Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The Daily Quest - What's Missing from Today's Sandboxes? -
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
The Daily Quest - What's Missing from Today's Sandboxes? -
A lot of online games have been launched over the past two years that follow a very specific format. Sandboxes are the best way to describe them. However games like: ARK, Life is Feudal, RUST, DayZ, H1Z1, and Reign of Kings all seem to follow a very similar format. You begin with nothing, hope to survive long enough to build up something, and then adventure out a great risk to lose what you have built. It really seems like a fun format... but only for a little bit. I am going back to t
Comments
All that said, I do agree that the ones we have today are great for a short time, and I think that's largely because they're crowdfunded and/or totally independent so they can only develop so much before they've got to release it and then we're waiting while the rest of it is built up. In order to keep me around, and some friends of mine who like the concept of sandboxes, there needs to be a balance. Not everything themeparks provide is rigid, nor do they have to be. But to make a GOOD game that is a healthy mix of both is very difficult, and would be very broad in scope so we haven't really seen it done very well.
Lack of money = bad graphics
What's Missing from Today's Sandboxes?
Different skill sets and mechanics that revolve around those skills.
Not everyone wants to play combat classes.
I would like a more realistic spirit in the players, that means more cautious and cooperative and less psychopathic.
Now how to do that is even more difficult to answer. But if I look at what often brought competitive groups of people to cooperate, I see that an urgent matter emerged that could only be dealt with in cooperation. That might be something bad and more direct like a common enemy that seems unstoppable if opposed alone. Or it might be something good and less obvious like a immensely useful technology or resource that can only be reached in corporation.
This sounds like shifting the incentives of success more towards PvE and less to PvP. Less promoting the constant danger that at any time you could be killed by some random person just to plunder your goods or ever lesser reasons like just for competition or schadenfreude. The possibility to kill each other could be mentioned as one of many features that allow roleplaying. And roleplay could be the new situation for that PvP kill feature. There should be more reason to kill someone than the earlier mentioned. That can be something personal, when a player you had contact several times already and something about him keeps annoying you. Or it could be something political or that a group did not want you in because they were full so you had to kill someone to make room.
So, a better reason should be necessary in order to happen a killing. That may be achieved by making it a lot harder to kill someone? Or making it not even necessary to kill someone and instead an injury or incapacitation would suffice to achieve your goal.
I played UO for 7 years and lived all that time in Felucca. If we wanted to rp though we moved to Trammel, it was the best of both worlds.
I just don't understand how there can be so many clueless indie developers out there. If you are going the indie you really need a long term commitment from players and the players who want to pvp all the time are a VERY small minority.
No IMO, most of these survival games are not really good sandbox examples.
MOBA is the right format for online PvP.
And the reason why FFA PvP won't work in MMORPGs is this:
Quote:
"You begin with nothing, hope to survive long enough to build up something, and then adventure out a great risk to lose what you have built. It really seems like a fun format, but it never lasts long for me."
No one like to lose their shit they worked so hard for, not even the most hardcore PvPers.
Also a PvP without "carebears" is not viable, and most of those games are not PvE friendly except for EvE which is the only such game that has the right balance between PvP and PvE right.
UO is another example, they had to add Trammel "safe zones" because the game was losing player really quick after the 60 day mark.
In MMORPGs PvP should be like in real life, there are criminals but they are a small percentage of the population, war between faction or guilds should be allowed as well, but it shouldn't be a "kill on sight situation" like it is at the moment. For that there is the MOBA format which works great.
I am more familiar with ARK, RUST, DayZ, and H1Z1. I consider them sandbox. I think the reason we don’t play them for long is the lack of interdependence and specialization. Correct me if I am wrong, I think the majority of players are playing these games solo. Meaning every player for themselves. The player enters the world and starts meeting their own needs of food, water, shelter, and defense(a weapon).
What did I hate about “Rogue Type Games”? The inability to save. When I died, I started from zero with zero. I don’t think everyone likes to start a sandbox as a gather, so they can move on to crafting a weapon. If there was an in game currency, so that you could quickly resupply. I hate to say or sound like I am promoting an easier or dumbed down game. But I think the problem sandboxes are having, is forcing people to do things they don’t like to do. Hunters don’t want to gather or farm. I almost want to say, there is no trinity and it must be installed.
Someone is gonna say, No. They want a game where they start empty handed and have to scrape at the earth to equip themselves everytime they die. I say, OK. Then you are presently playing and paying the developer for their time. You will keep playing and paying for the next ten years, because you are very satisfied with the experience. You are happy with a FFA, Full Loot, PvP sandbox. If not, I will continue.
What I would want is a Factionalized, Partial Loot, PvE/PvP sandbox. Either two or more Factions, that provide a safe zones for trading, food, and shelter. If I do die and lose most of my gear, I respawn in this safe zone. I still have a currency, either on me or banked in the Faction settlement. So I can restock and get back to the activities that I enjoy doing.
By Partial Loot, I mean a system that prevents or protect certain items from being looted. Possibly a Faction insurance, that when paid removes an item from my loot table upon death. Suppose I’m out hunting and gathering. So I have looted some meat, bones, and hides. I also found the body of a dead soldier, wounded in battle but done in by a bear before he made it back to the safe zone. I’m able to loot a sword, helmet, legging armour, ring, and some coin. Now I haven't been to town in some time and all this new gear and material is uninsured. So when I am ambushed by some PK bandits they can take any or all of my uninsured stuff. Leaving the insured gear, still in my possession.
A PvE/PvP system is one that has both mobs and NPCs that can be fought for loot and XP. And other faction players, that can be fought for loot and XP.
I start the game and make my way to a neutral/bandit faction town and join that faction by completing their Loyalty Quest. Since I entered the world with only the clothes on my back and unarmed, I must acquire a weapon some how. The local Tavern has a basement filled with rats. The Tavern Owner will give me a wooden club to kill rats with, and in the morning he will pay me 1 credit each. If I take the weapon and leave, he will just send the next newcomer after me, for all my stuff, the club, and my life.
There are similar jobs at the Stables, Trade Goods Warehouse, Farm, Bakers, Millers, Lumber Mill, Mine, Sheriff, and Barracks. All are menial, low pay grunt work. But this is all I can get being unskilled. But these are the only ways of earning credits, training skills, and gaining weapons available to me at the moment. Eventually, I have the weapon and skills I need to attempt the Loyalty Quest.
I realize I used the “Q” word when talking about sandbox. You see I am a supporter of the Killer, Explorer, Achiever, and Socializer types. Some killers won’t want to craft a weapon and gear. They shouldn’t have to. But Crafting should be limited to only those truly interested in it. By this I mean Crafter N% and Class (100 - N)%. This I feel is what is missing, and what I am doing in the sandbox I am making.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Consensual PvP, instead of forced-down-your-throat FFA Full Loot PvP. UO understood this and introduced Trammel when their playerbase was getting fed up with being ganked by PKs.
The result?
UO doubled its playerbase quickly after Trammel was introduced and kept growing up until shortly after Age of Shadows.
Emergent gameplay is waht sandboxes provide, but it has to be interesting, zerging each other isnt that much fun. In a sandbox game you want to establish yourself and your role in the world, you want to interact with that world and players while you are growing in your chosen role. In Eve your role can be diplomat, spy, fleet commander, trader, logistics, miner, industry guy for your corp alliance, and so on, these roles you grow into, you learn to do them better and people get to know you for doing them well. Its not - I selected spy at the start screen and therefore I am a spy.
I would love a great sandbox that isnt EVE because being a ship is a big disconnect for me but there isnt one out there.
I also agree dont force pvp-ers to pve if they dont want, dont force crafters to do combat, dont force combat guys to do crafting and so on. You should be able to play your role without having to do too much of the others. Some combat, some gathering, some crafting might be ok but let the player decide.