On top of your error I pointed out before, you are starting to make gross assumptions on games you have knowledge nor experience with...do not go that path.
Games lol, i've played all three of the games i've mentioned, EVE not for long but the other two extensively.
It's you who has gone down the wrong path lol by declaring EVE as the ultimate sandbox when it isn't actually a sandbox mmo.
Games lol, i've played all three of the games i've mentioned, EVE not for long but the other two extensively.
It's you who has gone down the wrong path lol by declaring EVE as the ultimate sandbox when it isn't actually a sandbox mmo.
Your turn..
What turn?
You did not make any arguments one could reply to. All you did is admitted, again, that your knowledge/experience on said games is rather very limited, proving my point.
Bingo. What Sandboxes? There hasn't been a real AAA sandbox game released since Eve. And quite frankly, I agree that it is not a full sandbox either, though it's the closest and most recent resembling one. We have some sandboxes that are going to be released or just released but this is a new development. No sandbox games have been released for ten years. And no one, stays playing the same game for ten years unless you're the wow nuts. Wow is NOT a sandbox.
Games lol, i've played all three of the games i've mentioned, EVE not for long but the other two extensively.
It's you who has gone down the wrong path lol by declaring EVE as the ultimate sandbox when it isn't actually a sandbox mmo.
Your turn..
What turn?
You did not make any arguments one could reply to. All you did is admitted, again, that your knowledge/experience on said games is rather very limited, proving my point.
I guess that's it then, you have shown me nothing to convince me that EVE is the sandbox mmo you claim it is.
I think most people are just unable to handle all the freedom they get in proper sandbox games, they feel overwhelmed and see it as a bad thing.
I don't think it's that they cannot handle their own freedom. It seems to me that people think only in terms of what they would do and what they want to do. In that, it seems like they forget that other people have different, often conflicting agendas, and those people have the same amount of freedom to pursue them.
The Notion: Building a village and roleplaying Winterfell. Host events and run tournaments.
The Reality: Your territory is surrounded on all four sides by
a pack of elitist Drow RPers that don't accept your canon in their world and feel compelled to repeatedly make you aware of that in-game, in comms, and on the forums.
the PK guild "316" made up of StoneCOld, AustinReksU, urmybitch, Rizzaistlin, and TUFENUF that thinks your clan/village is the greatest toy ever.
a couple that do eRP every Friday night, and the 50 stealthers that stand around watching
some diehard powergamer with 50 bleating sheep and a tailor-in-training, providing for you the 24/7 atmospheric sound of baabaabaa baa BAA snip-snip-snip snip-snip-snip thump baabaabaa baa baabaabaa baa baabaabaa baa snip-snip-snip snip-snip-snip snip-snip-snip snip-snip-snip thump thump baabaabaa baa BAA BAA baabaabaa baabaabaa baa baa baabaabaa baa baa baabaa baabaabaaBAA baa baabaabaa baa baabaabaa baa snip snip-snip-snip snip-snip-snip thump
The Notion:
Banding together with others and constructing/taking a castle to rule the land with your mighty army
The Reality:
Just as you can claim land and build castles, so can others. "Rule the land" now takes a back seat to defending your castle from every guild that wants to reduce it to rubble for political reasons, game advantage, resources, completing an achievement, revenge, or simply lulz.
The Notion:
Starting a business as the finest crafter of [thing] in the land
The Reality:
The devs realize only 20% of the players are using the PVP area, and WE CAN'T HAVE THAT, so they put needed high end or specialty crafting resources in the middle of a PVP zone to "incentivize" the crafters to play the content "that they might find they like if they just try it." Because "You know you want it" isn't a rapist-exclusive mentality.
But I don't fault players for thinking the way they do in this case. It doesn't come from a position of ignorance of history, but rather from a knowledge of history combined with a historically-false assumption:
"It'll be better this time. There's no way they're just going to repeat the glaring mistakes of everyone before them, right?"
One would think so.
Post edited by Loktofeit on
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I wouldn't class any of those sandbox mechanics as you could easily put them in theme park games.
Eh that doesn't matter.
Individual features are either sandbox or themepark. It depends on who authors the experience (dev-authored is themepark; player-authored is sandbox.) An auction house is a sandbox mechanic because players freely decide the price among themselves (it's not some NPC who always sells that sword for 4000 gold because a dev decided that was the price.)
Games are either sandbox or themepark depending on their core gameplay. So even though WOW has auction houses, the majority of WOW's gameplay are things like quests, dungeons, and raids, which are themepark mechanics, and so the overall game is called a themepark.
Put another way:
My car has a black interior and silver hub caps, and several other parts are other colors.
But I call my car green because most of the car is green.
MMORPGs always have features that vary between dev-authored and player-authored parts of the experience, but we label them based on most of their gameplay.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I wouldn't class any of those sandbox mechanics as you could easily put them in theme park games.
Eh that doesn't matter.
Individual features are either sandbox or themepark. It depends on who authors the experience (dev-authored is themepark; player-authored is sandbox.) An auction house is a sandbox mechanic because players freely decide the price among themselves (it's not some NPC who always sells that sword for 4000 gold because a dev decided that was the price.)
Games are either sandbox or themepark depending on their core gameplay. So even though WOW has auction houses, the majority of WOW's gameplay are things like quests, dungeons, and raids, which are themepark mechanics, and so the overall game is called a themepark.
Put another way:
My car has a black interior and silver hub caps, and several other parts are other colors.
But I call my car green because most of the car is green.
MMORPGs always have features that vary between dev-authored and player-authored parts of the experience, but we label them based on most of their gameplay.
I see what your saying, however I wouldn't actually label them sandbox or theme park. Questing, dungeons and raids could be both. Developer made or created by the players.
Doesn't Neverwinter do something like that with quests? Trove aswell?
I see what your saying, however I wouldn't actually label them sandbox or theme park. Questing, dungeons and raids could be both. Developer made or created by the players.
Doesn't Neverwinter do something like that with quests? Trove aswell?
Players running them is themepark. Players creating them is sandbox. Most sandbox content works that way - player created content provides some level of scripted or dev-defined content. That's the measure by which SavageHorizon contends EVE Online isn't a sandbox.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The same way societies have structures, games have to have them. Its not about control, its about purpose. So people NEED rules, need guidance. Even if they're against the rules or the guides, they use them to define what "they dont like" and therefore get to know what they actually like.
In sandboxes there are none. You're "just there", theres no purpose, and a game has to have a purpose. If you dont have any rules, it falls into chaos where only the worse of humans thrive - see dayz.
So thats why sandboxes dont work. Lack of purpose. Emptiness of soul when you have nothing to achieve. When theres noone telling you "YOU CANT DO THAT" it wont fire the human spirit, rules and limitations are the spark of "just you wait btch". Thats what motivates a human mind, the challenge. Not getting into a game and saying "you can do whatever, bye".
@Jermzy - if you're looking for good pvp in mmorpgs you're just wrong. An rpg is not about pvp, never was, never should be the main focus of an rpg game. RPGs were always about an adventure of beating the odds against a DM - on a computer game, the DM is the dev and you're the challenger, so go solo, or grab your team and go fight against it. An RPG its about team-play to accomplish something (you know, the thief brings the lockpick, the dwarf brings the axe, the mage brings the mind control and the damage against what the physical cant touch, etc etc). You have no idea what an RPG is.
Massively multi-player online role-playing games (MMORPGs) combine the large-scale social interaction and persistent world of MUDs with graphic interfaces. Most MMORPGs do not actively promote in-character role-playing, however players can use the games' communication functions to role-play so long as other players cooperate.[29] The majority of players in MMORPGs do not engage in role-play in this sense.[30]
I cannot believe you just said good pvp cannot exist in mmorpgs. You sir, need to take off the blinders.
The same way societies have structures, games have to have them. Its not about control, its about purpose. So people NEED rules, need guidance. Even if they're against the rules or the guides, they use them to define what "they dont like" and therefore get to know what they actually like.
In sandboxes there are none. You're "just there", theres no purpose, and a game has to have a purpose. If you dont have any rules, it falls into chaos where only the worse of humans thrive - see dayz.
So thats why sandboxes dont work. Lack of purpose. Emptiness of soul when you have nothing to achieve. When theres noone telling you "YOU CANT DO THAT" it wont fire the human spirit, rules and limitations are the spark of "just you wait btch". Thats what motivates a human mind, the challenge. Not getting into a game and saying "you can do whatever, bye".
@Jermzy - if you're looking for good pvp in mmorpgs you're just wrong. An rpg is not about pvp, never was, never should be the main focus of an rpg game. RPGs were always about an adventure of beating the odds against a DM - on a computer game, the DM is the dev and you're the challenger, so go solo, or grab your team and go fight against it. An RPG its about team-play to accomplish something (you know, the thief brings the lockpick, the dwarf brings the axe, the mage brings the mind control and the damage against what the physical cant touch, etc etc). You have no idea what an RPG is.
Massively multi-player online role-playing games (MMORPGs) combine the large-scale social interaction and persistent world of MUDs with graphic interfaces. Most MMORPGs do not actively promote in-character role-playing, however players can use the games' communication functions to role-play so long as other players cooperate.[29] The majority of players in MMORPGs do not engage in role-play in this sense.[30]
I cannot believe you just said good pvp cannot exist in mmorpgs. You sir, need to take off the blinders.
I don't disagree with your quoted post, personally. Good PVP doesn't mesh well with RPG systems - fun PVP occurs when player skill decides the outcome, and having player stats/levels modify everything doen't work well in that situation. However, MMORPGs do get around this in different ways.
Eve Online is a good example. Their PVP is fantastic, but it's not because their devs are great, but because their combat system is much closer to an RTS than an RPG.
To me the reason they tend to fail has a lot to do with difficulty, consequences, and achievements. I don't think PVP is the issue, I just think how it and everything else is implemented is the issue.
If you want a world that functions properly, you can't have people just randomly killing others for no reason at all, and if they do there needs to be some sort of consequence for doing so. Not a reward. There should be guards in cities, and there should be guards on patrol around populated areas outside of cities.
There needs to be a lot of player run stuff as well. If you can make a pretty realistic and stable economy that will only strengthen the game and tie everything together.
The game needs to be challenging and shouldn't allow a player to simply be able to complete everything in a life time. I feel if a player wants to be the best black smith known on the server, they should have to really work for it and it shouldn't be something just anyone can accomplish. This gives actual meaning to what you do in the game. All of a sudden you become famous for the weapons you create. Skilled fighters should be known for their abilities.
Making things hard to get isn't always a bad thing even if there are players complaining it's too hard. If there are some people able to do it, then it's not too hard and shouldn't be changed. Of course this will all depend on the skill or item you are trying to get. It makes no sense to make a fairly normal item hard to get lol.
Rare is better. Something that has always pissed me off is everyone can get everything. There is nothing rare. Anything that is touted as rare usually isn't. I wouldn't mind seeing some items being so rare that they are literally one of a kind.
Being able to achieve things that are actually worth achieving is something that would make any game good.
If you want a world that functions properly, you can't have people just randomly killing others for no reason at all, and if they do there needs to be some sort of consequence for doing so. Not a reward. There should be guards in cities, and there should be guards on patrol around populated areas outside of cities.
There needs to be a lot of player run stuff as well. If you can make a pretty realistic and stable economy that will only strengthen the game and tie everything together.
The reason is that there are just too many players with bad behavior and it is very resources consuming to police them correctly.
So devs just give up and make games that are instanced, and scripted, with no worlds so everyone can have separate nice experiences, and you can always get rid of random strangers by hitting a button.
For that reason, a persistent world sandbox is not a very good idea. That is why they fail.
If you want a world that functions properly, you can't have people just randomly killing others for no reason at all, and if they do there needs to be some sort of consequence for doing so. Not a reward. There should be guards in cities, and there should be guards on patrol around populated areas outside of cities.
There needs to be a lot of player run stuff as well. If you can make a pretty realistic and stable economy that will only strengthen the game and tie everything together.
The reason is that there are just too many players with bad behavior and it is very resources consuming to police them correctly.
So devs just give up and make games that are instanced, and scripted, with no worlds so everyone can have separate nice experiences, and you can always get rid of random strangers by hitting a button.
For that reason, a persistent world sandbox is not a very good idea. That is why they fail.
Here we go again with the same BS as usual. We get it, you like co-op games, not MMO's. So go play them and leave those of us that want open worlds to play the real MMO's. K thanks bye.
The arguement that FFA open world PvP is like the real world is the dumbest arguement ever. Show me any society that allows anyone to randomly kill people for their own entertainment without consequence. If you tried that shit for real you'd wind up dead or in a cell for the rest of your life.
The other reason why it's nothing like the real world is simply this. If you kill someone in a game they respawn, do it in the real world and they are DEAD. It is NOTHING like the real world.
Indie sandbox developers (wrongly) hold fast to this idea that a sandbox has to be open PvP but fail to put in any mechanic to control rampant griefing, and that's why they fail. As soon as a developer spends the time and effort to put in place some sort anti griefing system you have a pvp sandbox that can actually survive with a decent sized population, e.g. EVE.
Do they appeal to a niche audience? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean they are a bad idea or invalidate them in any way. As long as the proper game mechanics and systems are thought through and put in place there is no reason for sandbox MMO's to fail. Unfortunately most devs get this wrong and you end up with something only griefers want to play.
Games do not succeed or fail based on whether they are a "sandbox" or a "themepark". They succeed or fail based on whether or not they are fun games.
Make a sandbox that a lot of people find to be fun and a lot of people will play it. Make a sandbox that most people think stinks, and most people won't play it. Exactly the same as any themepark.. or any game in general for that matter.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
People seem to want a sandbox but they are all dead compared to other mmo's. Why are these games failing when they seem so ideal? My theory is the developers are making anarchy sandbox games instead of civilized sandbox games. Once they start putting order to the sandbox people cry and start calling it themepark. I feel that anarchy sandbox designs do not work at all. But has anyone made a sandbox where they had civilized towns with guards enforcing laws if you were stupid enough to break them? Mortal Online attempts such feats but the way it is implemented gives much reason for player dislikes. Sandboxers claim they want total anarchy gameplay yet developers know this is just a waste of time because without civilizations to create a box for the sand you just have a sandpile.
Talk about a loaded question based on a false premise. Sandboxes aren't failing, there simply aren't any good ones out there. SWG was a huge hit before they screwed it up, EVE has been a respectable sandbox for years despite it being an unpopular space setting. Archeage was spectacular in alpha/beta, it would have been a huge success if not for greed and incompetence on the part of Trion/XL.
If you want a world that functions properly, you can't have people just randomly killing others for no reason at all, and if they do there needs to be some sort of consequence for doing so. Not a reward. There should be guards in cities, and there should be guards on patrol around populated areas outside of cities.
There needs to be a lot of player run stuff as well. If you can make a pretty realistic and stable economy that will only strengthen the game and tie everything together.
The reason is that there are just too many players with bad behavior and it is very resources consuming to police them correctly.
So devs just give up and make games that are instanced, and scripted, with no worlds so everyone can have separate nice experiences, and you can always get rid of random strangers by hitting a button.
For that reason, a persistent world sandbox is not a very good idea. That is why they fail.
It's not very resource consuming to make an automatic policing system. You kill someone and get caught the guards come after you, and the guards are powerful. You either get jail time or they kill you. Then the only thing else you need to do is make it so dying isn't something you want to happen, and there are various ways to do that. If the player killer escapes, a bounty can be placed on them that players can collect if they kill that player.
Again, you want to make dying pretty brutal, so even people who go after the player killer think twice about doing so.
Ways you can make dying unwanted. On the extreme side of things, you could lock the player out for the rest of the day. From a lore perspective you could even make that work if the story entails such a thing taking time to occur. You could make it so the time out happens in game, so they can still play .. but they can't do certain things for the rest of the day. On less extremes, you could just have the possibility of losing items, on top of a large portion of your experience.
