more than 8% of the total player base during the prime years of that game.
PvP servers are fun for a niche, PvE servers (with optional PvP) make games earn money. And both can perfectly coexist in good games, as it has been proved many times in the past.
Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented. As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Yeap.. they didn't lose numbers. But a lot of people complained about the harsh pvp ruleset and threaten the developers to leave UO and join EQ.. and the devs (like raph koster and even more EA representatives) run into those trap.. they changed the game. And then actually players left the game.. pvp players unhappy about Trammel, and players try out EQ nevertheless.
But a lot of games were changed in the past because of board moaning.. and not all for their best... swg would be another example.. although there were other reasons, too.
Originally posted by KBishop Originally posted by StarI Originally posted by StarI You guys can have silent rages all day long but it won't change the fact that your so called PvE sandboxes in reality are nothing but themeparks with loads of fluff which makes your mind happy inside all the available choices. However when it comes to social interaction you want easy routes, like avoiding confrontations at a press of a button. That alone is themepark trait. You cba with something so you want devs to give you instant gratification. It's quite ironic when on the other hand all you do is hate on themeparks which actually evolved into what they are exactly because of what you guys are.Going this route, I swear some day internet will become sinonim for irony.
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
Do you have ANY sort of evidence that supports any of your blatant attacks on the community?
People like social interaction when it suits them, not when its forced upon them. Thats not some 'new age mamas boy lifestyle', thats just human nature. Even extroverts need a moment or two to get away from it all, coupled with introverts and people in between, and not everyone wants to be in a social interaction 24/7.
It's simple logic. When EVERYTHING requires a group, each additional person necessary multiplies the difficulty of said objective. Have you ever played a game where literally every single form of progression requires 5-30 OTHER people? It becomes extremely tiring just to get anything done. That doesn't mean people don't want to interact with each other, it means that a game that forces you to work with others becomes less game and more work. Allowing people to progress by themselves allows them to go at their own pace and pick and choose WHEN they want to interact with the MMO social environment.
I wasn't discussing practical group mechanics, not sure where you picked that up from, since it's another subject. Nowhere have I claimed meaningful social interaction has to be achieved through forcing group play either.
Idd it would be false to claim mamas boy lifestile equals having an option to choose when an individual feels like socialising or not. In fact that would be dumb to claim, thus I didn't say that either. Reading your claims it's obvious you didn't quite get what I was saying.
-----but keep reading if you're interested in understanding better-----
My reply was to various claims from people who "want PvE sandbox" (or op title implying PvP sandbox) to be a dream world where they can on a press of a button flagg out of pvp and be invulnerable; Instead of living in a world (open world full loot ffa, but not without any mechanics!), where you can achieve just the same but instead of pressing a button you actually have to be a part of community which (can) build on politics, propaganda and all the thrill that comes with it. That's sandbox.
I could go into writing a novel about that but it's much easier pointing at EvE at this point. The next company who makes EvE in a fantasy world with swords and magic will be the next WoW. EvE has it all except theme, and that's also exactly why it managed to get it right before others (and also why it "only" has 500k subs?). Space environment and spreadsheet combat is much easier to programm and create a big world with. Technological and logical wise. It's much simpler and if you try and copy all that into a 3rd person fantasy game in Earth like environment you have a huge task infront of you that indie companies can't handle. For example Darkfall or Mortal, both are skeletons of a sandbox which in hands of an AAA company could turn into an EvE like world and be very successful, however that is just not possible with the resources AV and SV have. Meanwhile big companies invest in games on other side of specter (themeparks) because people just can't handle raw human interaction and require all kind of tools to isolate them.
Gamers around here are in general mistaken when it comes to understanding sandbox. There is no such thing as PvP sandbox, or PvE sandbox. Doing it like that automaticaly tilts you out of real sandbox. That's why I can't stand all the wannabe PvE sandboxers and my previous replies that come with it.
I like this guy....
You're completely right about the evolution of themepark games. They came about from catering to every whim thr community has.
