Originally posted by Axehilt Originally posted by Foomerang Ok. I guess I just don't feel like every second of my entertainment must be content that constantly stimulates me. Otherwise it never has a change to create an atmosphere. I enjoy letting something breathe, sink in, peaks and valleys. Those create moments that matter. Plenty of ways to enjoy all types of art and entertainment. In regards to mmorpgs, a good one allows for many types of experience to occur depending on the player's mood. I'm not going to say you're wrong for whatever pace you enjoy. Because that pace changes with mood and it's all valid anyway.
So every single second of GW2 was stimulating content to you? Or do you maybe want to back off on the hyperbole and admit that when a game deliberately avoids these bits of non-gameplay there is still plenty of downtime? (Except it's player-driven -- it's downtime when you want it, so you can play at your own pace.) The only hyperbole I see is your abuse of the word every time someone shares a view which differs from your own. There is Dev created downtime which enhances a games overall experience. Why is that some outlandish concept to you? From cleverly disguised loading screens to long travel times, a deliberate lull in action created by a game designer is a smart way to add weight and presence to a game.
Because the technology is not in place for a real sandbox yet? Until you can make the world react to the players you don't really have a sandbox and no game has a world that reacts to players. Even Eve isn't a real sandbox, it just has a lot of sandbox elements to it. Eve gives players a lot of freedom to do what they want but the universe itself is stagnant for the most part.
Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms. So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.
That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by LoktofeitStrangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms. So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.
That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
I already agree with you there. I'm just saying Dev created downtime is also relevant. Maybe you agree as well and we were simply not communicating properly haha.
Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms. So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.
That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played.
Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well sandbox is both not clearly defined and very overused term nowadays.
Good example are i.e. Assasin Creed games which are often casually called sandboxes and there is basically nothing sandboxy about them.
The term sandbox is clearly defined, it's just that people on this site have a tendency to use it to mean whatever they want it to mean, rather than what it actually does.
Well it's not just this forum. It's quite widespread and not only amongst players but also amongst gaming media and video game developers and publishers.
The same way the term INNOVATION is tossed around.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by AxehiltOriginally posted by LoktofeitStrangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms. So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played.
Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.
The problem is (and while not created by WOW it certainly intensified it) GOALS. What are the goals of people in an MMO?
To obtain 'stuff'? That s probably the biggest one. What kinds of stuff? That gets a little more convoluted. But for the most part it gear, armor and weapons, or a fancy mount or a plot of land (if the game has it). Then a house (if the game has it). Then what? Money/wealth?
What is causing most MMO in general and not just sandbox types. is the lack of imagination of the players laying them. Rift is a good example. Pretty themepark but the dimensions aspect is as sandbox as it gets. Yes its instanced but some of the instances are huge.
People can clamor for sandbox all they want but the vast majority of people playing MMOs/Moba/interactive games want some direction. Why? because they lack imagination and a sense of adventure. If they dont have a life line to follow then they dont know what to do.
Fallen Earth had the right concept but was also still pretty themey. Have a system in place to hunt for points or skills or whatever. Not mandatory and not overly powerful (have available whatever more than the ap you can use) that way it allows people to pick and choose a direction to go and things to do. Which in turn (hopefully) opens them up to other things that arent developed but are available.
If you dropped people into a HUGE world with nothing around them and said "go do something" 99% of them would quit before they found something to do. Even if there was a huge city or point of interest a 10 minute in game walk away from where they were dropped. Because they might run into something that distracts them (which is the whole idea of a 'sandbox' game) and after an hour or two of doing that (sandbox) they get 'bored' because they havent found that or any point of interest (that may now be 20-30 minutes away) but still there they just need to find it. And claim (even after 2 hours of doing something) there 'isnt anything to do" "there are no cities" "there isnt anything that interests me".
So its primarily the 'fault' of the players rather than the developers. Because these developers COULD make huge worlds but why spend the money if people are going to quit because they cant have their hands held or actually have to spend time looking around to open the world up.