Personally, I wouldn't mind both, or maybe even keep it for pvp only. So if you die due to the above, there are high risks, but if you die in a pve situation, there is less risks. Maybe not lose as much exp, and no item loss. Maybe no lock out.
There are many ways to go about doing this, that would work just fine. Many ways .. I am sure I have not even thought of myself.
People seem to want a sandbox but they are all dead compared to other mmo's. Why are these games failing when they seem so ideal? My theory is the developers are making anarchy sandbox games instead of civilized sandbox games. Once they start putting order to the sandbox people cry and start calling it themepark. I feel that anarchy sandbox designs do not work at all. But has anyone made a sandbox where they had civilized towns with guards enforcing laws if you were stupid enough to break them? Mortal Online attempts such feats but the way it is implemented gives much reason for player dislikes. Sandboxers claim they want total anarchy gameplay yet developers know this is just a waste of time because without civilizations to create a box for the sand you just have a sandpile.
Talk about a loaded question based on a false premise. Sandboxes aren't failing, there simply aren't any good ones out there. SWG was a huge hit before they screwed it up, EVE has been a respectable sandbox for years despite it being an unpopular space setting. Archeage was spectacular in alpha/beta, it would have been a huge success if not for greed and incompetence on the part of Trion/XL.
EH you just said sandboxes aren't failing then said they don't have any good ones. Well wouldn't that mean they are failing? doh..
Because most of them are full loot PvP, and many people who play these types of games get their jollies off killing newbies. Anybody who tries the game and steps out of a 'safe area' (if one exists in the game) gets their head lopped off. Newbies gets frustrated, newbie quits. The veteran players (who usually have a huge advantage in levels and gear) then can't understand why nobody plays the game other than themselves.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Mmoprgs are a niche market of video games Sandboxes are a niche of the MMORPG market OWPVP is a niche of sandboxes and devs keep sticking owpvp in their sandboxes
So, you have a niche of a niche in a niche market that can't get enough players to float...not suprising.
Well stated. Open World pvp is a big "no go" for me. I'd rather play an FPS than an MMO where I can lose all my stuff or even be forced to pvp while leveling.
Competitive games are extremely popular. The difference between popular games and PvP MMOs is that popular games are fair. Everyone starts the same, scenarios are typically short, and player skill dictates outcome.
In MMOs, by contrast, character development is a function of time invested (good games) or your credit card spending (bad ones.) In either case, the game is not even, and new players will lose. Add in generally immature and obnoxious behavior and it's not surprising that MMO PvP is not popular. And sandbox = PvP for MMOs, for good or bad.
Comments
It's you who has gone down the wrong path lol by declaring EVE as the ultimate sandbox when it isn't actually a sandbox mmo.
Your turn..
You did not make any arguments one could reply to. All you did is admitted, again, that your knowledge/experience on said games is rather very limited, proving my point.
The Notion:
Building a village and roleplaying Winterfell. Host events and run tournaments.
The Reality:
Your territory is surrounded on all four sides by
But I don't fault players for thinking the way they do in this case. It doesn't come from a position of ignorance of history, but rather from a knowledge of history combined with a historically-false assumption:
"It'll be better this time. There's no way they're just going to repeat the glaring mistakes of everyone before them, right?"
One would think so.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
- Individual features are either sandbox or themepark. It depends on who authors the experience (dev-authored is themepark; player-authored is sandbox.) An auction house is a sandbox mechanic because players freely decide the price among themselves (it's not some NPC who always sells that sword for 4000 gold because a dev decided that was the price.)
- Games are either sandbox or themepark depending on their core gameplay. So even though WOW has auction houses, the majority of WOW's gameplay are things like quests, dungeons, and raids, which are themepark mechanics, and so the overall game is called a themepark.
Put another way:"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Doesn't Neverwinter do something like that with quests? Trove aswell?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I cannot believe you just said good pvp cannot exist in mmorpgs. You sir, need to take off the blinders.
Eve Online is a good example. Their PVP is fantastic, but it's not because their devs are great, but because their combat system is much closer to an RTS than an RPG.
Example: DDO gameplay is mostly in instances. So is Vindictus. So is Marvel Heroes.
If you want a world that functions properly, you can't have people just randomly killing others for no reason at all, and if they do there needs to be some sort of consequence for doing so. Not a reward. There should be guards in cities, and there should be guards on patrol around populated areas outside of cities.
There needs to be a lot of player run stuff as well. If you can make a pretty realistic and stable economy that will only strengthen the game and tie everything together.
The game needs to be challenging and shouldn't allow a player to simply be able to complete everything in a life time. I feel if a player wants to be the best black smith known on the server, they should have to really work for it and it shouldn't be something just anyone can accomplish. This gives actual meaning to what you do in the game. All of a sudden you become famous for the weapons you create. Skilled fighters should be known for their abilities.
Making things hard to get isn't always a bad thing even if there are players complaining it's too hard. If there are some people able to do it, then it's not too hard and shouldn't be changed. Of course this will all depend on the skill or item you are trying to get. It makes no sense to make a fairly normal item hard to get lol.
Rare is better. Something that has always pissed me off is everyone can get everything. There is nothing rare. Anything that is touted as rare usually isn't. I wouldn't mind seeing some items being so rare that they are literally one of a kind.
Being able to achieve things that are actually worth achieving is something that would make any game good.
So devs just give up and make games that are instanced, and scripted, with no worlds so everyone can have separate nice experiences, and you can always get rid of random strangers by hitting a button.
For that reason, a persistent world sandbox is not a very good idea. That is why they fail.
The arguement that FFA open world PvP is like the real world is the dumbest arguement ever. Show me any society that allows anyone to randomly kill people for their own entertainment without consequence. If you tried that shit for real you'd wind up dead or in a cell for the rest of your life.
The other reason why it's nothing like the real world is simply this. If you kill someone in a game they respawn, do it in the real world and they are DEAD. It is NOTHING like the real world.
Indie sandbox developers (wrongly) hold fast to this idea that a sandbox has to be open PvP but fail to put in any mechanic to control rampant griefing, and that's why they fail. As soon as a developer spends the time and effort to put in place some sort anti griefing system you have a pvp sandbox that can actually survive with a decent sized population, e.g. EVE.
Do they appeal to a niche audience? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean they are a bad idea or invalidate them in any way. As long as the proper game mechanics and systems are thought through and put in place there is no reason for sandbox MMO's to fail. Unfortunately most devs get this wrong and you end up with something only griefers want to play.
Make a sandbox that a lot of people find to be fun and a lot of people will play it. Make a sandbox that most people think stinks, and most people won't play it. Exactly the same as any themepark.. or any game in general for that matter.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Again, you want to make dying pretty brutal, so even people who go after the player killer think twice about doing so.
Ways you can make dying unwanted. On the extreme side of things, you could lock the player out for the rest of the day. From a lore perspective you could even make that work if the story entails such a thing taking time to occur. You could make it so the time out happens in game, so they can still play .. but they can't do certain things for the rest of the day. On less extremes, you could just have the possibility of losing items, on top of a large portion of your experience.
Personally, I wouldn't mind both, or maybe even keep it for pvp only. So if you die due to the above, there are high risks, but if you die in a pve situation, there is less risks. Maybe not lose as much exp, and no item loss. Maybe no lock out.
There are many ways to go about doing this, that would work just fine. Many ways .. I am sure I have not even thought of myself.
EH you just said sandboxes aren't failing then said they don't have any good ones. Well wouldn't that mean they are failing? doh..
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
In fact, didn't even UO has one ... and if that works well .. why is Trammel so popular?
In MMOs, by contrast, character development is a function of time invested (good games) or your credit card spending (bad ones.) In either case, the game is not even, and new players will lose. Add in generally immature and obnoxious behavior and it's not surprising that MMO PvP is not popular. And sandbox = PvP for MMOs, for good or bad.