Yeah cause those numbers feel way more official. He offhandedly mentions them without any real explanation. Also it looks like hes saying that increase came about just before trammel, but after reasonable mechanics were implemented. Am I mistaken?
Originally posted by Apraxis Originally posted by JeremyBowyerOriginally posted by Jean-Luc_PicardOriginally posted by JeremyBowyerSo you do realize you're arguing from the position that Trammel DIDN'T kill UO, correct? Are you even aware of the fact that the idea that Trammel killed UO is basically the consensus among people who actually played it?
The consensus among a small part of those who played it, actually. They believe that so hard because they wish their "play style" is something many people enjoy.Raph Koster himself, who was in charge back then, said that they had to do something to stop the player base from bleeding away because of the continual ganking. So they added Trammel, and it SAVED the game. UO would be long dead without Trammel. I don't make up numbers, I repeat what the lead designer of the game said back then. I was there, can't cheat me.Another example... Darktide, the FFA PvP server of Asheron's Call, never passed more than 8% of the total player base during the prime years of that game.PvP servers are fun for a niche, PvE servers (with optional PvP) make games earn money. And both can perfectly coexist in good games, as it has been proved many times in the past.Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented. As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.Yeap.. they didn't lose numbers. But a lot of people complained about the harsh pvp ruleset and threaten the developers to leave UO and join EQ.. and the devs (like raph koster and even more EA representatives) run into those trap.. they changed the game. And then actually players left the game.. pvp players unhappy about Trammel, and players try out EQ nevertheless.
But a lot of games were changed in the past because of board moaning.. and not all for their best... swg would be another example.. although there were other reasons, too.
You guys do realize that the internet is the biggest repository of human knowledge that's ever existed, and it's searchable, right?
Trammel was released in May of 2000. In 2000 UO had about 150k players. In early 2003, well after Trammel's release UO had 250k players. The subscriptions plateaued between early 2001 and early 2003. UO's player base didn't start to drop dramatically until 2004 when, surprise, surprise, SWG released.
Your data may be right, but your conclusions are wrong.
There's a lot of debate on the Everquest Next forums about whether the game is going to be heavily PvP focused or not and most of this has stemmed from some comments from Smed that have insinuated a heavy PvP focus of the game. To what extent that focus is we won't know until the reveal, but still, it makes me think to myself why even think about going that route? Pretty much every bigger name sandbox currently available (Darkfall, EVE, Mortal Online, Age of Wushu etc) and coming down the pipeline (Archeage, The Repopulation) is PvP focused. Do we seriously need another one like that? It's pretty well known PvE focused gamers greatly outnumber PvP focused ones, so why continually churn out games for a niche market while that same market is devoid of products for the bigger (PvE) population? Makes no sense........
Probably because of all the miserable and failed attempts that companies have made recently, also the games you listed are different from each other in various ways Age of wushu imo does not even come close to a sandbox, Darfall was a sandboxish game but imo now it is a just an open world PvP arena, the sandbox is no more, Mortal is a FFA sandbox title that will not even go into, Archage has plenty of PVE Content available and i am Sure TheRepo will too as it is heavy on crafting
But in saying this why do we not need more? you have listed 6 games that are PvP focussed Sandbox, a game cannot be sandbox unless it has PvP or else it cannot be called sandbox, Sandbox is meant to be about Freedom of choice, if you limit what people can do, than it no longer is a sandbox but then let's not also compare these 6 titles against how many thousands of other theme park mmo games on the market?
The day of the theme park are ending, we need more player driven (sandbox) games as clearly with all the failed attempts of late shows that we the player need to create our own content to retain any longevity in a game nowadays.
Gamers around here are in general mistaken when it comes to understanding sandbox. There is no such thing as PvP sandbox, or PvE sandbox. Doing it like that automaticaly tilts you out of real sandbox. That's why I can't stand all the wannabe PvE sandboxers and my previous replies that come with it.
I like this guy.... You're completely right about the evolution of themepark games. They came about from catering to every whim thr community has.
He's right about the sandbox not being either/or PvP/PvE.
The game will need mechanics to enable both sides to play as they wish, since freedom of choice goes both ways and certainly not the flag button. That is a bad mechanic.
However, to insist that anyone should be able to kill anyone they wish or, conversely, do everything they wish(peacefully) is simply illogical if you want a game garnering both playstyles.
Comments
Forcing people is a really bad idea. Encouraging people is good, but you get a lot longer with a carrot then a stick.
People should be rewarded for playing together but MMOs must always have options.
I do remember when doing dungeons in EQ2 leveled you up faster while giving you better gear, there were loads of more social interactions then until they made it so running soloquests in the open world was actually both faster and easier. The game went downhill fast after that. The game didn't force you to do anything in either case but people usually take the easiest option.
Soloing should be harder and take longer than the group content but there still should be some solocontent or many parts of a game will be unplayable a few months after launch since there will be so few players of the right level. Well, there are other options like no levels as well or downleveling like GW2 but that doesn't mean you should force players anyways.
Maybe because MMO publishers are sick of launching PvE themeparks catering to the "PvE focused gamers" who might not "greatly outnumber" PvPer by as much as they think they do, and watching them crash and burn.
PvP focused games like World of Tanks, Battletech, League of Legends, not to mention the whole slew of online FPS games, have been incredible moneyspinners, while the PvE focused MMO market has stagnated and declined. Newsflash: it's not 2009 any more, WoW doesn't still have 12M subs, Star Wars: The Old Republic was a massive failure, TSW fell far short of its goals, and so on. Your assumption that the only valid business model is to cater to PvEers needs some better support from the facts, because not many businesses have done all that well out of trying to follow that model.
And...you can't seriously complain that PvE focused MMOs haven't been launched in a variety of genres and themes. But even though the PvE-focused MMOers might have the "great numbers", they're not subscribing to those MMOs. In which case, they don't matter.
And so the wheel turns. The MMO industry is going to go with more PvP focused games for a while, after almost a decade of almost pure PvE focus projects which broke one after the other on the treacherous rocks of trying to be a better WoW than WoW.
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I honestly feel like it's not nearly as complicated as people make it out to seem.
By yourself you should be able to level easily and get the gear that allows you to do so successfully. If your game has things like Merits or reward items that you can get through quests, these also should be something that can be available. The only major trick is giving more things that people can do once they hit end game that is meaningful that can be useful. Monetary gains should easily be one of them, however further advancements in your character can be another. Additionally, the bulk of the story should be available.
A small group should allow you to get better gear than what is available through single player play. There should as well be some meaningful things you can get here, but there shouldnt be more than what you can get in single player, and they should be different if possible. Obviously better gear suits this and faster exp suits this model. There can be other available goodies that aren't available to single player like permanent upgrades and so on.
A large group should allow you to get the best gear available as well as the best upgrades. The things offered here should by no question be better than what you could get in single player or small group play. There shouldn't be more meaningful upgrades in large group play than single or small group play, however the upgrades should be far superior. Better gear, amazing exp, paragon items, permanent upgrades and so on could fall in this catagory.
In short, you should have plenty of small but meaningful upgrades provided in single player, slightly less but more meaningful upgrades in small multiplayer, and even less but far greater in large multiplayer. This ultimately will reward and encourage players to play in medium and large groups, however it will also give players a legitimate reason and option to unwind and play by themselves.
That is actually a good point. The games you mentioned do have plenty of players.
However is the reason for that the fact they those games aren't just copies of older games (well, LOL is DOTA influenced), they have special mechanics that works for the game in question.
PvP sandboxes needs to make specific mechanics for them as well if they want to get it right. Just copying UO, SWG or even Eve isn't enough to make a game a huge success, you need to think outside the box (no pun intended).
I fear that we will just get other games to copy instead of devs that try to make something fun and unique.
I really hope that CCP get's WoDO just right, because it have a lot of ideas I been looking for a long time. It is a sandbox with some themepark ideas, it have unique mechanics and it is a pen and paper RPG that the team is converting from the beginning to a MMO instead of going the way through M59, UO, EQ or Wow.
And what is raiding for loot but waving your ipeen at everyone while on your flying mount.
The scions of realism are coming it would seem... http://gloriavictisgame.com/
Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented. As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Actually what we claim is that without it games are typically more shallow and won't last. And that's true. I totally agree that if given the choice people will flock towards the safer server or safer "zone", but that doesn't mean they're going to stick around. As myself and others have pointed out, themepark games without ffa pvp flare up and then die very quickly. That's not a coincidence.
Also, where are you getting your data about trammel doubling the population?
http://i.imgur.com/NmjiA.png
Ummm.... do you think you could at least post the SOURCE of what the developer said?
Yes and very few people want a pure pvp game. What we want is a server that has both of those and more.
How many of what we got were sandboxes? That's what this thread is about
Except my point is that people get excited by the prospect of being able to farm in peace but eventually get bored because it makes the game more shallow and boring. So the fact that there was an increase with Trammel and then stagnant growth and then a sharp decline makes perfect sense.
Honestly, not to nitpick, but the data doesn't show any of what you guys are talking about. The data shows a positive trend from 1997-2001 and a negative one from 2003-2007. (and I get this is pretty much what Jean-Luc is arguing)
Since correlation is not necessarily causation, anything you attribute to those trends is just speculation. A simple plot like this doesn't convey any of the information about what trammel did or didn't do or what the dated graphics did. That is all speculation, or deduction based on factors outside of this graph.
It is unwise to view a simple graph like this, find a time-based link between a point on the plot and an event, and just make a judgment about causation based solely on that. You may win some internet arguments that way but it isn't very good science.
http://www.aschulze.net/ultima/blog/blog_20090310.htm
In this blog the increase was from 100k to 250 k that seems like a significant increase when Trammel was introduced.
You trust unofficial data. I trust the lead developer of the game. To each his own.
Even that data doesn't show such a thing since the player base increases after Trammel. All that the data shows is that an aging game with an isometric graphic engine began to lose some players when new, more modern full 3D games were released, which is normal evolution, and that happened years after Trammel. Had the population drop started with Trammel, you'd have a point if we disregard the fact that those numbers are from a third party website. But it hasn't, so all you're saying here are only wishful thinkings.
Sorry, I have better things to do that to search for something that a developer working for a company that no longer exists (Origin) said 13+ years ago. And since your source of data is not official at all, I'm gonna keep on trusting the guy in charge I've known since I was in the UO early beta. Why would he have said such a thing which gives bad press if it wasn't true?
Honestly, not to nitpick, but the data doesn't show any of what you guys are talking about. The data shows a positive trend from 1997-2001 and a negative one from 2003-2007. (and I get this is pretty much what Jean-Luc is arguing)
Since correlation is not necessarily causation, anything you attribute to those trends is just speculation. A simple plot like this doesn't convey any of the information about what trammel did or didn't do or what the dated graphics did. That is all speculation, or deduction based on factors outside of this graph.
It is unwise to view a simple graph like this, find a time-based link between a point on the plot and an event, and just make a judgment about causation based solely on that. You may win some internet arguments that way but it isn't very good science.
It's evidence of the claim I'm making. I never said it was proof. If you think the only thing that matters when making a case for something is proof, then I don't know why to tell you.You trust unofficial data. I trust the lead developer of the game. To each his own.
Even that data doesn't show such a thing since the player base increases after Trammel. All that the data shows is that an aging game with an isometric graphic engine began to lose some players when new, more modern full 3D games were released, which is normal evolution, and that happened years after Trammel. Had the population drop started with Trammel, you'd have a point if we disregard the fact that those numbers are from a third party website. But it hasn't, so all you're saying here are only wishful thinkings.
Sorry, I have better things to do that to search for something that a developer working for a company that no longer exists (Origin) said 13+ years ago. And since your source of data is not official at all, I'm gonna keep on trusting the guy in charge I've known since I was in the UO early beta. Why would he have said such a thing which gives bad press if it wasn't true?
That doesn't explain why the population growth stopped within a year of trammel being released. And even assuming your assumption is correct and they left for eve and swg, that doesn't change my argument at all. So people were bored with the game (as indicated by the flat out negative growth and only jumped shop when a better game came along.I wasn't discussing practical group mechanics, not sure where you picked that up from, since it's another subject. Nowhere have I claimed meaningful social interaction has to be achieved through forcing group play either.
Idd it would be false to claim mamas boy lifestile equals having an option to choose when an individual feels like socialising or not. In fact that would be dumb to claim, thus I didn't say that either. Reading your claims it's obvious you didn't quite get what I was saying.
-----but keep reading if you're interested in understanding better-----
My reply was to various claims from people who "want PvE sandbox" (or op title implying PvP sandbox) to be a dream world where they can on a press of a button flagg out of pvp and be invulnerable; Instead of living in a world (open world full loot ffa, but not without any mechanics!), where you can achieve just the same but instead of pressing a button you actually have to be a part of community which (can) build on politics, propaganda and all the thrill that comes with it. That's sandbox.
I could go into writing a novel about that but it's much easier pointing at EvE at this point. The next company who makes EvE in a fantasy world with swords and magic will be the next WoW. EvE has it all except theme, and that's also exactly why it managed to get it right before others (and also why it "only" has 500k subs?). Space environment and spreadsheet combat is much easier to programm and create a big world with. Technological and logical wise. It's much simpler and if you try and copy all that into a 3rd person fantasy game in Earth like environment you have a huge task infront of you that indie companies can't handle. For example Darkfall or Mortal, both are skeletons of a sandbox which in hands of an AAA company could turn into an EvE like world and be very successful, however that is just not possible with the resources AV and SV have. Meanwhile big companies invest in games on other side of specter (themeparks) because people just can't handle raw human interaction and require all kind of tools to isolate them.
Gamers around here are in general mistaken when it comes to understanding sandbox. There is no such thing as PvP sandbox, or PvE sandbox. Doing it like that automaticaly tilts you out of real sandbox. That's why I can't stand all the wannabe PvE sandboxers and my previous replies that come with it.
I have named 3 pve sandboxes in a post before.. not successful, not quality AAA sandboxes. But nevertheless.
Yeap.. they didn't lose numbers. But a lot of people complained about the harsh pvp ruleset and threaten the developers to leave UO and join EQ.. and the devs (like raph koster and even more EA representatives) run into those trap.. they changed the game. And then actually players left the game.. pvp players unhappy about Trammel, and players try out EQ nevertheless.
But a lot of games were changed in the past because of board moaning.. and not all for their best... swg would be another example.. although there were other reasons, too.
I just figured my explanation fits quite well with phenomenon of a new age mamas' boy lifestyle that is so common for adults across western world. Can see it directly reflect inside gaming world.
Do you have ANY sort of evidence that supports any of your blatant attacks on the community?
People like social interaction when it suits them, not when its forced upon them. Thats not some 'new age mamas boy lifestyle', thats just human nature. Even extroverts need a moment or two to get away from it all, coupled with introverts and people in between, and not everyone wants to be in a social interaction 24/7.
It's simple logic. When EVERYTHING requires a group, each additional person necessary multiplies the difficulty of said objective. Have you ever played a game where literally every single form of progression requires 5-30 OTHER people? It becomes extremely tiring just to get anything done. That doesn't mean people don't want to interact with each other, it means that a game that forces you to work with others becomes less game and more work. Allowing people to progress by themselves allows them to go at their own pace and pick and choose WHEN they want to interact with the MMO social environment.
I wasn't discussing practical group mechanics, not sure where you picked that up from, since it's another subject. Nowhere have I claimed meaningful social interaction has to be achieved through forcing group play either.
Idd it would be false to claim mamas boy lifestile equals having an option to choose when an individual feels like socialising or not. In fact that would be dumb to claim, thus I didn't say that either. Reading your claims it's obvious you didn't quite get what I was saying.
-----but keep reading if you're interested in understanding better-----
My reply was to various claims from people who "want PvE sandbox" (or op title implying PvP sandbox) to be a dream world where they can on a press of a button flagg out of pvp and be invulnerable; Instead of living in a world (open world full loot ffa, but not without any mechanics!), where you can achieve just the same but instead of pressing a button you actually have to be a part of community which (can) build on politics, propaganda and all the thrill that comes with it. That's sandbox.
I could go into writing a novel about that but it's much easier pointing at EvE at this point. The next company who makes EvE in a fantasy world with swords and magic will be the next WoW. EvE has it all except theme, and that's also exactly why it managed to get it right before others (and also why it "only" has 500k subs?). Space environment and spreadsheet combat is much easier to programm and create a big world with. Technological and logical wise. It's much simpler and if you try and copy all that into a 3rd person fantasy game in Earth like environment you have a huge task infront of you that indie companies can't handle. For example Darkfall or Mortal, both are skeletons of a sandbox which in hands of an AAA company could turn into an EvE like world and be very successful, however that is just not possible with the resources AV and SV have. Meanwhile big companies invest in games on other side of specter (themeparks) because people just can't handle raw human interaction and require all kind of tools to isolate them.
Gamers around here are in general mistaken when it comes to understanding sandbox. There is no such thing as PvP sandbox, or PvE sandbox. Doing it like that automaticaly tilts you out of real sandbox. That's why I can't stand all the wannabe PvE sandboxers and my previous replies that come with it.
I like this guy....You're completely right about the evolution of themepark games. They came about from catering to every whim thr community has.
Yeah cause those numbers feel way more official. He offhandedly mentions them without any real explanation. Also it looks like hes saying that increase came about just before trammel, but after reasonable mechanics were implemented. Am I mistaken?Ok but the data says otherwise. They weren't losing players before Trammel was implemented. As I've pointed out the data show that Trammel lead to UO's demise.
Yeap.. they didn't lose numbers. But a lot of people complained about the harsh pvp ruleset and threaten the developers to leave UO and join EQ.. and the devs (like raph koster and even more EA representatives) run into those trap.. they changed the game. And then actually players left the game.. pvp players unhappy about Trammel, and players try out EQ nevertheless.
But a lot of games were changed in the past because of board moaning.. and not all for their best... swg would be another example.. although there were other reasons, too.
You guys do realize that the internet is the biggest repository of human knowledge that's ever existed, and it's searchable, right?
Trammel was released in May of 2000. In 2000 UO had about 150k players. In early 2003, well after Trammel's release UO had 250k players. The subscriptions plateaued between early 2001 and early 2003. UO's player base didn't start to drop dramatically until 2004 when, surprise, surprise, SWG released.
Your data may be right, but your conclusions are wrong.
Chart if MMO subscription numbers, including UO.
http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png
Wikipedia article on UO expansion Renaissance (Trammel):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online:_Renaissance
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Probably because of all the miserable and failed attempts that companies have made recently, also the games you listed are different from each other in various ways Age of wushu imo does not even come close to a sandbox, Darfall was a sandboxish game but imo now it is a just an open world PvP arena, the sandbox is no more, Mortal is a FFA sandbox title that will not even go into, Archage has plenty of PVE Content available and i am Sure TheRepo will too as it is heavy on crafting
But in saying this why do we not need more? you have listed 6 games that are PvP focussed Sandbox, a game cannot be sandbox unless it has PvP or else it cannot be called sandbox, Sandbox is meant to be about Freedom of choice, if you limit what people can do, than it no longer is a sandbox but then let's not also compare these 6 titles against how many thousands of other theme park mmo games on the market?
The day of the theme park are ending, we need more player driven (sandbox) games as clearly with all the failed attempts of late shows that we the player need to create our own content to retain any longevity in a game nowadays.
He's right about the sandbox not being either/or PvP/PvE.
The game will need mechanics to enable both sides to play as they wish, since freedom of choice goes both ways and certainly not the flag button. That is a bad mechanic.
However, to insist that anyone should be able to kill anyone they wish or, conversely, do everything they wish(peacefully) is simply illogical if you want a game garnering both playstyles.