What is causing most MMO in general and not just sandbox types. is the lack of imagination of the players laying them. Rift is a good example. Pretty themepark but the dimensions aspect is as sandbox as it gets. Yes its instanced but some of the instances are huge.
There might be something to that. Or at least something along the lines of "how one leverages their imagination".
I have a friend who just couldn't get into skyrim because he said that without a quest running throughout he was hopeless. Sure there is a main quest but if all one is going to do is the main quest then I would almost say the game wouldn't be worth it.
He much preferred a game such as "Dishonored" which was a linear game that led you from x to y to z.
For me, just like in my first Elder Scrolls game (no matter whether one wants to call them sandbox or not) I was taken in by the beginning bit in Morrowind where it said something to the effect of "there is a tavern on the left, otherwise you are on your own good luck!"
That was the most amazing thing for me to see back then.
And for me there was a certain delight just making my way through the world and finding/experiencing things as they came.
So I think part of it is the "why" people are playing games and how different types of content is experienced by different people.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I already agree with you there. I'm just saying Dev created downtime is also relevant. Maybe you agree as well and we were simply not communicating properly haha.
Not sure what you mean by "relevant", but when downtime is both significant and mandatory, it's bad design. Basically every design element in a game should justify it's own presence, and the majority of mandatory long downtimes fail to do so, or their goals can be accomplished in another way.
For example, EVE's player-driven economy could still be possible if NPC drones could be tasked to transport all goods and perform all mining. You'd only have a limited number of them and they'd have limited capacity, so your ability as a player to move things around the game world would be about the same. But you'd be freed up to engage in more interesting activities. Meanwhile it also doesn't shut down the possibility of assigning NPC guards to your convoy with actual ships. You could even let players jump to the convoy to take over one of the guards, should the convoy come under attack. You'd achieve all of the key bits of gameplay without the long mandatory downtime that characterizes the game. In fact the game would be more sandbox-like (more player-controlled) than ever.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by FoomerangI already agree with you there. I'm just saying Dev created downtime is also relevant. Maybe you agree as well and we were simply not communicating properly haha.
Not sure what you mean by "relevant", but when downtime is both significant and mandatory, it's bad design. Basically every design element in a game should justify it's own presence, and the majority of mandatory long downtimes fail to do so, or their goals can be accomplished in another way.
For example, EVE's player-driven economy could still be possible if NPC drones could be tasked to transport all goods and perform all mining. You'd only have a limited number of them and they'd have limited capacity, so your ability as a player to move things around the game world would be about the same. But you'd be freed up to engage in more interesting activities. Meanwhile it also doesn't shut down the possibility of assigning NPC guards to your convoy with actual ships. You could even let players jump to the convoy to take over one of the guards, should the convoy come under attack. You'd achieve all of the key bits of gameplay without the long mandatory downtime that characterizes the game. In fact the game would be more sandbox-like (more player-controlled) than ever.
That's an interesting point. But I think there are possible adverse effects that you are not taking into account. For instance, if CCP did what you proposed with mining, then the value of those materials would diminish, which would ripple the economy and could diminish the overall value of ammo, ships, etc. Which would ultimately impact the risk vs reward cornerstone of that game. If you could mine without a personal time investment, then there would be no incentive not to mine constantly.
Bit if you have to choose to spend actual game time escorting those resources, it creates value. Similar to how a low drop rate increases an item's monetary value, so does time spent acquiring an item.
Originally posted by LoktofeitStrangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms. So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played.
Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.
Hook happens. I did learn some things though heh
Yeah as long as people don't get swept up discussing bad ideas, and focus on interesting conversation instead, a thread can be a success in spite of a lousy OP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Downtime was a term defined in forums like this to describe Elements of gameplay that people don't like- games don't have 'downtime'. E.g walking in a rpg, flying between star systems etc. what they really mean is 'I don't enjoy or get why people like this'. They don't understand that not all people need A constant steam of activities and exciting choices to have fun. As somebody mentioned earlier, it's not downtime, it's simply games that provide different paces to their game, and in doing so provide context, e.g if everything is fast, what's fast?
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
The main reason we see smallish sandbox worlds is economics. We're only now getting to the point where procedural generation can produce interesting terrain and architecture. (How many procedurally generated waterfalls and castles have you seen in existing sandboxes?) Hopefully the next generation of MMO's (Crowfall, EQ:N) will address this.
If a sandbox world feels too sparsely populated, that's a flaw in the game design not terrain size. If you include infrastructure projects that are expensive to make but highly rewarding, such as roads, aqueducts, factories, mines, temples, you'll see players cluster together out of self-interest. Another lever is to make crafting more interdependent and travel more expensive.
Virtually limitless procedural terrain is a great boon to gameplay because it allows every player to be an explorer when he chooses to be, and it allows for a frontier to exist where defeated guilds can retreat to when driven out of a major population center.
I wanted to point out that "sandbox" means different things when referring to single player games vs. MMOs.
In a single player game it usually refers to how many different "ways to play" there are to achieve one's goals. (ie, I can shape the sand into whatever I want).
In an MMO, "sandbox" usually refers to how much the user can affect the shared experience. (ie, there's only one pile of sand, and anyone can shape it).
While I would love an "infinite terrain" sandbox, I don't think it's appropriate to bash ArcheAge over it's limited housing space. ArcheAge has a hand-built world with exotic cities, etc. It's shooting for a particular artistic look and random spawl just doesn't fit that. Furthermore the housing market is designed into the game.
For unlimited terrain and housing you need player-generated towns and cities IMHO.
Eve fans: ok, Eve is cool. But this isn't about empty space and random sci-fi debris. It's easy to create procedural proto-blasmaphoobangs, very very hard to create believable earthlike conditions.
That's an interesting point. But I think there are possible adverse effects that you are not taking into account. For instance, if CCP did what you proposed with mining, then the value of those materials would diminish, which would ripple the economy and could diminish the overall value of ammo, ships, etc. Which would ultimately impact the risk vs reward cornerstone of that game. If you could mine without a personal time investment, then there would be no incentive not to mine constantly.
Bit if you have to choose to spend actual game time escorting those resources, it creates value. Similar to how a low drop rate increases an item's monetary value, so does time spent acquiring an item.
I don't think CCP would or should do this with EVE. Players despise change. Realistically this is an idea for a new economy-focused virtual world type game. It's just easier to suggest it as a change to EVE since EVE is precisely the type of game which would benefit from that type of feature (whereas follower-missions in SWTOR and WOW aren't really hooked into the core game loop, and so they're inevitably a lot flatter than they'd otherwise be...and of course they're abstract, while these automated miner/transport bots I'm talking about would exist at actual locations in the game world.)
Value is created by scarcity. Time is one way of creating scarcity. Being forced to do something manually is one way of having time create scarcity. And finally, being forced to do something boring manually is only one way to do that.
So there are really a ton of possibilities for how to create the scarcity that drives value, and only one (possibly the worst one) involves being forced to manually do something boring. If automated miners were the only way to mine and they mined 5% as fast as a player, you can quickly see how with the right settings this system increases the value of ore (even though everyone is mining.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Axehilt I don't think CCP would or should do this with EVE. Players despise change. Realistically this is an idea for a new economy-focused virtual world type game. It's just easier to suggest it as a change to EVE since EVE is precisely the type of game which would benefit from that type of feature (whereas follower-missions in SWTOR and WOW aren't really hooked into the core game loop, and so they're inevitably a lot flatter than they'd otherwise be...and of course they're abstract, while these automated miner/transport bots I'm talking about would exist at actual locations in the game world.)Value is created by scarcity. Time is one way of creating scarcity. Being forced to do something manually is one way of having time create scarcity. And finally, being forced to do something boring manually is only one way to do that.So there are really a ton of possibilities for how to create the scarcity that drives value, and only one (possibly the worst one) involves being forced to manually do something boring. If automated miners were the only way to mine and they mined 5% as fast as a player, you can quickly see how with the right settings this system increases the value of ore (even though everyone is mining.)
That would definitely work. And I agree, I do not want to engage in a boring activity. Hard to define boring except we can agree that sometimes being forced to do basically nothing can be boring.
Also something to consider is the overall game aesthetic you are going for. So lets create scarcity without mandatory downtime. We can make a drop rate very low. This might make a particular dungeon become popular and ran by many players to get a rare item. Side effect would be a surplus of all other common items in that dungeon. We could create scarcity by increasing difficulty. But that would create exclusivity that may or may not be wanted. With time based scarcity, you can control the flow of said item entering the game space while also including players who have the time but not the skill to be an effective participant. So now we come to the term boring again. For me at least, my boredom wildly varies on my mood. Sometimes, the same activity can be boring or stimulating at different scales of my own emotional status. I guess in the end all I can really get behind is that forced uptime or downtime, or forced anything is not great game design. Given the opportunity to choose between activities which could fit whatever mood i am in seems to be the best (for me at least)
Strangely enough, for the first five or six months that's exactly how it was for my son and I. I think it was because we play - and gain rewards/progression - not just in the current zone but in any previous zone that we enjoyed. There was one day that we cycled through the same four events over and over for about an hour or so. That could obviously get repetitive after a while, but we usually like to end play sessions on a high note rather than play til we're bored.
Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms. So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.
That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played.
Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.
Nah, I have typed 3 replies that have been lost to BSOD and two browser crashes.
I wasn't really thinking about EVE as its more space sim. And I was talking about MMORPG's(forget this is an all inclusive site now). I was thinking more along the lines of UO, Shadowbane, Mortal Online, Archeage and etc. where you're player base either can fill the entire world with houses or small enough that a whole world/server can be dominated by one group. That's how I define small basically. Those seem like things that are basic requisite for those type of MMORPGs.
Originally posted by sunandshadow Sandboxes that are too big for their population feel desolate and dead, something I've encountered in at least 3 games so far. What sandboxes actually should be is auto-expanding, starting small and getting bigger only as needed.
Asheron's Call had one of the largest worlds in online gaming, something akin to 15km X 15km and yet it had one of the lowest population bases in the genre and at no time did it ever feel like it was desolate or dead.
When you force your players to group or endgame is comprised of grouping then such a feeling may exist but when soloing is just as rewarding as grouping the game feels better when you have areas to play without others around and yet it wasn't uncommon for groups to be formed for XP reasons.
When you restrict endgame to a few zones and dungeons and when your entire player base sits in a Capitol City waiting on queues then it may feel vibrant and alive but I assure you that the 15million WoW players have no impact on the rest of the worlds feeling of desolation. Almost any zone in WoW feels just as desolate as any other zone in any other game. The trick for developers is to create spaces and worlds that feel alive not with the amount of players in them but the flora, fauna and content in them.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Originally posted by sunandshadow Sandboxes that are too big for their population feel desolate and dead, something I've encountered in at least 3 games so far. What sandboxes actually should be is auto-expanding, starting small and getting bigger only as needed.
Asheron's Call had one of the largest worlds in online gaming, something akin to 15km X 15km and yet it had one of the lowest population bases in the genre and at no time did it ever feel like it was desolate or dead.
When you force your players to group or endgame is comprised of grouping then such a feeling may exist but when soloing is just as rewarding as grouping the game feels better when you have areas to play without others around and yet it wasn't uncommon for groups to be formed for XP reasons.
When you restrict endgame to a few zones and dungeons and when your entire player base sits in a Capitol City waiting on queues then it may feel vibrant and alive but I assure you that the 15million WoW players have no impact on the rest of the worlds feeling of desolation. Almost any zone in WoW feels just as desolate as any other zone in any other game. The trick for developers is to create spaces and worlds that feel alive not with the amount of players in them but the flora, fauna and content in them.
Most themepark worlds are designed to be throw aways on purpose or not... its just how they are. Developers prize streamlined quest hub experience over real world design. Quest hubs with vast vertical progression levels always will mature and leave old zones and dungeons empty. In a game like World of Warcraft its a shame the beautiful world they design goes mostly unoccupied.
That would definitely work. And I agree, I do not want to engage in a boring activity. Hard to define boring except we can agree that sometimes being forced to do basically nothing can be boring.
Also something to consider is the overall game aesthetic you are going for. So lets create scarcity without mandatory downtime. We can make a drop rate very low. This might make a particular dungeon become popular and ran by many players to get a rare item. Side effect would be a surplus of all other common items in that dungeon. We could create scarcity by increasing difficulty. But that would create exclusivity that may or may not be wanted. With time based scarcity, you can control the flow of said item entering the game space while also including players who have the time but not the skill to be an effective participant. So now we come to the term boring again. For me at least, my boredom wildly varies on my mood. Sometimes, the same activity can be boring or stimulating at different scales of my own emotional status. I guess in the end all I can really get behind is that forced uptime or downtime, or forced anything is not great game design. Given the opportunity to choose between activities which could fit whatever mood i am in seems to be the best (for me at least)
Definitely a big fan of things which are scarce because they're challenging to farm.
And yeah, in the end it's really just about letting players choose what kind of fun they have inside your game. If you don't, players are just going to make the same choice outside your game. (ie choosing not to play your game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
The only hyperbole I see is your abuse of the word every time someone shares a view which differs from your own. There is Dev created downtime which enhances a games overall experience. Why is that some outlandish concept to you? From cleverly disguised loading screens to long travel times, a deliberate lull in action created by a game designer is a smart way to add weight and presence to a game.
Because the technology is not in place for a real sandbox yet? Until you can make the world react to the players you don't really have a sandbox and no game has a world that reacts to players. Even Eve isn't a real sandbox, it just has a lot of sandbox elements to it. Eve gives players a lot of freedom to do what they want but the universe itself is stagnant for the most part.
Right, but you still took breaks on your own terms. So while every second you wanted to be engaged was engaging, you probably still idled in town just messing around, from time to time when the mood struck.
That's what I was trying to get at with the other poster.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played.
Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The same way the term INNOVATION is tossed around.
Good point. Yeah, that pretty much describes how we played.
Since the OP hasn't returned at all, and since the question was so patently ridiculous, I get the feeling we all just got 'hooked'.
Hook happens. I did learn some things though heh
The problem is (and while not created by WOW it certainly intensified it) GOALS. What are the goals of people in an MMO?
To obtain 'stuff'? That s probably the biggest one. What kinds of stuff? That gets a little more convoluted. But for the most part it gear, armor and weapons, or a fancy mount or a plot of land (if the game has it). Then a house (if the game has it). Then what? Money/wealth?
What is causing most MMO in general and not just sandbox types. is the lack of imagination of the players laying them. Rift is a good example. Pretty themepark but the dimensions aspect is as sandbox as it gets. Yes its instanced but some of the instances are huge.
People can clamor for sandbox all they want but the vast majority of people playing MMOs/Moba/interactive games want some direction. Why? because they lack imagination and a sense of adventure. If they dont have a life line to follow then they dont know what to do.
Fallen Earth had the right concept but was also still pretty themey. Have a system in place to hunt for points or skills or whatever. Not mandatory and not overly powerful (have available whatever more than the ap you can use) that way it allows people to pick and choose a direction to go and things to do. Which in turn (hopefully) opens them up to other things that arent developed but are available.
If you dropped people into a HUGE world with nothing around them and said "go do something" 99% of them would quit before they found something to do. Even if there was a huge city or point of interest a 10 minute in game walk away from where they were dropped. Because they might run into something that distracts them (which is the whole idea of a 'sandbox' game) and after an hour or two of doing that (sandbox) they get 'bored' because they havent found that or any point of interest (that may now be 20-30 minutes away) but still there they just need to find it. And claim (even after 2 hours of doing something) there 'isnt anything to do" "there are no cities" "there isnt anything that interests me".
So its primarily the 'fault' of the players rather than the developers. Because these developers COULD make huge worlds but why spend the money if people are going to quit because they cant have their hands held or actually have to spend time looking around to open the world up.
There might be something to that. Or at least something along the lines of "how one leverages their imagination".
I have a friend who just couldn't get into skyrim because he said that without a quest running throughout he was hopeless. Sure there is a main quest but if all one is going to do is the main quest then I would almost say the game wouldn't be worth it.
He much preferred a game such as "Dishonored" which was a linear game that led you from x to y to z.
For me, just like in my first Elder Scrolls game (no matter whether one wants to call them sandbox or not) I was taken in by the beginning bit in Morrowind where it said something to the effect of "there is a tavern on the left, otherwise you are on your own good luck!"
That was the most amazing thing for me to see back then.
And for me there was a certain delight just making my way through the world and finding/experiencing things as they came.
So I think part of it is the "why" people are playing games and how different types of content is experienced by different people.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Not sure what you mean by "relevant", but when downtime is both significant and mandatory, it's bad design. Basically every design element in a game should justify it's own presence, and the majority of mandatory long downtimes fail to do so, or their goals can be accomplished in another way.
For example, EVE's player-driven economy could still be possible if NPC drones could be tasked to transport all goods and perform all mining. You'd only have a limited number of them and they'd have limited capacity, so your ability as a player to move things around the game world would be about the same. But you'd be freed up to engage in more interesting activities. Meanwhile it also doesn't shut down the possibility of assigning NPC guards to your convoy with actual ships. You could even let players jump to the convoy to take over one of the guards, should the convoy come under attack. You'd achieve all of the key bits of gameplay without the long mandatory downtime that characterizes the game. In fact the game would be more sandbox-like (more player-controlled) than ever.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Bit if you have to choose to spend actual game time escorting those resources, it creates value. Similar to how a low drop rate increases an item's monetary value, so does time spent acquiring an item.
Yeah as long as people don't get swept up discussing bad ideas, and focus on interesting conversation instead, a thread can be a success in spite of a lousy OP.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
yea, thought the same.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Great post OP.
The main reason we see smallish sandbox worlds is economics. We're only now getting to the point where procedural generation can produce interesting terrain and architecture. (How many procedurally generated waterfalls and castles have you seen in existing sandboxes?) Hopefully the next generation of MMO's (Crowfall, EQ:N) will address this.
If a sandbox world feels too sparsely populated, that's a flaw in the game design not terrain size. If you include infrastructure projects that are expensive to make but highly rewarding, such as roads, aqueducts, factories, mines, temples, you'll see players cluster together out of self-interest. Another lever is to make crafting more interdependent and travel more expensive.
Virtually limitless procedural terrain is a great boon to gameplay because it allows every player to be an explorer when he chooses to be, and it allows for a frontier to exist where defeated guilds can retreat to when driven out of a major population center.
I wanted to point out that "sandbox" means different things when referring to single player games vs. MMOs.
In a single player game it usually refers to how many different "ways to play" there are to achieve one's goals. (ie, I can shape the sand into whatever I want).
In an MMO, "sandbox" usually refers to how much the user can affect the shared experience. (ie, there's only one pile of sand, and anyone can shape it).
While I would love an "infinite terrain" sandbox, I don't think it's appropriate to bash ArcheAge over it's limited housing space. ArcheAge has a hand-built world with exotic cities, etc. It's shooting for a particular artistic look and random spawl just doesn't fit that. Furthermore the housing market is designed into the game.
For unlimited terrain and housing you need player-generated towns and cities IMHO.
Eve fans: ok, Eve is cool. But this isn't about empty space and random sci-fi debris. It's easy to create procedural proto-blasmaphoobangs, very very hard to create believable earthlike conditions.
I don't think CCP would or should do this with EVE. Players despise change. Realistically this is an idea for a new economy-focused virtual world type game. It's just easier to suggest it as a change to EVE since EVE is precisely the type of game which would benefit from that type of feature (whereas follower-missions in SWTOR and WOW aren't really hooked into the core game loop, and so they're inevitably a lot flatter than they'd otherwise be...and of course they're abstract, while these automated miner/transport bots I'm talking about would exist at actual locations in the game world.)
Value is created by scarcity. Time is one way of creating scarcity. Being forced to do something manually is one way of having time create scarcity. And finally, being forced to do something boring manually is only one way to do that.
So there are really a ton of possibilities for how to create the scarcity that drives value, and only one (possibly the worst one) involves being forced to manually do something boring. If automated miners were the only way to mine and they mined 5% as fast as a player, you can quickly see how with the right settings this system increases the value of ore (even though everyone is mining.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That would definitely work. And I agree, I do not want to engage in a boring activity. Hard to define boring except we can agree that sometimes being forced to do basically nothing can be boring.
Also something to consider is the overall game aesthetic you are going for. So lets create scarcity without mandatory downtime. We can make a drop rate very low. This might make a particular dungeon become popular and ran by many players to get a rare item. Side effect would be a surplus of all other common items in that dungeon.
We could create scarcity by increasing difficulty. But that would create exclusivity that may or may not be wanted.
With time based scarcity, you can control the flow of said item entering the game space while also including players who have the time but not the skill to be an effective participant.
So now we come to the term boring again. For me at least, my boredom wildly varies on my mood. Sometimes, the same activity can be boring or stimulating at different scales of my own emotional status.
I guess in the end all I can really get behind is that forced uptime or downtime, or forced anything is not great game design. Given the opportunity to choose between activities which could fit whatever mood i am in seems to be the best (for me at least)
Nah, I have typed 3 replies that have been lost to BSOD and two browser crashes.
I wasn't really thinking about EVE as its more space sim. And I was talking about MMORPG's(forget this is an all inclusive site now). I was thinking more along the lines of UO, Shadowbane, Mortal Online, Archeage and etc. where you're player base either can fill the entire world with houses or small enough that a whole world/server can be dominated by one group. That's how I define small basically. Those seem like things that are basic requisite for those type of MMORPGs.
Asheron's Call had one of the largest worlds in online gaming, something akin to 15km X 15km and yet it had one of the lowest population bases in the genre and at no time did it ever feel like it was desolate or dead.
When you force your players to group or endgame is comprised of grouping then such a feeling may exist but when soloing is just as rewarding as grouping the game feels better when you have areas to play without others around and yet it wasn't uncommon for groups to be formed for XP reasons.
When you restrict endgame to a few zones and dungeons and when your entire player base sits in a Capitol City waiting on queues then it may feel vibrant and alive but I assure you that the 15million WoW players have no impact on the rest of the worlds feeling of desolation. Almost any zone in WoW feels just as desolate as any other zone in any other game. The trick for developers is to create spaces and worlds that feel alive not with the amount of players in them but the flora, fauna and content in them.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Most themepark worlds are designed to be throw aways on purpose or not... its just how they are. Developers prize streamlined quest hub experience over real world design. Quest hubs with vast vertical progression levels always will mature and leave old zones and dungeons empty. In a game like World of Warcraft its a shame the beautiful world they design goes mostly unoccupied.
Definitely a big fan of things which are scarce because they're challenging to farm.
And yeah, in the end it's really just about letting players choose what kind of fun they have inside your game. If you don't, players are just going to make the same choice outside your game. (ie choosing not to play your game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver