Star Wars Galaxies is often praised as having had the best resource and crafting system out of any MMO. It's depth and design has thusfar been unmatched by another other MMO, and played a key role in the game's economy.
You absolutely can give players freedom and good game mechanics at the same time. In fact, it is specifically good game mechanics that set sandboxes apart from themepark MMOs, because those mechanics is what enable players to be able to do things they are otherwise restricted from doing in a bland themepark quest grind MMO.
And imagination is the limit, which is why themeparks are so popular right now -- most of the newer gen MMO players have no imagination.
I'm talking about the things that make sandbox a sandbox. Good crafting mechanics can exist in a themepark, and themeparks can allow for some amount of freedom too.
You can have some flexibility when designing an MMO, but there isn't enough of it for it to work properly in a sandbox.
SWG did something right for it's time, but players demand more from the GAME they play nowadays. You just can't sacrifice the gameplay elements for freedom anymore.
And you can act arrogantly towards the current MMO crowd all you want, but you can't blame them for wanting as good GAME as possible. No matter what sandbox you happen to play, it's still a game at the end of the day, and that should be taken into consideration.
So I'm arrogrant for labeling the majority of themepark MMO players, yet you aren't for labeling all Sandbox MMOs as not being games or enjoyable to play?
Please, get of the high horse.
Just because the game mechanics of sandbox MMOs of present and past don't appeal to you personally, does not mean that they do not appeal to anyone.
Furthermore, you keep talking about sacrificing gameplay elements for freedom... which makes absolutely no sense.
Present and past sandbox MMOs had several gameplay elements, there was no sacrificing. The only difference was the 'content'. Sure, themepark MMOs have more content compared to past sandbox MMOs. But that's because the vast majority of this "content" is all static content. Sandbox MMOs on the otherhand, much of the content is dynamic, and created/influenced by interaction of the players with the game world.
I will give you that yes, between older sandbox MMOs, there seems to be less 'content' than in today's themepark MMOs. The disparity of this is for two reasons. First, sandbox MMOs rely more on player driven content, meaning that the drive to complete an goal in the game is created by either the palyer themselves, or another player. In part of this, the tools given to players to facilitate this is important, which yes, they were less back then than they could be now.
But, that's the key point. Game mechanics to allow players to create their own 'content' can, and even have, been done in MMOs. Taking advantage of such mechanics would allow for sandoxes to thrive, and also dismisses much of the supposide "lackings" that you claim there are.
When I say player created content by the way, I mean things such as allowing players to create quests for other players. But the point is that these quests are created for a purpose. For example, a crafter player needs so much of a resource to stock their inventory to sell, so they create a quest to turn in that particular resource, and they attach a gold or item/s as a reward. So now any other player can come across it, complete it, and then the quest is done until someone else does it. This is merely one spec of what player created content is, and it means so much more because completing tasks actually means something in the game world. It's not an endless static chain of quests from one dimensional NPC characters, where completing the quest has zero effect on the game world or any other player.
You're percieving that lackings of older sandbox MMOs as lacking of the concept of sandbox MMOs. This is an entirely skewed perception. Yes, older sandbox MMOs did have their shortcomings, but so did the original themepark based MMOs. The problem is not with the concept of sandbox MMOs, the problem is that there has been no serious recent attempts -- the last being Eve -- at creating a sandbox MMO that improves on some of the mechanics that could have used tweaking.
So just because you don't like sandbox MMOs, it doesn't mean they're inherently unenjoyable and never can be. That's your personal perception of them, and not that of everyone else.
So I'm arrogrant for labeling the majority of themepark MMO players, yet you aren't for labeling all Sandbox MMOs as not being games or enjoyable to play?
Those who enjoy playing inferior 'games' in exchange for freedom will definitely enjoy those games.
Please, get of the high horse.
Let's hop off together.
Just because the game mechanics of sandbox MMOs of present and past don't appeal to you personally, does not mean that they do not appeal to anyone.
It's not that they don't appeal to me- they are worse, for very very logical reasons I have explained before and will only explain one more time: developers don't have the resources or time to develop EVERY feature a sandbox game requires and make them also good enough to pass the quality assurance of players. They are -inevitably- inferior because the development time goes to developing More features instead of polishing the existing ones. And this is why it only works on concept level, not in practice.
Furthermore, you keep talking about sacrificing gameplay elements for freedom... which makes absolutely no sense.
'Budget' doesn't make sense to you? I want to work in your company with limitless resources and manpower!
Present and past sandbox MMOs had several gameplay elements, there was no sacrificing. The only difference was the 'content'. Sure, themepark MMOs have more content compared to past sandbox MMOs. But that's because the vast majority of this "content" is all static content. Sandbox MMOs on the otherhand, much of the content is dynamic, and created/influenced by interaction of the players with the game world.
Developer made content > player made content (in quality). Developers have all the tools, players have only the tools that developers can give them.
But, that's the key point. Game mechanics to allow players to create their own 'content' can, and even have, been done in MMOs. Taking advantage of such mechanics would allow for sandoxes to thrive, and also dismisses much of the supposide "lackings" that you claim there are.
Of course it can be done.. There will be a lot of it, but it will be of lesser quality too. And when even themepark content sometimes suffers from bad quality, what can we expect from even worse quality? Yeah..
When I say player created content by the way, I mean things such as allowing players to create quests for other players. But the point is that these quests are created for a purpose. For example, a crafter player needs so much of a resource to stock their inventory to sell, so they create a quest to turn in that particular resource, and they attach a gold or item/s as a reward. So now any other player can come across it, complete it, and then the quest is done until someone else does it. This is merely one spec of what player created content is, and it means so much more because completing tasks actually means something in the game world. It's not an endless static chain of quests from one dimensional NPC characters, where completing the quest has zero effect on the game world or any other player.
You're starting to wander off in the imaginary land again.. concept =/= practice.
You're percieving that lackings of older sandbox MMOs as lacking of the concept of sandbox MMOs. This is an entirely skewed perception. Yes, older sandbox MMOs did have their shortcomings, but so did the original themepark based MMOs. The problem is not with the concept of sandbox MMOs, the problem is that there has been no serious recent attempts -- the last being Eve -- at creating a sandbox MMO that improves on some of the mechanics that could have used tweaking.
There is a reason for not attempting to make such MMO - with the most obvious being that developers have problems with making even good developer made themepark MMO's, how can you expect them to make an MMO that allows you to do much more while keeping the overall quality of game mechanics found in themepark (aside from few features like crafting)?
Sp just because you don't like sandbox MMOs, it doesn't mean they're inherently unenjoyable and never can be. That's your personal perception of them, and not that of everyone else.
If the sandbox can be made into a good game, then it can be enjoyable.
Now that even themeparks struggle to be 'games' with good mechanics, which obviously do not allow for such freedom as sandboxes do, making a good sandbox is even harder. Developers can't just ignore the game to provide you with freedom. Back then it was alright, since everything was pretty shitty from themeparks to sandboxes, but no more. The bar has risen, if only a little, it is enough.
But basically sandbox should have this and that to be a real 'sandbox', and this only hurts those who want to see a sandbox in the long run. If you can't be content with less, you'll never see a 'good' sandbox game.
Ask for a better crafting/gathering system first on top of a themepark model, then ask the developers to let you make your own content, in small steps. You could create your own dungeon, your own little quests/campaigns, and so on. Little by little it might be possible to create MMORPG's that resemble sandbox more and more.
But like this it's just not gonna happen.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I don't really see many sandbox suggestions here, but I guess that's expected with the lack of gaming experience. Best one I've seen thus far:
How about a game where you design and create items, houses, vehicles etc out of game with a separate program. Then you upload the objects you just made to the game where you can use them. The items you can create is determined by progression of your toon. Lowbees can make simple items. Max levels can make very complex/powerful items.
.
In the beginning, there will be nothing in this world but sand. The world will be flat and featureless. Players make roads, towns lakes, mountains, etc
But of course, there already is a game like that: Second Life.
Oh that's right, the giant elephant in the room everytime Sandbox comes up but never gets mentioned. Sandbox has already been made, it wasn't popular. There is little that's engaging about a pure Sandbox game and that's why a new SimCity game only comes out every 10 years and why nobody that considers him or herself a serious MMO gamer plays The Sims Online.
Eve Online, SWG and every other old school niche popular game that get's thrown around is not a sandbox game. They have sandbox elements, surely, but substituting end-game raiding for end-game PvP is not the only thing necessary to create a sandbox game.
From my perspective of reading the same redundant posts on this forum for the last 8 some years, players that praise sandbox are actually just rebelling against the EQ / WoW archetype of MMO development. I don't see anything wrong with that; in fact I think it's good every type of game that can be made does get made, but let's be clear on what is actually being requested unless you want to end up with Second Life 2: The Return to Virtual Boredom as your newest Sandbox title.
What isn't sandbox
-Open ended PvP objectives such as conquering territory and destroying rivals. This isn't sandbox, but it is a type of siege warfare. In fact there's NOTHING sandbox about traditional combat mechanics since they are rigidly defined and adhered to throughout a game.
-Integrated Crafting requirements for the aforementioned PvP system. This isn't sandbox either, just a very diverse and well-flushed out crafting system. True crafting sandbox would be like I quoted above; a system where the player is free to upload a sword model, a sword texture, and define whatever stats they want (a ridiculous idea that would never work with a functioning combat system).
-Skill based progression. Adding skills to a game does not make it a sandbox either, macro'd or otherwise.
-Long travel times, serious death penalties, corpse looting, etc, etc. These crop up from time to time, none of them denote anything specific to sandbox play, but to be fair they're not always included.
-Freedom to do anything. This is repeated a lot but it's a fallacy of simplicity. It usually means "Allow me the freedom to do anything to another player" which is simply a request for more PvP, not sandbox. Just because you can gank a noobie anywhere and steal their lollipop doesn't make the game sandbox, it just gives it a very harsh learning curve and provides a very base form of entertainment.
-The other Side of Freedom. "I can't level crafting without grinding my regular level first." "I can't solo." "I can't make a character that's both a tank and a healer." "I can't craft the game's best gear." NONE of this is sandbox content. Some of it is in direct opposition, because if one player wants the freedom to craft the best gear another won't have the freedom to obtain the best gear without leveling / paying a crafter. One person's freedom is another's cage.
-Player driven end-game. Ah the holy grail. The favorite buzzwords of sandbox. This is the only place where I see actual sandbox suggestions crop up, but they're often not very fleshed out ideas. Stating more "GM run events" is not sandbox, whereas asking for "Player-written quests" is but creates a massive logistical hurdle for implementation.
What they actually want
-TONS of crafting content. Lots of things to make and have high value to players at any skill level.
-Skill-based over class. Ability to switch roles instantly or play multiple roles simultaneously.
-Ungoverned PvP. Large scale PvP objectives.
-Changing environments such as player-built cities or territories, this includes diminishing environmental resources.
-Some type of end-game objective creation system, such as GM run events, that provide players with long-term goals.
I know I'll get flamed for it, but it doesn't really matter since I don't feel the negative replies are worth my time to read. I'm honestly only trying to help, because this is the type of game that would be fun for me to play as well. The key, however, is that this game isn't a sandbox. It's not Second Life, it's not The Sims Online, but it does have vastly different content and player objectives compared to the standard selection of MMOs and a broader array of activities to engage in. A change that just about anyone could sink their teeth into.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
If the sandbox can be made into a good game, then it can be enjoyable.
Now that even themeparks struggle to be 'games' with good mechanics, which obviously do not allow for such freedom as sandboxes do, making a good sandbox is even harder. Developers can't just ignore the game to provide you with freedom. Back then it was alright, since everything was pretty shitty from themeparks to sandboxes, but no more. The bar has risen, if only a little, it is enough.
But basically sandbox should have this and that to be a real 'sandbox', and this only hurts those who want to see a sandbox in the long run. If you can't be content with less, you'll never see a 'good' sandbox game.
Ask for a better crafting/gathering system first on top of a themepark model, then ask the developers to let you make your own content, in small steps. You could create your own dungeon, your own little quests/campaigns, and so on. Little by little it might be possible to create MMORPG's that resemble sandbox more and more.
But like this it's just not gonna happen.
I never said it would be easy, but it is possible to do.
The proper conceptual design of a sandbox MMO is that the design focus is more on the game mechanics than on all of the content. In part of those game mechanics, would include mechanics that act as tools to allow players to 'make their own content'. Now that's not to say that the game has to be devoid of static content, simply that the options for dynamic and open gameplay are there.
You're flatout arguing that sandbox MMOs can never be fun due to their inherent design, where my counterpoint is that they very well can be if they're designed properly but they haven't been given the chance.
I think it's rather ironic that people seem to have such a low opinion on sandbox based games. They have in the past been extremely successful as single player games. Many of those same concepts can be applied in an MMO architecture to much the same effect.
Look at Oblivion and Fallout 3 for example. Those are effectively sandbox based RPG games. Yes there are some quests, a general mainstory, but players have significant freedom in what they do and where they go, and completely ignore every single quest in the game and still have an extremely satisfying gameplay experience. Why? Because the game mechanics permit players to do so.
... or are you one of those few people who was bored by Oblivion and Fallout 3 because there wasn't enough "content"?
I'd also like to see a sandbox that was more focused on PvE, as in a sandbox without dreaded FFA PvP which every sandbox seems to think is required these days.
Dynamic PvE content, a "smart" enemy AI kind of like what Tabula Rasa tried to do with the Bane, a semi-intelligent enemy that will take control of land and conquer territory unless players band together to drive them back.
Consensual Factional PvP focused on territorial/resource control all in the open world, mixed in with faction specific NPCs that are also semi-intelligent and will fight with the other factions on their own to create dynamic PvPvE.
Skill based system that removes "common" (usless) skills like running/jumping/swimming etc. and forbids all macro use. More like SWG combat skills where you had to fight to raise them, and you had to fight stuff that con'd high enough to give you skill gains.
A multi-part resource gathering system. One part is combat/exploration gathering in the open world, the second part is pure time invested = profit using gathering nodes. Like you mine at a mine... get lumber at a lumber yard.. etc.
Component based crafting. All high level items require components made using low and medium level resources. Ability to specialize in low or medium or high level resources/components and system based on efficiency % and quality %. Have to specialize to get the best components, best items only made with best low/mid/high components.
Mixed housing. Instanced neighborhoods in major cities ala Lotro, and all open world housing is on the map day one of server launch, players can buy open world housing from NPC owners more like the Fable series. This is to remove urban desertion (ghost cities) and remove the destruction of all the game's wilderness areas by keeping things contained.
Missions generation agents that only create missions for players based off of intelligent needs. Also create unique missions for individual players. If a craftsmen needs 5 leather, he'll create one mission for one player to get him 5 leather.
Please give this person the $150 million .
I agree
As for expanding on the crafting, everything in the game needs to be crafted. Everything.
BUT.
You don't learn new recipes from trainers. You learn new recipes by de-constructing items. As such most original recipes would come from enemy npcs/players in the game as drops, found items in chests, etc. but then once they begin to be crafted they can propagate to other crafters and maybe one day become a common place item.
In order to get your proficiency making a certain item to 100% you either have to de-construct one then make a lot of trials to get it perfect or de-construct multiple copies of the same item.
Break them down into base parts.
Then based on the quality of the materials used and the understand you have the item, you can replicate it.
Obviously you'd have to have the most very basic tools/items available to be crafted available from NPC's. Even buying items off of NPC crafters and learning how to make them yourself.
I'd also like to see a sandbox that was more focused on PvE, as in a sandbox without dreaded FFA PvP which every sandbox seems to think is required these days.
Dynamic PvE content, a "smart" enemy AI kind of like what Tabula Rasa tried to do with the Bane, a semi-intelligent enemy that will take control of land and conquer territory unless players band together to drive them back.
Consensual Factional PvP focused on territorial/resource control all in the open world, mixed in with faction specific NPCs that are also semi-intelligent and will fight with the other factions on their own to create dynamic PvPvE.
Skill based system that removes "common" (usless) skills like running/jumping/swimming etc. and forbids all macro use. More like SWG combat skills where you had to fight to raise them, and you had to fight stuff that con'd high enough to give you skill gains.
A multi-part resource gathering system. One part is combat/exploration gathering in the open world, the second part is pure time invested = profit using gathering nodes. Like you mine at a mine... get lumber at a lumber yard.. etc.
Component based crafting. All high level items require components made using low and medium level resources. Ability to specialize in low or medium or high level resources/components and system based on efficiency % and quality %. Have to specialize to get the best components, best items only made with best low/mid/high components.
Mixed housing. Instanced neighborhoods in major cities ala Lotro, and all open world housing is on the map day one of server launch, players can buy open world housing from NPC owners more like the Fable series. This is to remove urban desertion (ghost cities) and remove the destruction of all the game's wilderness areas by keeping things contained.
Missions generation agents that only create missions for players based off of intelligent needs. Also create unique missions for individual players. If a craftsmen needs 5 leather, he'll create one mission for one player to get him 5 leather.
Please give this person the $150 million .
I agree
As for expanding on the crafting, everything in the game needs to be crafted. Everything.
BUT.
You don't learn new recipes from trainers. You learn new recipes by de-constructing items. As such most original recipes would come from enemy npcs/players in the game as drops, found items in chests, etc. but then once they begin to be crafted they can propagate to other crafters and maybe one day become a common place item.
In order to get your proficiency making a certain item to 100% you either have to de-construct one then make a lot of trials to get it perfect or de-construct multiple copies of the same item.
Break them down into base parts.
Then based on the quality of the materials used and the understand you have the item, you can replicate it.
Obviously you'd have to have the most very basic tools/items available to be crafted available from NPC's. Even buying items off of NPC crafters and learning how to make them yourself.
You could expand on the crafting further by allowing for 'experimentation' for crafters who have a lot of experience creating certain items. Doing so would allow them to focus on enhancing a particular aspect of the item, i.e. making a sword more light weight which makes it easier to swing more quickly, or tempered more to become stronger and sharper, etc.
Experimentation crafting could also have a very low chance of yielding knowledge of a new recipe of the next tier of item for that type.
sandbox MMO's are like youtube or the blogging craze. The tools are their to do cool things, but the general public just end up creating crap that no one should see. Most do nothing, or do nothing meaningful creative that justifies me caring. The sandbox MMO usually gets overrun with griefers that like to destroy the world not create anything. I would have confidence in sandbox MMO's if I had confidence in the creativity of the general public. If their was a chance for sandbox MMO's it would of been done already as an open source project, because that group would of banded together and created a world, but since I don't see that I come to the conclusion that no one cares about creating a world.
there should be structure to any game by the development team, some form of content added by the developers. Most players seem destructive when it comes to sandbox games. If I wanted to just rely on player created content I would go play some other mediocre game. It is so rare that I find a fun and engaging game play experience created by the general community. At least youtube is free why would I pay money for a game which is mostly made up of player created content.
I'd also like to see a sandbox that was more focused on PvE, as in a sandbox without dreaded FFA PvP which every sandbox seems to think is required these days.
Dynamic PvE content, a "smart" enemy AI kind of like what Tabula Rasa tried to do with the Bane, a semi-intelligent enemy that will take control of land and conquer territory unless players band together to drive them back.
Consensual Factional PvP focused on territorial/resource control all in the open world, mixed in with faction specific NPCs that are also semi-intelligent and will fight with the other factions on their own to create dynamic PvPvE.
Skill based system that removes "common" (usless) skills like running/jumping/swimming etc. and forbids all macro use. More like SWG combat skills where you had to fight to raise them, and you had to fight stuff that con'd high enough to give you skill gains.
A multi-part resource gathering system. One part is combat/exploration gathering in the open world, the second part is pure time invested = profit using gathering nodes. Like you mine at a mine... get lumber at a lumber yard.. etc.
Component based crafting. All high level items require components made using low and medium level resources. Ability to specialize in low or medium or high level resources/components and system based on efficiency % and quality %. Have to specialize to get the best components, best items only made with best low/mid/high components.
Mixed housing. Instanced neighborhoods in major cities ala Lotro, and all open world housing is on the map day one of server launch, players can buy open world housing from NPC owners more like the Fable series. This is to remove urban desertion (ghost cities) and remove the destruction of all the game's wilderness areas by keeping things contained.
Missions generation agents that only create missions for players based off of intelligent needs. Also create unique missions for individual players. If a craftsmen needs 5 leather, he'll create one mission for one player to get him 5 leather.
Please give this person the $150 million .
I agree
As for expanding on the crafting, everything in the game needs to be crafted. Everything.
BUT.
You don't learn new recipes from trainers. You learn new recipes by de-constructing items. As such most original recipes would come from enemy npcs/players in the game as drops, found items in chests, etc. but then once they begin to be crafted they can propagate to other crafters and maybe one day become a common place item.
In order to get your proficiency making a certain item to 100% you either have to de-construct one then make a lot of trials to get it perfect or de-construct multiple copies of the same item.
Break them down into base parts.
Then based on the quality of the materials used and the understand you have the item, you can replicate it.
Obviously you'd have to have the most very basic tools/items available to be crafted available from NPC's. Even buying items off of NPC crafters and learning how to make them yourself.
You could expand on the crafting further by allowing for 'experimentation' for crafters who have a lot of experience creating certain items. Doing so would allow them to focus on enhancing a particular aspect of the item, i.e. making a sword more light weight which makes it easier to swing more quickly, or tempered more to become stronger and sharper, etc.
Experimentation crafting could also have a very low chance of yielding knowledge of a new recipe of the next tier of item for that type.
I like where you are going with this. Wonderful idea. The low chance could be like a "eureka! maybe i could try THIS instead to make a whole new item!" kind of thing.
Crafting is boring to some people though lol, so how can we make the PvE combat better? the housing? any thoughts on some of my other ideas? *see above*
Eve Online, SWG and every other old school niche popular game that get's thrown around is not a sandbox game. They have sandbox elements, surely, but substituting end-game raiding for end-game PvP is not the only thing necessary to create a sandbox game.
You misunderstand. When people say "sandbox" in regards to MMO, what they mean is "more sandbox than themepark". No major MMO is "pure" sandbox or "pure" themepark. They are two theoretical ends of a spectrum.
So you are correct that EVE and SWG are not pure sandboxes and closest we have is Second Life. However EVE and SWG are the closest we've come in major MMOs. No comment about endgame PvP vs. PvE as I don't really think it matters whether you have one or both, although sandbox is all about choices, so both is probably closer to it.
A "pure" sandbox is a set of tools to allow you to make whatever you want out of (sand) the game. So ultimately it is choice - the more you can make, the more paths you can take, the closer it is to being a true a sandbox. Not that the goal (as i mentioned) is to be a true sandbox, the goal is to be enough of a sandbox to foster the creation of a living virtual world (which doesn't require having a sandbox design, but many - myself included - believe that a more sandbox-ish approach achieves this result better).
From my perspective of reading the same redundant posts on this forum for the last 8 some years, players that praise sandbox are actually just rebelling against the EQ / WoW archetype of MMO development. I don't see anything wrong with that; in fact I think it's good every type of game that can be made does get made, but let's be clear on what is actually being requested unless you want to end up with Second Life 2: The Return to Virtual Boredom as your newest Sandbox title.
What isn't sandbox
-Open ended PvP objectives such as conquering territory and destroying rivals. This isn't sandbox, but it is a type of siege warfare.
It is an element that provides choice - you (as the totality of playerbase) can create a city, define the world, you can build an empire, an alliance, you can change the landscape, you can - quite literally - build many different castles. And isn't building and destroying castles one of the most basic things to do in a sandbox? Yes it is. Does it have to be PvP? No. Can it be PvE? Yes. Can it be both? Yes. The more choices, the more sandbox, but there should be some overall design to prevent utter chaos - this overall design takes away from sandboxingness but adds to the fun and cohesion.
-Integrated Crafting requirements for the aforementioned PvP system. This isn't sandbox either, just a very diverse and well-flushed out crafting system. True crafting sandbox would be like I quoted above; a system where the player is free to upload a sword model, a sword texture, and define whatever stats they want (a ridiculous idea that would never work with a functioning combat system).
Actually true sandbox would give you the tools to design that sword model within it, but let's not get bogged down with semantics. And there is no reason this can't work, but once again, there needs to be some kind overall design that limits choices of stats in order to make it possible for people to interact. It's true that if you and i played in a sandbox, we'd make totally different sandswords, however, it is also true that neither one would be made of water or steel, because what we both have is sand.
-Skill based progression. Adding skills to a game does not make it a sandbox either, macro'd or otherwise.
Correct. However, by making skills independent of each other, you allow most possible path and choices. One of the things you're doing in a game is building a character. If skills can be gained and improved independently you're allowing more possibilities for how to build that character. Same thing can be done with other modes of progression such as levels and alternate achiements / perks that some games have.
-Long travel times, serious death penalties, corpse looting, etc, etc. These crop up from time to time, none of them denote anything specific to sandbox play, but to be fair they're not always included.
Agreed. I can't see what any of these have to do with being more or less sandbox. You can have all these in a themepark game.
-Freedom to do anything. This is repeated a lot but it's a fallacy of simplicity. It usually means "Allow me the freedom to do anything to another player" which is simply a request for more PvP, not sandbox. Just because you can gank a noobie anywhere and steal their lollipop doesn't make the game sandbox, it just gives it a very harsh learning curve and provides a very base form of entertainment.
Freedom to do anything to another player, does give players (as a whole) more control over the shaping of the world. However, as it causes chaos, if it is totally uncontrolled, it will detract from the creation of a cohesive world. People in the real world can do anything to each other, however they generally don't do certain things due to social and legal norms. EVE is a good example - you can do anything to anyone, anywhere, but consequences for it are quite severe in certain places (i.e. concord will destroy you). Ability to do anything anywhere to anyone does make something more sandbox, however, it also makes for chaos and it should be tempered with the overall vision for the game.
-The other Side of Freedom. "I can't level crafting without grinding my regular level first." "I can't solo." "I can't make a character that's both a tank and a healer." "I can't craft the game's best gear." NONE of this is sandbox content. Some of it is in direct opposition, because if one player wants the freedom to craft the best gear another won't have the freedom to obtain the best gear without leveling / paying a crafter. One person's freedom is another's cage.
I am not sure what to address here. Sandbox is about choice of how to build your character. There doesn't need to be a guarantee that this character will be amazing, however, there should be (in successful game of this type) something to do for all types of skills.
-Player driven end-game. Ah the holy grail. The favorite buzzwords of sandbox. This is the only place where I see actual sandbox suggestions crop up, but they're often not very fleshed out ideas. Stating more "GM run events" is not sandbox, whereas asking for "Player-written quests" is but creates a massive logistical hurdle for implementation.
Again, this is about what players can create. The reason I would cite "player-written" quests as the next step is because no amount of employees can generate enough pre-written content to keep things going. This goes back to the tools given to players to play with as part of sandbox. Long example from SWG that i always give: swg had mechanic for mobs to spawn dynamically in random places, it had another dynamic to put harvesters around the world, it had another mechanic to make crafters who own those harvesters not the best fighters. Result - mobs spawn on harvest, crafter needs someone to clear out the mobs, he hires combat-oriented people to do so. He gives them a desired reward in one of his crafted items. This an example of how a bunch of well-designed tools in a sandbox built up to a castle (quest).
What they actually want
Well i can't say what "they" want, but i'll comment on what I want.
-TONS of crafting content. Lots of things to make and have high value to players at any skill level.
I don't need "tons". I need it to be meaningful, require skill and able to produce good items. The crafting system needs to enable someone to become a "Good crafter", not just make crap. I never craft anyway, but if crafters need stuff from me and i need stuff from them, it makes for more meaningful gameplay.
-Skill-based over class. Ability to switch roles instantly or play multiple roles simultaneously.
I don't need to switch roles. But I'd like to have the ability to build a unique character or a character I enjoy. My character doesn't need to be able to do everything.
-Ungoverned PvP. Large scale PvP objectives.
I think ungoverned PvP is a recipe for disaster. I think that the designers need to envision how they want players intereacting with each other in the world and then build appropriate rules to support that. I think large scale PvP objectives are an excellent tool for certain games and scenarios - especially if you have warring factions. War generally happens on a large scale and involves land control. Not all adventures are based around war however and depending on what the story of the game is, it may not make sense for players to war each other. It's a RPG, if everyone is on the same side, they shouldn't be fighting each other except for practice / wargames.
-Changing environments such as player-built cities or territories, this includes diminishing environmental resources.
Yes. I am not sure what you mean by diminishing environmental resources, but I certainly want to see changes in the world based on what players do and what happens in the storyline (NPC should be able to effect the world as well).
-Some type of end-game objective creation system, such as GM run events, that provide players with long-term goals.
GM's are really a compensation for lack of proper tools in the hands of players. However, in a world that evolves and goes forward, GMs can also act as a control factor for certain events that are beneficial to the world/story but shouldn't be given to players due to their power to lead game in teh wrong direction. Example is destruction of a major city by NPC forces in order to move game storyline forward. Given PvP, players can do this, but in order to provide the PvE experience, this should be done by GMs or DEVs.
.
my responses (not flames) to your post.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
There is something already happening in crafting, in Fallen Earth (tho devs still look around that and trying to pushh players into PvP in all ways). It was curiosity that having PvP in long-time visions (and now after introducing arenas for Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, etc.) as MMO "Quake-CS" they introduced into this game feats which gathered here mostly non-PvPers.
Good point is that one isn't forced into only one craft (eg ya can be super-skilled metalsmith-armorer but ya still can't craft even easiest sword) - if ya have time and resources ya can max all craft profession (I have already )
Expanding on crafting, I like your ideas on that and gathering a lot, I've always felt that crafting should be a game and sandbox unto itself, to that end here's just a rough few thoughts on it:
Items that require cooperation between crafters
FE have this - crafting scoped rifle needs participation of ballistic skills and science skills. Many receipts have need in even more than 2 profession to make final products.
Items that are split – Sword blade seperate to it's hilt
That is in some part in FE as mentioned upside rifles and scopes for them, weapons and ammo for them, vehicles and fuel + repair-kits for them, etc.
Crafted items must equal the best world drops at all levels
Again FE: from loot one can get only mid-lvl items (even from serious mobs), bets items in any area are crafter's made products. Some items have never dropped, like all vehicles, high-lvl science items, etc. All loot-drops are meaningful - eg ya can't find from killed little snake troll's armor breastplate or giant sword from tiny ant. Animals drop for ya meat, skins, leather, furs etc, plants give fruits or grain etc, human likes ya can get ready food/drink, ammo, some mid-range weapons/armor etc.
Crafting should allow for enhancement of the best epic raid/dungeon/world drops
Dropped items and crafted items can be de-constructed to salvage some elements and/or materials, this includes epic/dungeon/raid items
Again in FE - ya can deconstruct both dropped items or made by yarself for crafting-levelling and get some mats back. Even ya can make from better quality resources lower ones - like getting Scrap Copper from Salvaged Copper.
Higher level crafting should allow for design input to a small extent
Add this and FE's craft system (which still is best I've met thro many MMOs starting from EQ1) would be much better. Make ya lab work / field search, try diff components and ingredients, and get after maybe long work some new brilliant reciepts ya can add in game and sell to other crafters.
Crafters should feel like they have mastered their craft by being able to enhance and provide the best items in the game, as an example that purple epic raid armour piece can be de-constructed, it could provide one of several salvage items which then can be used to enhance or provide a base material for another epic item. The ability to have a small input to design, as an example the crafters logo on an item, having things like sword components, armour pieces etc crafted separately (armour could have sleeves added to the jacket, a jeweller could make ornate buttons) would provide a great sense of individuality to both the wearer and the crafter. Crafting should have a sense of 'art' to it and cooperation between crafters should be encouraged.
It may be resource heavy but crafters yearn for something more original and in depth where they feel they can truly put a personal stamp on it.
Why not even introduce player quest givers? Like letter on yar workshop door giving a note that ya wanna buy so amny this and this items, reward is such amount of money and/or item(s) crafted by ya. So not like AH wher ya pay for possibility to sell ya stuff, ya can find ppl interesting in ya loots and ya get rewards w/out spending money for selling.
If ya are crafter and all stats and skills in areas which don't make ya da best or even better fighter and so no capable of hard dungeon runs Ya can put bounty for that damn dungeon boss and real good reward for that group make a run to get for you that rare drop needed to make that ultra hard sword?
I'd also like to see a sandbox that was more focused on PvE, as in a sandbox without dreaded FFA PvP which every sandbox seems to think is required these days.
Dynamic PvE content, a "smart" enemy AI kind of like what Tabula Rasa tried to do with the Bane, a semi-intelligent enemy that will take control of land and conquer territory unless players band together to drive them back.
Consensual Factional PvP focused on territorial/resource control all in the open world, mixed in with faction specific NPCs that are also semi-intelligent and will fight with the other factions on their own to create dynamic PvPvE.
Skill based system that removes "common" (usless) skills like running/jumping/swimming etc. and forbids all macro use. More like SWG combat skills where you had to fight to raise them, and you had to fight stuff that con'd high enough to give you skill gains.
A multi-part resource gathering system. One part is combat/exploration gathering in the open world, the second part is pure time invested = profit using gathering nodes. Like you mine at a mine... get lumber at a lumber yard.. etc.
Component based crafting. All high level items require components made using low and medium level resources. Ability to specialize in low or medium or high level resources/components and system based on efficiency % and quality %. Have to specialize to get the best components, best items only made with best low/mid/high components.
Mixed housing. Instanced neighborhoods in major cities ala Lotro, and all open world housing is on the map day one of server launch, players can buy open world housing from NPC owners more like the Fable series. This is to remove urban desertion (ghost cities) and remove the destruction of all the game's wilderness areas by keeping things contained.
Missions generation agents that only create missions for players based off of intelligent needs. Also create unique missions for individual players. If a craftsmen needs 5 leather, he'll create one mission for one player to get him 5 leather.
I know ideas are a matter of taste but as many people have commented I think the above is a wonderful starting point for a sandboxesque MMO.
In my own version I would like to see the ability to hire certain NPC factions as mercenaries that would travel and fight with you until you stopped paying there hourly rates or they died. Obviously there would be a strong correlation between the price of an NPC of a certain faction and there power/abilities.
I would also like to see fully lootable raw materials. In my concept the most precious raw materials would be in very obscure and far off locations. Once a player had collected any substantial amount of a resource they would then require a caravan to take it back to a faction-controlled city to be processed into goods by other professions.
Protecting these caravans could be done through hiring NPC’s or player created missions travelling to the resources nodes and then protecting the caravan until it returns to X location. Of course the more precious the resource the more likely a band of players Hijackers would attempt to sack the caravan. Finally many of the “elite” resources would fall behind extremely dangerous NPC areas. This would make resource collection a balance of PvP, PvE, timing and strategic travel.
I also believe having NPC that could be taken over by GM’s to attack outposts or player cities would be a great addition to the above type of game. I know many people feel that GM controlled avatars is a sloppy way to avoid an intelligent NPC system but lets face it we are along way off from having NPC’s that can act and function the way a person can.
Once in a great while an evil overlord GM might even band several of the NPC factions together to attack certain cities and territories. This could be partially used to keep any one-player faction from becoming to strong and would certainly add to a dynamic world environment.
I suppose I would focus first on the core mechanics of an MMORPG, Fighting, crafting, and gathering, and make them fun. The idea is that if the basic mechanics are fun, then the rest of the game can be considerably more fun even if the content is poor. I think this is better than the focus most MMORPGs take which is to attempt to make their game about content rather than game mechanics. No content, no fun.
Combat
Most MMORPG combat systems tend to be slow, boring, and lack the ability for a player to alter the outcome of a fight based on their actions, for the most part, it almost always comes down to level, equipment, and class. To start with, I'd have an FPS style combat system with speeds on par with Quake. The reason for this is that with high movement speeds, perfect aim becomes less important, and its much easier to line up a shot by moving your crosshair onto the target than it is to actually turn it to face them.
The melee combat would be a lot like the Jedi Outcast lightsaber fighting. Basically the way you swing is tied into your movement, and you're never really stopped from moving, except in the case of certain special moves. It's very fluid and controls really nicely. Blocking is automatic, and the player instead focuses on trying to either hit with an attack thats too hard to block, or to strategically place hits in while the other player is swinging. Such a system makes melee combat in general exciting and interesting and focuses on player skill. Shields would allow for manual blocking.
The bow/crossbow combat would be like a standard FPS, but with arrows gravitating toward the nearest target for the sake of making things a bit easier. Movement would affect accuracy.
Magic combat would work in the same way, except they'd have a spell bar that pops up when they're in combat mode which allows them to select which spell to cast. Additionally, spells would have to be charged up (longer for the more powerful ones), releasing the charge before it was charged would cause it to fail, and if holding it after it was ready to be launched, for a brief time it could be held additionally for bonus effectiveness (only for spells that are hard to hit with), but afterwards the effectiveness would quickly drop, eventually resulting in a spell failure. No AoEs would exist, unless they required the caster to put themselves in harms way and drain a significant amount of any of his vitals. Additionally spells would be learned through a research system like Asheron's Call had.
The damage system would be similar to Asheron's Call where there are many different elements that have different levels of effectiveness on different targets. For example, a player wearing some sort of metal armor like chainmail or plate would find themselves weak to lightning spells or lightning enchanted arrows and weapons, while players in leather armor would be nearly immune to lightning damage, but weak to piercing and fire.
Additionally healing would be an important part of combat, with a well placed heal being able to extend a fight by 5 - 10 minutes. Damage would be high so the margin for error would be low, and to keep battles from being eternal, lest it be two extremely skilled players against eachother.
Gathering
I'm not sure how you could possibly make this fun, so I won't bother trying. I'd just have an automated gather function like Darkfall's, as well as the possibility to hire NPCs to gather for you.
Crafting
I haven't put much thought into the kind of crafting system I'd like to see in a good MMORPG. If I had to pick one though, I'd most definitely go with Mortal Online's. Multi-stage crafting with players having to figure out how to create different materials and items. I'd take it a bit further though, instead of crafting a straight up weapon, for a sword for example, you'd create a hilt and a blade and combine them. For the actual interaction between items, I think Asheron's Call again had an interesting crafting interface, you see in a lot of games you have a bunch of different crafting screens with various different slots for things. In Asheron's Call, you double clicked on item A, and clicked on item B, the two interacted with eachother. Much cleaner and simpler. An example: Double clicking a Mortar and Pestle and then clicking on a gem of some sort would create a powdered form of that gem.
Enchanting would be a part of crafting as well, where players combine ingredients to create an enchantment item which can be applied to a weapon, armor, etc.
A durability system would be in place of course to keep players coming back to crafters and to keep the economy alive.
After that, I'd want something to bring the players together and giving them something to do. So with that comes war, conquest, and trade, events, and exploration.
War, Conquest, and Trade
This one is complicated. I mean if you look at Darkfall, war was created entirely by big egos and crap like "well these guys are a zerg, we should become a zerg to change that", there were never any ingame incentives to fight. Nothing arose naturally, and I think providing a world where war naturally comes to the player is important in the game's longetivity.
So first and foremost, the world would be designed around the concept of scarcity. In the game there would be many different kinds of resources with different effects, bonuses, and weaknesses. Not many of these would be available freely throughout the game world, but instead regionalized. This alone would promote trade and conflict, as not everything an organized group of players would need would be available everywhere, it wouldn't be economical to travel to the regions to get the materials they need. Additionally, particularly good materials would be available in very few locations, which would naturally become points of conflict among warring guilds, and something to fight over. Other things would be available to fight over as well, such as monster spawns and dungeons with lucrative monster spawns. I suppose monsters would mainly be a source of progression, as well as loot. Monsters would be an ideal way for players to restock equipment when they had no equipment and nothing left to buy new equipment with, as well a source of money.
Global banking would exist, but with a limited amount of potential input, and only to allow players to regear in unfamiliar territory. No raw materials could be transported via global banking, they'd all have to be transported by a vehicle of some sort such as a boat, requiring players to risk their loot for their reward and creating something for PvPers to hunt down as well as mercenaries to protect.
Events
I'm pretty damn inspired here by Asheron's Call, and I feel this is the absolute most important part of the game. Events can be a number of things. First and foremost, it's the ongoing world storyline driven by the developers as well as the players. Developer created events would change the face of the world, and draw everyone in it into them. The entire purpose of them would be to change the world and make it feel more alive, create an amazing experience for the players. In Asheron's Call one month shadows invaded the world with massive spires headed toward towns with the end result being several destroyed towns. Each month the landscape would change. The goal would be to recreate this, and give the player an actual say in the outcome, altering this global storyline. This also ties into the War and Conquest portion of the game, as it definitely serves as a mechanism for bringing players together, and making them take sides.
Other events would be more dynamic in design, not requiring developer/gm intervention to create, such as monster raids on towns.
Exploration
There would be a massive world in the game with a lot of room for new content to be added. The hope is that players travelling through wilderness can find something new and interesting on the way to another destination, and that new content hopefully stays hidden for some time, always leaving something for the intrepid explorer to find. Everything added would have some sort of backstory to it, which could be found without the point of interest in the form of books, items, and maybe even the inhabitants of the place. Additionally, places listed in the lore of the game would exist within the world itself, as would one of a kind truly epic items that were a part of the world history. Epic items players wouldn't be able to log off with, and they would always drop on death, be unable to be stored.
Additionally, massive exploration quests. Dungeons would be connected, with keys found in one dungeon corresponding to another, lore found in one area giving information on how to progress in another. Puzzles within dungeons, intricacies that make the player think, such as a door that only opens when a certain item is placed on it (think the keys in Doom, haha), or when hit with a certain spell. The results of some of these could be world changing, and even provide benefits to the clan that uses them.
Death Penaty
I think it's important for the game to have a death penalty, otherwise players fear nothing. The player needs to feel like he's failed in some way to learn from that failure. Again I'm a fan of Asheron's Call, I love their death penalty system. When you die, you drop a certain amount of items, the more powerful your character, the more items. The items you drop are the highest value ones you hold. The sole reason for this is to make the game more accessible to outsiders, and a bit less harsh than a full loot game while still providing that same adrenaline rush and risk vs reward. Also, the vitae penatly is a fine system as well which i'd implement, it's basically where each time you die, you gain x amount vitae penalty. This reduces all of your skills by your total vitae penalty. It's temporary skill and stat loss that can be burned away and doesn't cut into your experience gain.
Last but not least,
Progression
I would have a really long progression, with the cap being almost impossible to reach, however, players would receive a bulk of their gains early on, and vets would be grinding for diminishing returns which give little differences. The diminishing returns would take years to collect, and be so insignificant that only a completionist would actively pursue it. In fact this would exist purely to torture said completionist. A brand new character with a skillful player and decent equipment should most definitely have a chance at taking down a careless veteran. Freeform character creation is also a given.
Everything else is negotiable, but the aforementioned are what I feel a perfect sandbox MMORPG would have. Some might disagree with the choices on combat, but I feel that the more player skill thats involved with combat, the more fun it is.
Essentially I am asking what type of sandbox MMO would you develop and what features would you employ if time, money and talent were not an issue.
.
Everyone is just going to mention their favorite dead or dying game.
.
How about a game where you design and create items, houses, vehicles etc out of game with a separate program. Then you upload the objects you just made to the game where you can use them. The items you can create is determined by progression of your toon. Lowbees can make simple items. Max levels can make very complex/powerful items.
.
In the beginning, there will be nothing in this world but sand. The world will be flat and featureless. Players make roads, towns lakes, mountains, etc
Essentially I am asking what type of sandbox MMO would you develop and what features would you employ if time, money and talent were not an issue.
.
Everyone is just going to mention their favorite dead or dying game.
.
How about a game where you design and create items, houses, vehicles etc out of game with a separate program. Then you upload the objects you just made to the game where you can use them. The items you can create is determined by progression of your toon. Lowbees can make simple items. Max levels can make very complex/powerful items.
.
In the beginning, there will be nothing in this world but sand. The world will be flat and featureless. Players make roads, towns lakes, mountains, etc
THIS IS THE GAME I SEEK!
uhh I don't know if it can be taken seriously. Basically he is describing SecondLife, possibly for a laugh at teh sandbox peeps. The only dif is newbies can make simple items and vets know how to make very complex items. Notice the slap on the first line, seems obvious.
*rips page*
Anyway, as for crafting, I think it’s pretty simple, you just remove all items on death from the character. Next best thing to perma-death imo. Keeps the crafters employed, especially if most of the game drops are components to make items rather than ready to use items. Something more fitting to a sci-fi, but can work basically the same for any. Not a simple crafting system, but often requiring raw materials and existing parts from drops; long recipe lists. Basically players would stock up on player crafted items and go through them quick as arrows. Works for me Glad you hate it hah
I never said it would be easy, but it is possible to do.
The proper conceptual design of a sandbox MMO is that the design focus is more on the game mechanics than on all of the content. In part of those game mechanics, would include mechanics that act as tools to allow players to 'make their own content'. Now that's not to say that the game has to be devoid of static content, simply that the options for dynamic and open gameplay are there.
But that is also the downfall of your ideals.
Sandbox players demand too much from the developers. You need to have tons of game mechanics so you can do -anything- in the game and you have these people with their ideas what a sandbox -should- be like, long lists that detail what it should have, and that is already too much.
Developing tools for the players to create the content is often just as big of a task as the devs creating their own content... and on top of that these features have rarely been tried and tested before, which means there are good chance of flaws and problems included.. especially when you give the ball to the players.
In practice nothing is as simple as the people throwing around ideas here make it seem. But still, developers -should- be able to do it all and do it well too, -then- the sandbox might be a huge success (or not).
Now if somebody made a sandbox like you all want and it wouldn't have everything on your lists and there is no complete 'freedom', then it's just a shitty sandbox, not a "real" sandbox.
But you gotta start small if you want to get to the top.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Umm actually truth be known, I’ve found that the systems for a sandbox game are a bit easier to implement than for a theme park game apart from player placed housing. The major problem with theme park is the constant need for new content and systems to drive it, or the players get bored. That requires a lot more dev time and content that is pretty much abandoned once the player is led through the area to the next. Most classic sandbox systems, you can find a ton of code examples around the net to help you devise and implement your own versions into your project. In fact the crafting system I hinted at, I have my own working version of, as well as other working systems. But until you work with the stuff for some time, opinion is just that, opinion, and often I find ill-informed at that.
Umm actually truth be known, I’ve found that the systems for a sandbox game are a bit easier to implement than for a theme park game apart from player placed housing. The major problem with theme park is the constant need for new content and systems to drive it, or the players get bored. That requires a lot more dev time and content that is pretty much abandoned once the player is led through the area to the next. Most classic sandbox systems, you can find a ton of code examples around the net to help you devise and implement your own versions into your project. In fact the crafting system I hinted at, I have my own working version of, as well as other working systems. But until you work with the stuff for some time, opinion is just that, opinion, and often I find ill-informed at that.
After the initial release, sandbox is indeed easier to maintain.
But that's not the core problem here. The problem is that creating such MMO is the hard, if not impossible, part.
Even themeparks struggle with making the deadline of often 5, 6 years of development and being able to implement everything that's needed.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
So you quote yourself and that is how you know? Wow, …creative. Ever think about working on some dev skills? Maybe not, eh? Impossible to make a game as you just said. And that “truth” needs to be spammed through an entire constructive thread, relentlessly, of course. Well I suppose it’s better than standing on a street corner with a bullhorn screaming the end is nigh. ah well...
So you quote yourself and that is how you know? Wow, …creative. Ever think about working on some dev skills? Maybe not, eh? Impossible to make a game as you just said. And that “truth” needs to be spammed through an entire constructive thread, relentlessly, of course. Well I suppose it’s better than standing on a street corner with a bullhorn screaming the end is nigh. ah well...
So you just decide to deny it? Alright then... Not that I didn't expect it.
*Implies that his quote already contained the answer to your question, and didn't just want to write the same thing again just to get a "nu-uh" reply*
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Second life is the closest we have to a true sandbox. Of course this game over time has shown why a 100% sandbox game does not work. As it is chaos and with no direction. Fact is a sandbox needs rules to provide the players goals and bounderies which is a good thing. Afterall if there were no rules in a childrens sandpit if i wanted to i could smash everyones creations and hog ALL the tools. Then i could ...... well you see what i mean, afterall a sandpit is no fun if some A-hole wanted to ruin everyones fun.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Well yeah, I already answered that on the last line of #42, I just didn't want to come off as arrogant or something, but give you a chance, see where it would go. Personally, I like reading their ideas, makes the coding/scripting part of the brain flow. Some stuff I read is far down the line, but much of it is workable at this point, or has even already been done and seen example code floating around in repositories, some of which private ones. But I guess the unhindered discussions go on elsewhere, been here long enough to know that, but always like reading the ideas from some of the [brave] members on this forum, some of which probably know from experience beyond just playing games.
Originally posted by Daywolf Umm actually truth be known, Ive found that the systems for a sandbox game are a bit easier to implement than for a theme park game apart from player placed housing. The major problem with theme park is the constant need for new content and systems to drive it, or the players get bored. That requires a lot more dev time and content that is pretty much abandoned once the player is led through the area to the next. Most classic sandbox systems, you can find a ton of code examples around the net to help you devise and implement your own versions into your project. In fact the crafting system I hinted at, I have my own working version of, as well as other working systems. But until you work with the stuff for some time, opinion is just that, opinion, and often I find ill-informed at that.
. So in your sandbox game, I log in for four hours of play. What would my session be like? . I would think it would be much more easier to run out of content in a sandbox game. You can only ride out to kill vicious llamas so many times before you get bored. A sandbox would have to be extremely detailed and complex to be molded by a person's imagination. . Imagine if I wanted to build a rope bridge across a ravine so that I could charge toll. I pick the location, gather up vines, cut timber for planks and so on. Would your game handle that? . If you had an excellent combat system, you could entertain people with pvp. PvP and roleplay being the only real sandbox items that are practical.
Comments
So I'm arrogrant for labeling the majority of themepark MMO players, yet you aren't for labeling all Sandbox MMOs as not being games or enjoyable to play?
Please, get of the high horse.
Just because the game mechanics of sandbox MMOs of present and past don't appeal to you personally, does not mean that they do not appeal to anyone.
Furthermore, you keep talking about sacrificing gameplay elements for freedom... which makes absolutely no sense.
Present and past sandbox MMOs had several gameplay elements, there was no sacrificing. The only difference was the 'content'. Sure, themepark MMOs have more content compared to past sandbox MMOs. But that's because the vast majority of this "content" is all static content. Sandbox MMOs on the otherhand, much of the content is dynamic, and created/influenced by interaction of the players with the game world.
I will give you that yes, between older sandbox MMOs, there seems to be less 'content' than in today's themepark MMOs. The disparity of this is for two reasons. First, sandbox MMOs rely more on player driven content, meaning that the drive to complete an goal in the game is created by either the palyer themselves, or another player. In part of this, the tools given to players to facilitate this is important, which yes, they were less back then than they could be now.
But, that's the key point. Game mechanics to allow players to create their own 'content' can, and even have, been done in MMOs. Taking advantage of such mechanics would allow for sandoxes to thrive, and also dismisses much of the supposide "lackings" that you claim there are.
When I say player created content by the way, I mean things such as allowing players to create quests for other players. But the point is that these quests are created for a purpose. For example, a crafter player needs so much of a resource to stock their inventory to sell, so they create a quest to turn in that particular resource, and they attach a gold or item/s as a reward. So now any other player can come across it, complete it, and then the quest is done until someone else does it. This is merely one spec of what player created content is, and it means so much more because completing tasks actually means something in the game world. It's not an endless static chain of quests from one dimensional NPC characters, where completing the quest has zero effect on the game world or any other player.
You're percieving that lackings of older sandbox MMOs as lacking of the concept of sandbox MMOs. This is an entirely skewed perception. Yes, older sandbox MMOs did have their shortcomings, but so did the original themepark based MMOs. The problem is not with the concept of sandbox MMOs, the problem is that there has been no serious recent attempts -- the last being Eve -- at creating a sandbox MMO that improves on some of the mechanics that could have used tweaking.
So just because you don't like sandbox MMOs, it doesn't mean they're inherently unenjoyable and never can be. That's your personal perception of them, and not that of everyone else.
I don't really see many sandbox suggestions here, but I guess that's expected with the lack of gaming experience. Best one I've seen thus far:
But of course, there already is a game like that: Second Life.
Oh that's right, the giant elephant in the room everytime Sandbox comes up but never gets mentioned. Sandbox has already been made, it wasn't popular. There is little that's engaging about a pure Sandbox game and that's why a new SimCity game only comes out every 10 years and why nobody that considers him or herself a serious MMO gamer plays The Sims Online.
Eve Online, SWG and every other old school niche popular game that get's thrown around is not a sandbox game. They have sandbox elements, surely, but substituting end-game raiding for end-game PvP is not the only thing necessary to create a sandbox game.
From my perspective of reading the same redundant posts on this forum for the last 8 some years, players that praise sandbox are actually just rebelling against the EQ / WoW archetype of MMO development. I don't see anything wrong with that; in fact I think it's good every type of game that can be made does get made, but let's be clear on what is actually being requested unless you want to end up with Second Life 2: The Return to Virtual Boredom as your newest Sandbox title.
What isn't sandbox
-Open ended PvP objectives such as conquering territory and destroying rivals. This isn't sandbox, but it is a type of siege warfare. In fact there's NOTHING sandbox about traditional combat mechanics since they are rigidly defined and adhered to throughout a game.
-Integrated Crafting requirements for the aforementioned PvP system. This isn't sandbox either, just a very diverse and well-flushed out crafting system. True crafting sandbox would be like I quoted above; a system where the player is free to upload a sword model, a sword texture, and define whatever stats they want (a ridiculous idea that would never work with a functioning combat system).
-Skill based progression. Adding skills to a game does not make it a sandbox either, macro'd or otherwise.
-Long travel times, serious death penalties, corpse looting, etc, etc. These crop up from time to time, none of them denote anything specific to sandbox play, but to be fair they're not always included.
-Freedom to do anything. This is repeated a lot but it's a fallacy of simplicity. It usually means "Allow me the freedom to do anything to another player" which is simply a request for more PvP, not sandbox. Just because you can gank a noobie anywhere and steal their lollipop doesn't make the game sandbox, it just gives it a very harsh learning curve and provides a very base form of entertainment.
-The other Side of Freedom. "I can't level crafting without grinding my regular level first." "I can't solo." "I can't make a character that's both a tank and a healer." "I can't craft the game's best gear." NONE of this is sandbox content. Some of it is in direct opposition, because if one player wants the freedom to craft the best gear another won't have the freedom to obtain the best gear without leveling / paying a crafter. One person's freedom is another's cage.
-Player driven end-game. Ah the holy grail. The favorite buzzwords of sandbox. This is the only place where I see actual sandbox suggestions crop up, but they're often not very fleshed out ideas. Stating more "GM run events" is not sandbox, whereas asking for "Player-written quests" is but creates a massive logistical hurdle for implementation.
What they actually want
-TONS of crafting content. Lots of things to make and have high value to players at any skill level.
-Skill-based over class. Ability to switch roles instantly or play multiple roles simultaneously.
-Ungoverned PvP. Large scale PvP objectives.
-Changing environments such as player-built cities or territories, this includes diminishing environmental resources.
-Some type of end-game objective creation system, such as GM run events, that provide players with long-term goals.
I know I'll get flamed for it, but it doesn't really matter since I don't feel the negative replies are worth my time to read. I'm honestly only trying to help, because this is the type of game that would be fun for me to play as well. The key, however, is that this game isn't a sandbox. It's not Second Life, it's not The Sims Online, but it does have vastly different content and player objectives compared to the standard selection of MMOs and a broader array of activities to engage in. A change that just about anyone could sink their teeth into.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
I never said it would be easy, but it is possible to do.
The proper conceptual design of a sandbox MMO is that the design focus is more on the game mechanics than on all of the content. In part of those game mechanics, would include mechanics that act as tools to allow players to 'make their own content'. Now that's not to say that the game has to be devoid of static content, simply that the options for dynamic and open gameplay are there.
You're flatout arguing that sandbox MMOs can never be fun due to their inherent design, where my counterpoint is that they very well can be if they're designed properly but they haven't been given the chance.
I think it's rather ironic that people seem to have such a low opinion on sandbox based games. They have in the past been extremely successful as single player games. Many of those same concepts can be applied in an MMO architecture to much the same effect.
Look at Oblivion and Fallout 3 for example. Those are effectively sandbox based RPG games. Yes there are some quests, a general mainstory, but players have significant freedom in what they do and where they go, and completely ignore every single quest in the game and still have an extremely satisfying gameplay experience. Why? Because the game mechanics permit players to do so.
... or are you one of those few people who was bored by Oblivion and Fallout 3 because there wasn't enough "content"?
I agree
As for expanding on the crafting, everything in the game needs to be crafted. Everything.
BUT.
You don't learn new recipes from trainers. You learn new recipes by de-constructing items. As such most original recipes would come from enemy npcs/players in the game as drops, found items in chests, etc. but then once they begin to be crafted they can propagate to other crafters and maybe one day become a common place item.
In order to get your proficiency making a certain item to 100% you either have to de-construct one then make a lot of trials to get it perfect or de-construct multiple copies of the same item.
Break them down into base parts.
Then based on the quality of the materials used and the understand you have the item, you can replicate it.
Obviously you'd have to have the most very basic tools/items available to be crafted available from NPC's. Even buying items off of NPC crafters and learning how to make them yourself.
You could expand on the crafting further by allowing for 'experimentation' for crafters who have a lot of experience creating certain items. Doing so would allow them to focus on enhancing a particular aspect of the item, i.e. making a sword more light weight which makes it easier to swing more quickly, or tempered more to become stronger and sharper, etc.
Experimentation crafting could also have a very low chance of yielding knowledge of a new recipe of the next tier of item for that type.
sandbox MMO's are like youtube or the blogging craze. The tools are their to do cool things, but the general public just end up creating crap that no one should see. Most do nothing, or do nothing meaningful creative that justifies me caring. The sandbox MMO usually gets overrun with griefers that like to destroy the world not create anything. I would have confidence in sandbox MMO's if I had confidence in the creativity of the general public. If their was a chance for sandbox MMO's it would of been done already as an open source project, because that group would of banded together and created a world, but since I don't see that I come to the conclusion that no one cares about creating a world.
there should be structure to any game by the development team, some form of content added by the developers. Most players seem destructive when it comes to sandbox games. If I wanted to just rely on player created content I would go play some other mediocre game. It is so rare that I find a fun and engaging game play experience created by the general community. At least youtube is free why would I pay money for a game which is mostly made up of player created content.
I like where you are going with this. Wonderful idea. The low chance could be like a "eureka! maybe i could try THIS instead to make a whole new item!" kind of thing.
Crafting is boring to some people though lol, so how can we make the PvE combat better? the housing? any thoughts on some of my other ideas? *see above*
.
my responses (not flames) to your post.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
I know ideas are a matter of taste but as many people have commented I think the above is a wonderful starting point for a sandboxesque MMO.
In my own version I would like to see the ability to hire certain NPC factions as mercenaries that would travel and fight with you until you stopped paying there hourly rates or they died. Obviously there would be a strong correlation between the price of an NPC of a certain faction and there power/abilities.
I would also like to see fully lootable raw materials. In my concept the most precious raw materials would be in very obscure and far off locations. Once a player had collected any substantial amount of a resource they would then require a caravan to take it back to a faction-controlled city to be processed into goods by other professions.
Protecting these caravans could be done through hiring NPC’s or player created missions travelling to the resources nodes and then protecting the caravan until it returns to X location. Of course the more precious the resource the more likely a band of players Hijackers would attempt to sack the caravan. Finally many of the “elite” resources would fall behind extremely dangerous NPC areas. This would make resource collection a balance of PvP, PvE, timing and strategic travel.
I also believe having NPC that could be taken over by GM’s to attack outposts or player cities would be a great addition to the above type of game. I know many people feel that GM controlled avatars is a sloppy way to avoid an intelligent NPC system but lets face it we are along way off from having NPC’s that can act and function the way a person can.
Once in a great while an evil overlord GM might even band several of the NPC factions together to attack certain cities and territories. This could be partially used to keep any one-player faction from becoming to strong and would certainly add to a dynamic world environment.
I suppose I would focus first on the core mechanics of an MMORPG, Fighting, crafting, and gathering, and make them fun. The idea is that if the basic mechanics are fun, then the rest of the game can be considerably more fun even if the content is poor. I think this is better than the focus most MMORPGs take which is to attempt to make their game about content rather than game mechanics. No content, no fun.
Combat
Most MMORPG combat systems tend to be slow, boring, and lack the ability for a player to alter the outcome of a fight based on their actions, for the most part, it almost always comes down to level, equipment, and class. To start with, I'd have an FPS style combat system with speeds on par with Quake. The reason for this is that with high movement speeds, perfect aim becomes less important, and its much easier to line up a shot by moving your crosshair onto the target than it is to actually turn it to face them.
The melee combat would be a lot like the Jedi Outcast lightsaber fighting. Basically the way you swing is tied into your movement, and you're never really stopped from moving, except in the case of certain special moves. It's very fluid and controls really nicely. Blocking is automatic, and the player instead focuses on trying to either hit with an attack thats too hard to block, or to strategically place hits in while the other player is swinging. Such a system makes melee combat in general exciting and interesting and focuses on player skill. Shields would allow for manual blocking.
The bow/crossbow combat would be like a standard FPS, but with arrows gravitating toward the nearest target for the sake of making things a bit easier. Movement would affect accuracy.
Magic combat would work in the same way, except they'd have a spell bar that pops up when they're in combat mode which allows them to select which spell to cast. Additionally, spells would have to be charged up (longer for the more powerful ones), releasing the charge before it was charged would cause it to fail, and if holding it after it was ready to be launched, for a brief time it could be held additionally for bonus effectiveness (only for spells that are hard to hit with), but afterwards the effectiveness would quickly drop, eventually resulting in a spell failure. No AoEs would exist, unless they required the caster to put themselves in harms way and drain a significant amount of any of his vitals. Additionally spells would be learned through a research system like Asheron's Call had.
The damage system would be similar to Asheron's Call where there are many different elements that have different levels of effectiveness on different targets. For example, a player wearing some sort of metal armor like chainmail or plate would find themselves weak to lightning spells or lightning enchanted arrows and weapons, while players in leather armor would be nearly immune to lightning damage, but weak to piercing and fire.
Additionally healing would be an important part of combat, with a well placed heal being able to extend a fight by 5 - 10 minutes. Damage would be high so the margin for error would be low, and to keep battles from being eternal, lest it be two extremely skilled players against eachother.
Gathering
I'm not sure how you could possibly make this fun, so I won't bother trying. I'd just have an automated gather function like Darkfall's, as well as the possibility to hire NPCs to gather for you.
Crafting
I haven't put much thought into the kind of crafting system I'd like to see in a good MMORPG. If I had to pick one though, I'd most definitely go with Mortal Online's. Multi-stage crafting with players having to figure out how to create different materials and items. I'd take it a bit further though, instead of crafting a straight up weapon, for a sword for example, you'd create a hilt and a blade and combine them. For the actual interaction between items, I think Asheron's Call again had an interesting crafting interface, you see in a lot of games you have a bunch of different crafting screens with various different slots for things. In Asheron's Call, you double clicked on item A, and clicked on item B, the two interacted with eachother. Much cleaner and simpler. An example: Double clicking a Mortar and Pestle and then clicking on a gem of some sort would create a powdered form of that gem.
Enchanting would be a part of crafting as well, where players combine ingredients to create an enchantment item which can be applied to a weapon, armor, etc.
A durability system would be in place of course to keep players coming back to crafters and to keep the economy alive.
After that, I'd want something to bring the players together and giving them something to do. So with that comes war, conquest, and trade, events, and exploration.
War, Conquest, and Trade
This one is complicated. I mean if you look at Darkfall, war was created entirely by big egos and crap like "well these guys are a zerg, we should become a zerg to change that", there were never any ingame incentives to fight. Nothing arose naturally, and I think providing a world where war naturally comes to the player is important in the game's longetivity.
So first and foremost, the world would be designed around the concept of scarcity. In the game there would be many different kinds of resources with different effects, bonuses, and weaknesses. Not many of these would be available freely throughout the game world, but instead regionalized. This alone would promote trade and conflict, as not everything an organized group of players would need would be available everywhere, it wouldn't be economical to travel to the regions to get the materials they need. Additionally, particularly good materials would be available in very few locations, which would naturally become points of conflict among warring guilds, and something to fight over. Other things would be available to fight over as well, such as monster spawns and dungeons with lucrative monster spawns. I suppose monsters would mainly be a source of progression, as well as loot. Monsters would be an ideal way for players to restock equipment when they had no equipment and nothing left to buy new equipment with, as well a source of money.
Global banking would exist, but with a limited amount of potential input, and only to allow players to regear in unfamiliar territory. No raw materials could be transported via global banking, they'd all have to be transported by a vehicle of some sort such as a boat, requiring players to risk their loot for their reward and creating something for PvPers to hunt down as well as mercenaries to protect.
Events
I'm pretty damn inspired here by Asheron's Call, and I feel this is the absolute most important part of the game. Events can be a number of things. First and foremost, it's the ongoing world storyline driven by the developers as well as the players. Developer created events would change the face of the world, and draw everyone in it into them. The entire purpose of them would be to change the world and make it feel more alive, create an amazing experience for the players. In Asheron's Call one month shadows invaded the world with massive spires headed toward towns with the end result being several destroyed towns. Each month the landscape would change. The goal would be to recreate this, and give the player an actual say in the outcome, altering this global storyline. This also ties into the War and Conquest portion of the game, as it definitely serves as a mechanism for bringing players together, and making them take sides.
Other events would be more dynamic in design, not requiring developer/gm intervention to create, such as monster raids on towns.
Exploration
There would be a massive world in the game with a lot of room for new content to be added. The hope is that players travelling through wilderness can find something new and interesting on the way to another destination, and that new content hopefully stays hidden for some time, always leaving something for the intrepid explorer to find. Everything added would have some sort of backstory to it, which could be found without the point of interest in the form of books, items, and maybe even the inhabitants of the place. Additionally, places listed in the lore of the game would exist within the world itself, as would one of a kind truly epic items that were a part of the world history. Epic items players wouldn't be able to log off with, and they would always drop on death, be unable to be stored.
Additionally, massive exploration quests. Dungeons would be connected, with keys found in one dungeon corresponding to another, lore found in one area giving information on how to progress in another. Puzzles within dungeons, intricacies that make the player think, such as a door that only opens when a certain item is placed on it (think the keys in Doom, haha), or when hit with a certain spell. The results of some of these could be world changing, and even provide benefits to the clan that uses them.
Death Penaty
I think it's important for the game to have a death penalty, otherwise players fear nothing. The player needs to feel like he's failed in some way to learn from that failure. Again I'm a fan of Asheron's Call, I love their death penalty system. When you die, you drop a certain amount of items, the more powerful your character, the more items. The items you drop are the highest value ones you hold. The sole reason for this is to make the game more accessible to outsiders, and a bit less harsh than a full loot game while still providing that same adrenaline rush and risk vs reward. Also, the vitae penatly is a fine system as well which i'd implement, it's basically where each time you die, you gain x amount vitae penalty. This reduces all of your skills by your total vitae penalty. It's temporary skill and stat loss that can be burned away and doesn't cut into your experience gain.
Last but not least,
Progression
I would have a really long progression, with the cap being almost impossible to reach, however, players would receive a bulk of their gains early on, and vets would be grinding for diminishing returns which give little differences. The diminishing returns would take years to collect, and be so insignificant that only a completionist would actively pursue it. In fact this would exist purely to torture said completionist. A brand new character with a skillful player and decent equipment should most definitely have a chance at taking down a careless veteran. Freeform character creation is also a given.
Everything else is negotiable, but the aforementioned are what I feel a perfect sandbox MMORPG would have. Some might disagree with the choices on combat, but I feel that the more player skill thats involved with combat, the more fun it is.
THIS IS THE GAME I SEEK!
uhh I don't know if it can be taken seriously. Basically he is describing SecondLife, possibly for a laugh at teh sandbox peeps. The only dif is newbies can make simple items and vets know how to make very complex items. Notice the slap on the first line, seems obvious.
Glad you hate it hah
*rips page*
Anyway, as for crafting, I think it’s pretty simple, you just remove all items on death from the character. Next best thing to perma-death imo. Keeps the crafters employed, especially if most of the game drops are components to make items rather than ready to use items. Something more fitting to a sci-fi, but can work basically the same for any. Not a simple crafting system, but often requiring raw materials and existing parts from drops; long recipe lists. Basically players would stock up on player crafted items and go through them quick as arrows. Works for me
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
But that is also the downfall of your ideals.
Sandbox players demand too much from the developers. You need to have tons of game mechanics so you can do -anything- in the game and you have these people with their ideas what a sandbox -should- be like, long lists that detail what it should have, and that is already too much.
Developing tools for the players to create the content is often just as big of a task as the devs creating their own content... and on top of that these features have rarely been tried and tested before, which means there are good chance of flaws and problems included.. especially when you give the ball to the players.
In practice nothing is as simple as the people throwing around ideas here make it seem. But still, developers -should- be able to do it all and do it well too, -then- the sandbox might be a huge success (or not).
Now if somebody made a sandbox like you all want and it wouldn't have everything on your lists and there is no complete 'freedom', then it's just a shitty sandbox, not a "real" sandbox.
But you gotta start small if you want to get to the top.
Umm actually truth be known, I’ve found that the systems for a sandbox game are a bit easier to implement than for a theme park game apart from player placed housing. The major problem with theme park is the constant need for new content and systems to drive it, or the players get bored. That requires a lot more dev time and content that is pretty much abandoned once the player is led through the area to the next. Most classic sandbox systems, you can find a ton of code examples around the net to help you devise and implement your own versions into your project. In fact the crafting system I hinted at, I have my own working version of, as well as other working systems. But until you work with the stuff for some time, opinion is just that, opinion, and often I find ill-informed at that.
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
After the initial release, sandbox is indeed easier to maintain.
But that's not the core problem here. The problem is that creating such MMO is the hard, if not impossible, part.
Even themeparks struggle with making the deadline of often 5, 6 years of development and being able to implement everything that's needed.
And how would you know?
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
So how could a Sandbox succeed if it's so hard already for themeparks with already tried and tested mechanics?
Maybe someday it is possible, once making games is as easy as snapping yer fingers, but right now, logic says no.
So you quote yourself and that is how you know? Wow, …creative. Ever think about working on some dev skills? Maybe not, eh? Impossible to make a game as you just said. And that “truth” needs to be spammed through an entire constructive thread, relentlessly, of course. Well I suppose it’s better than standing on a street corner with a bullhorn screaming the end is nigh. ah well...
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
So you just decide to deny it? Alright then... Not that I didn't expect it.
*Implies that his quote already contained the answer to your question, and didn't just want to write the same thing again just to get a "nu-uh" reply*
Second life is the closest we have to a true sandbox. Of course this game over time has shown why a 100% sandbox game does not work. As it is chaos and with no direction. Fact is a sandbox needs rules to provide the players goals and bounderies which is a good thing. Afterall if there were no rules in a childrens sandpit if i wanted to i could smash everyones creations and hog ALL the tools. Then i could ...... well you see what i mean, afterall a sandpit is no fun if some A-hole wanted to ruin everyones fun.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Well yeah, I already answered that on the last line of #42, I just didn't want to come off as arrogant or something, but give you a chance, see where it would go. Personally, I like reading their ideas, makes the coding/scripting part of the brain flow. Some stuff I read is far down the line, but much of it is workable at this point, or has even already been done and seen example code floating around in repositories, some of which private ones. But I guess the unhindered discussions go on elsewhere, been here long enough to know that, but always like reading the ideas from some of the [brave] members on this forum, some of which probably know from experience beyond just playing games.
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
...it has 1.5 million unique log-ins each month. mehehehe
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
So in your sandbox game, I log in for four hours of play. What would my session be like?
.
I would think it would be much more easier to run out of content in a sandbox game. You can only ride out to kill vicious llamas so many times before you get bored. A sandbox would have to be extremely detailed and complex to be molded by a person's imagination.
.
Imagine if I wanted to build a rope bridge across a ravine so that I could charge toll. I pick the location, gather up vines, cut timber for planks and so on. Would your game handle that?
.
If you had an excellent combat system, you could entertain people with pvp. PvP and roleplay being the only real sandbox items that are practical.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren