Originally posted by TheeLord Simple Q, What is your most wanted feature in a sandbox MMO? What other games have you played and wish they had xyz feature?
For me there are 2 primary things a Sandbox game MUST have.
This assumes that the game as a whole is otherwise well made.
1) A real Justice System. Allowing PKers to run around rampant killing players just drives non-PKers (even many PvPers) out. This has been seen in every Sandbox game to even make it out into an actual game, and has killed many before they even started. This system has to make PKing ((outside of PvP in the form of warfare, racial conflict, or (something I'd love to see) faction enemies)) a punishable offense that carries real punishment enough to cause players to think twice before just PKing others.
2) Small power gaps. You cannot have a world with "freedom" if you have large power gaps in character development. I'm not saying there shouldn't be areas that are to powerful for characters of lowly skill advancement. I'm saying that there should never be areas that players simply cannot enter without dying. A newbie should be able to play along with fully advanced player characters, even if said newbie needs a lot of help in doing so. Players cannot be divided by "level ranges" if you want a world that actually has "freedom".
Other than that, you want a world with many features (not all "Sandbox") to make it interesting, exciting, and fun.
Housing, trade, lore, mystery, exploration and discovery, worldly interaction (players really need to reach out and touch the world in many ways). You really need a lot of things for a world to be worth playing in, and staying in.
Love the way you think!!
I didn't realize you had a game you were making. Nor that you have "factions". I blow through here and post on a whim at times, not really paying attention to details like that.
So I went to your site and I'll go back. But I'm not clear yet on your PvP thinking.
Also, your "factions" and my "factions" aren't the same thing. My idea is like a religious cult guild that has a permanent enemy in opposing religious cults. Set up as a guild that tags themselves as worshippers of a deity, that comes along with an enemy deity and enemies in the form of any guild that chooses that opposing deity.
And then a game can do the same with other sorts of guild allegiances too. Think "corporate competitors" here. Also assassins vs. contract target's associates and allies.
I think "contracts" can come with both allies and antagonists. But that's just an idea I haven't thought out, but could be interesting for PvP sanctions in a world with a justice system.
Edit to add: So basically a large city could have opposing sanctioned "warfare" among it's deity cults or corporate opponents. But said city also has laws against attacking (even among these). But in the dark of the night....
1- Your justice system sounds very familiar to the afterlife system we will have in Factions. Basically killing unprovoked, killing someone multiple times, looting player items, breaking laws or doing other nefarious acts will lower your morality rating. When you die with a low morality rating, you will be penalized much harsher then those who die with high morality (though everyone will face a substantial base death penalty).
my Factions are basically player nations, groups, or groups of monsters / NPCs, can ally, war, trade, negotiate with other factions all through built-in systems. Never assumed your ideas were the same, but I love your thoughts on giving players a REASON to play, and a reason to use all of the freedom they are given, which I agree some sandbox games lack.
It doesnt really matter what we want, the problem is what we dont want and thats full loot PVP.....I like the theory of a sandbox MMO, I jsut have never seen one that didnt force PVP on us and it ruined the game......I think SWG was teh only one I remember that didnt have full loot PVP in it.
Originally posted by TheeLord Simple Q, What is your most wanted feature in a sandbox MMO? What other games have you played and wish they had xyz feature?
For me there are 2 primary things a Sandbox game MUST have.
This assumes that the game as a whole is otherwise well made.
1) A real Justice System. Allowing PKers to run around rampant killing players just drives non-PKers (even many PvPers) out. This has been seen in every Sandbox game to even make it out into an actual game, and has killed many before they even started. This system has to make PKing ((outside of PvP in the form of warfare, racial conflict, or (something I'd love to see) faction enemies)) a punishable offense that carries real punishment enough to cause players to think twice before just PKing others.
2) Small power gaps. You cannot have a world with "freedom" if you have large power gaps in character development. I'm not saying there shouldn't be areas that are to powerful for characters of lowly skill advancement. I'm saying that there should never be areas that players simply cannot enter without dying. A newbie should be able to play along with fully advanced player characters, even if said newbie needs a lot of help in doing so. Players cannot be divided by "level ranges" if you want a world that actually has "freedom".
Other than that, you want a world with many features (not all "Sandbox") to make it interesting, exciting, and fun.
Housing, trade, lore, mystery, exploration and discovery, worldly interaction (players really need to reach out and touch the world in many ways). You really need a lot of things for a world to be worth playing in, and staying in.
Love the way you think!!
I didn't realize you had a game you were making. Nor that you have "factions". I blow through here and post on a whim at times, not really paying attention to details like that.
So I went to your site and I'll go back. But I'm not clear yet on your PvP thinking.
Also, your "factions" and my "factions" aren't the same thing. My idea is like a religious cult guild that has a permanent enemy in opposing religious cults. Set up as a guild that tags themselves as worshippers of a deity, that comes along with an enemy deity and enemies in the form of any guild that chooses that opposing deity.
And then a game can do the same with other sorts of guild allegiances too. Think "corporate competitors" here. Also assassins vs. contract target's associates and allies.
I think "contracts" can come with both allies and antagonists. But that's just an idea I haven't thought out, but could be interesting for PvP sanctions in a world with a justice system.
Edit to add: So basically a large city could have opposing sanctioned "warfare" among it's deity cults or corporate opponents. But said city also has laws against attacking (even among these). But in the dark of the night....
1- Your justice system sounds very familiar to the afterlife system we will have in Factions. Basically killing unprovoked, killing someone multiple times, looting player items, breaking laws or doing other nefarious acts will lower your morality rating. When you die with a low morality rating, you will be penalized much harsher then those who die with high morality (though everyone will face a substantial base death penalty).
my Factions are basically player nations, groups, or groups of monsters / NPCs, can ally, war, trade, negotiate with other factions all through built-in systems. Never assumed your ideas were the same, but I love your thoughts on giving players a REASON to play, and a reason to use all of the freedom they are given, which I agree some sandbox games lack.
This is very interesting.
Yeah, "reasons to play" are as important to a Sandbox as quest hubs are to Themepark games. I did see your post over there on this exact topic and I guess that carried over in my thoughts here. And they basically perform the same function as quest hubs minus the predesigned direction. This can be just as much fun, but so much more meaningful, and memorable.
I don't think any game has reached MMO potential on "memorable" yet. I don't think most gamers or developers have quite grasped this potential. People have to see it, I think.
Originally posted by Theocritus It doesnt really matter what we want, the problem is what we dont want and thats full loot PVP.....I like the theory of a sandbox MMO, I jsut have never seen one that didnt force PVP on us and it ruined the game......I think SWG was teh only one I remember that didnt have full loot PVP in it.
Well, I think if players see that they are destroying their characters by PKing and looting, they won't do it.
Which brings up another question. Shouldn't looting add to the punishment of PKing? (I see that's included in his description.)
Outside of sanctioned combat, that is (or maybe not?). And by sanctioned I mean things that players join knowing full well they are entering into a PvP mode that's PvP+ against certain enemies.
I like the number of sandboxes coming out allowing players to create servers with specific rulesets. This lets those who enjoy FFA PvP, full loot, permadeath to have a server where they can play with like-minded people. This allows people who enjoy ganking to be with other people who enjoy ganking. Happiness. They get to gank each other and everyone wins. This also allows people who like to play without being ganked to create servers with, miraculously, no ganking. Happiness. For all.
Daybreak Games(Formerly Sony Online Entertainment) created 2 games that had a Perma Death feature. In Star Wars Galaxies when the Jedi Class was first released it had a Perma Death feature in it. But because people complained about it, it was increased to 1 death a day, then 1 death a week, then 1 death a month, then in the Combat Upgrade Patch(which in my opinion was the first sign the game was dying) they removed the death rule from the Jedi Class. Then they went on to create a MMO which had a Perma Death system titled Wizardry Online. Because no one played it last year SOE shut it down with several other MMOs that no one played(Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Wizardry Online, FreeRealms, and Star Wars the Clone Wars{well this game was shut down because EA was given sole proprietary over all video games that involve Star Wars}). Yet even still I see people demand the developers create a server that has Perma Death on it. To you and them I will say this. You had your chance to play a game with Perma Death and you ignored it and it was shut down.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
I like the number of sandboxes coming out allowing players to create servers with specific rulesets. This lets those who enjoy FFA PvP, full loot, permadeath to have a server where they can play with like-minded people. This allows people who enjoy ganking to be with other people who enjoy ganking. Happiness. They get to gank each other and everyone wins. This also allows people who like to play without being ganked to create servers with, miraculously, no ganking. Happiness. For all.
You can't gank someone expecting a fight and you can't gank someone who wants to be ganked.
Ganking only occurs against someone not expecting it and not wishing it. That's ganking, it is by definition a violation. If the victim agreed or isn't an easy kill then it's just a fight, not a gank. Gankers aren't having fun if their victim is also.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
On a side note: Personally I won't use the term Sandbox. I call it the "S" word :-)
I have my own theories on it. But in discussions I see a wide range in definitions, often so extreme in absolutes it's to the point of being absurd.
Territory control player-driven activity with no developer storyline on one side, to free roaming non-linear adventure game with tons of developer provided storyline.
I've studied how this difference came about. If you want a brief synopsis, I'll share.
EDIT: btw, beautiful screens !!!
Thanks, been at it for many years, we are finally getting somewhat close to limited closed testing. It also confuses me, it seems that most mature MMO gamers have one definition of sandbox games (the one I share for the most part) and then newer players have a very different view of the term "sandbox". Unfortunately no one has come up with better terminology to describe these.
I think I can explain the duality of definition. I guarantee you know this, but maybe you haven't seen it explained this way. I've been asking for clear definitions for years (I'm Autistic so I have problems with language) and nobody could ever explain it to me. That's why I started researching it.
Terminology varies by context. If everyone understands the word as it is being used, there's no problem.
When 2 different groups have 2 different definitions, and those 2 groups overlap, a condition exists that I call definition collision.
Group 1: Consolers - Sandbox - Free roaming SP adventure - MORROWIND <--- a widely known point of reference
Group 2: MMORPG Players - Sandbox - multiplayer virtual world simulation - ULTIMA ONLINE <--- point of reference
2 completely different games, and hence 2 completely different definitions.
The problem is that some people *cough* insist that there is one definition and try to force the two together, which cannot work. Extremists on the UO side want a full simulation. Extremists on the Morrowind side think WoW is "The Sandbox version of Warcraft III" <----- this is an actual quote from here on the forum.
This is why the UO people and the Morrowind people hold such different perspectives.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
You seem to think activities like dancing can be fun without living in constant fear of being kicked in the shins if you fail to do it correctly.
Sandbox players know best: it's penalties that make games fun, and dancing or combat couldn't be enjoyable without the looming threat of painful, scarring punishment.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You seem to think activities like dancing can be fun without living in constant fear of being kicked in the shins if you fail to do it correctly.
Sandbox players know best: it's penalties that make games fun, and dancing or combat couldn't be enjoyable without the looming threat of painful, scarring punishment.
lol... At first when I read this I was like wtf is this guy talking about. But.... the more I think about it, it's quite a great thought. Variety of available activies, and quality of those activities is what (for many people) makes the opposite activities more enjoyable. You can't fully enjoy the warmth of summer unless you've been stuck inside for months during winter... Otherwise it's just another hot day..
Originally posted by Theocritus It doesnt really matter what we want, the problem is what we dont want and thats full loot PVP.....I like the theory of a sandbox MMO, I jsut have never seen one that didnt force PVP on us and it ruined the game......I think SWG was teh only one I remember that didnt have full loot PVP in it.
Well, I think if players see that they are destroying their characters by PKing and looting, they won't do it.
Which brings up another question. Shouldn't looting add to the punishment of PKing? (I see that's included in his description.)
Outside of sanctioned combat, that is (or maybe not?). And by sanctioned I mean things that players join knowing full well they are entering into a PvP mode that's PvP+ against certain enemies.
We plan to "sanction" combat by factions using a declaration of war. But even then, doing things like killing the same person multiple times will lower your morality level.
lol... At first when I read this I was like wtf is this guy talking about. But.... the more I think about it, it's quite a great thought. Variety of available activies, and quality of those activities is what (for many people) makes the opposite activities more enjoyable. You can't fully enjoy the warmth of summer unless you've been stuck inside for months during winter... Otherwise it's just another hot day..
Your life must be amazing for you to seek your lows from a videogame.
You should write a book!
For the rest of us, there are enough low points everywhere else that we don't need to also seek that out in our games. We want to spend our time facing interesting, varied challenges, not experiencing painful punishment. If you look across all the greatest and most successful games of all time, virtually none of them are characterized by a fixation on punishment.
The low points happen automatically, unless you also think your gaming experiences are 100% amazing every single moment. They're not. There are boring sections. There are times where you fail challenges. So don't worry about enforcing the lows, they're going to happen either way.
"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 laokoko "if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
Originally posted by alloin open world pvp, full loot, building (with claims & defenses), crafting & permadeath
That's 5 features, like almost everyone else that responded to this thread.
My #1 feature that would get me to play a sandbox MMO? If it had FFA pvp, would be some type of strict justice system. If you chose to kill other players, that's fine. But there needs to be some kickback for it. A reputation system, where you kill PC's and you lose permanent rep, lose enough rep and you become KOS to all NPC's. Add in the ability to put out a bounty system like SWG had, and you have a pretty nice justice system.
In a non FFA PvP sandbox, my #1 would have to be a large number of non-combat activities that actually had real benefit to my character. Give me a real reason to need to hang out in bars/cantinas/etc. Something like entertainer from SWG, but taken to the next level. Because, lets be honest, in swg we all just went afk in cantinas to get the buffs. Make the non-combat activities entertaining, highly interactive, and social.
You seem to think activities like dancing can be fun without living in constant fear of being kicked in the shins if you fail to do it correctly.
Sandbox players know best: it's penalties that make games fun, and dancing or combat couldn't be enjoyable without the looming threat of painful, scarring punishment.
What's the matter? Did a Dungeon Master not give you a re-roll once? Are you scarred for life now?
Easy to gather resources and spend wealth on multitude of options. Hire npcs, building castles etc
Solo player can build empire over time considering how easy it is to gather resoucres.
A system that allows players to grow exponentially would mean there is a group that eventually wins and conquers everyting through allainces and a server is reset eventually. Think similar to civilizations and how there are different ways to win through dipomacy, trade and brute force. Maybe a commerative reward among other rewards for being conquerors.
Have in game systems to make each new race to conquering dynamic with npc alingments, different events etc
Destructible houses
Player created content such as 'tower denfese; mini games, house creating, music creating, dungeon creating, arena creating etc
Gambling
Gore, blood and decapitation - not necessary but there is a lack of this niche with a mature themed mmo with gambling
NPC movement and dynamic systems - reiterating this since it really is that big of a deal and a system large enough worth its own mention
mini games - gambling, pvp arena tournaments, racing
mounted combat
At this point, the game is plentiful in mechanics that even story is not important in a single player sense.
Open world raids/dungeons
day/night cycle
good and fun combat - and balanced pvp for duels among different classes
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Nope, been in production for like 6 years (4 ppl working on it), but now we're finally months away from making our first publicity push.
Very cool. Good luck!
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
what i mean by that is not necessarily activities that don't involve combat but activities where combat is just one option; once you have this then you unlock the opportunity to have a lot of non-combat abilities like: charm, social skills, stealth, speed, pacification etc.
for example delivering a message to an npc at the top of an undead tower a player could fight their way to the top if they wanted to or depending on what non-combat skills they picked they might climb up the outside, use a levitate spell, stealth or invisibility, bribery, pacify, disguise etc
Easy to gather resources and spend wealth on multitude of options. Hire npcs, building castles etc
Solo player can build empire over time considering how easy it is to gather resoucres.
A system that allows players to grow exponentially would mean there is a group that eventually wins and conquers everyting through allainces and a server is reset eventually. Think similar to civilizations and how there are different ways to win through dipomacy, trade and brute force. Maybe a commerative reward among other rewards for being conquerors.
Have in game systems to make each new race to conquering dynamic with npc alingments, different events etc
Destructible houses
Player created content such as 'tower denfese; mini games, house creating, music creating, dungeon creating, arena creating etc
Gambling
Gore, blood and decapitation - not necessary but there is a lack of this niche with a mature themed mmo with gambling
NPC movement and dynamic systems - reiterating this since it really is that big of a deal and a system large enough worth its own mention
mini games - gambling, pvp arena tournaments, racing
mounted combat
At this point, the game is plentiful in mechanics that even story is not important in a single player sense.
Open world raids/dungeons
day/night cycle
good and fun combat - and balanced pvp for duels among different classes
Thanks for your input, on a side note, do you realize you mentioned gambling no less then 4 times in that single post? There are groups that can help you
There are a couple of things that pop in mind right away...
1 : A true sandbox experience , not the hybrid sand/theme park junk that is popping up.
2 : A non-leveled based system..for example a skill based system like UO has. Would stop alot of "end game" talk.
Oh and a fair cash shop system...because obviously there are many broke people out there to pay for a monthly mmo....so obviously it's going to be a f2p mmo.
This says it all, which I agree, and yet nothing specific. We all could have a different view of what "fun" is in an MMO, even in something more specific as a sandbox. Heck, we can't even all agree on what in total makes a sandbox MMO. What I got from the quote, without putting words into Axehilt's mouth, is that instituting too many, or too harsh, punishments is not fun for some but rather not succeeding itself is punishment enough. The content can still be difficult and exciting without harsh penalties for failure and I think that was the point.
As far as the football analogy I think that has to do, again, with preferences. Collaboration can be just as fulfilling to some as competition and can depend on game types. I myself love PvP in mediums made specifically for it (MOBAs, battlegrounds, etc.) but would rather it be optional in open world MMOs. I know for some OWPvP is mandatory for enjoyment which I respect and am glad there are options out there for everyone.
Most of us are normal people with normal life. We do not play MMO games to hide from some misery. We play games for fun - that means no grind, entertaining and challenging gameplay, competition and cooperation with other players. The risk to fail is funny, it makes the game entertaining. Challenges and competition are funny. Grind is boring. What will be football if both teams win? Absolutely idiotic game. Please keep your misery for yourself.
Right, and as normal people it's understood that things don't have to go out of their way to deliver punishment in order to have that contrast and variation.
Playing games for fun is at odds with playing games to experience excessive pain. A pursuit of fun is normal. A pursuit of pain is masochism.
We're not talking about removing failure: In Football, one team loses. That's where it ends. When you lose there is not some additional punishment where you lose 10% of your material assets to the other team.
So Football is a perfect example of a game having only as much penalty as is necessary, and no more. Anything more is masochism.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
1- Your justice system sounds very familiar to the afterlife system we will have in Factions. Basically killing unprovoked, killing someone multiple times, looting player items, breaking laws or doing other nefarious acts will lower your morality rating. When you die with a low morality rating, you will be penalized much harsher then those who die with high morality (though everyone will face a substantial base death penalty).
my Factions are basically player nations, groups, or groups of monsters / NPCs, can ally, war, trade, negotiate with other factions all through built-in systems. Never assumed your ideas were the same, but I love your thoughts on giving players a REASON to play, and a reason to use all of the freedom they are given, which I agree some sandbox games lack.
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
This is very interesting.
Yeah, "reasons to play" are as important to a Sandbox as quest hubs are to Themepark games. I did see your post over there on this exact topic and I guess that carried over in my thoughts here. And they basically perform the same function as quest hubs minus the predesigned direction. This can be just as much fun, but so much more meaningful, and memorable.
I don't think any game has reached MMO potential on "memorable" yet. I don't think most gamers or developers have quite grasped this potential. People have to see it, I think.
Once upon a time....
Well, I think if players see that they are destroying their characters by PKing and looting, they won't do it.
Which brings up another question. Shouldn't looting add to the punishment of PKing? (I see that's included in his description.)
Outside of sanctioned combat, that is (or maybe not?). And by sanctioned I mean things that players join knowing full well they are entering into a PvP mode that's PvP+ against certain enemies.
Once upon a time....
Too much talk of death and looting.
Where is the fishing?
Where is the music and dancing? Like in lotro, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vklGBq_94YM
I'd love it. Sometimes I just want to relax for some social fun. Every game should have this stuff.
But I'm not sure we can expect that from an Indie unless it releases and does very well. It's certainly in my dream game though.
Once upon a time....
Definitely fishing. Animal breeding as well.
I like the number of sandboxes coming out allowing players to create servers with specific rulesets. This lets those who enjoy FFA PvP, full loot, permadeath to have a server where they can play with like-minded people. This allows people who enjoy ganking to be with other people who enjoy ganking. Happiness. They get to gank each other and everyone wins. This also allows people who like to play without being ganked to create servers with, miraculously, no ganking. Happiness. For all.
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
Daybreak Games(Formerly Sony Online Entertainment) created 2 games that had a Perma Death feature. In Star Wars Galaxies when the Jedi Class was first released it had a Perma Death feature in it. But because people complained about it, it was increased to 1 death a day, then 1 death a week, then 1 death a month, then in the Combat Upgrade Patch(which in my opinion was the first sign the game was dying) they removed the death rule from the Jedi Class. Then they went on to create a MMO which had a Perma Death system titled Wizardry Online. Because no one played it last year SOE shut it down with several other MMOs that no one played(Vanguard Saga of Heroes, Wizardry Online, FreeRealms, and Star Wars the Clone Wars{well this game was shut down because EA was given sole proprietary over all video games that involve Star Wars}). Yet even still I see people demand the developers create a server that has Perma Death on it. To you and them I will say this. You had your chance to play a game with Perma Death and you ignored it and it was shut down.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
You can't gank someone expecting a fight and you can't gank someone who wants to be ganked.
Ganking only occurs against someone not expecting it and not wishing it. That's ganking, it is by definition a violation. If the victim agreed or isn't an easy kill then it's just a fight, not a gank. Gankers aren't having fun if their victim is also.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I think I can explain the duality of definition. I guarantee you know this, but maybe you haven't seen it explained this way. I've been asking for clear definitions for years (I'm Autistic so I have problems with language) and nobody could ever explain it to me. That's why I started researching it.
Terminology varies by context. If everyone understands the word as it is being used, there's no problem.
When 2 different groups have 2 different definitions, and those 2 groups overlap, a condition exists that I call definition collision.
Group 1: Consolers - Sandbox - Free roaming SP adventure - MORROWIND <--- a widely known point of reference
Group 2: MMORPG Players - Sandbox - multiplayer virtual world simulation - ULTIMA ONLINE <--- point of reference
2 completely different games, and hence 2 completely different definitions.
The problem is that some people *cough* insist that there is one definition and try to force the two together, which cannot work. Extremists on the UO side want a full simulation. Extremists on the Morrowind side think WoW is "The Sandbox version of Warcraft III" <----- this is an actual quote from here on the forum.
This is why the UO people and the Morrowind people hold such different perspectives.
You seem to think activities like dancing can be fun without living in constant fear of being kicked in the shins if you fail to do it correctly.
Sandbox players know best: it's penalties that make games fun, and dancing or combat couldn't be enjoyable without the looming threat of painful, scarring punishment.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
lol... At first when I read this I was like wtf is this guy talking about. But.... the more I think about it, it's quite a great thought. Variety of available activies, and quality of those activities is what (for many people) makes the opposite activities more enjoyable. You can't fully enjoy the warmth of summer unless you've been stuck inside for months during winter... Otherwise it's just another hot day..
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
We plan to "sanction" combat by factions using a declaration of war. But even then, doing things like killing the same person multiple times will lower your morality level.
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
Your life must be amazing for you to seek your lows from a videogame.
You should write a book!
For the rest of us, there are enough low points everywhere else that we don't need to also seek that out in our games. We want to spend our time facing interesting, varied challenges, not experiencing painful punishment. If you look across all the greatest and most successful games of all time, virtually none of them are characterized by a fixation on punishment.
The low points happen automatically, unless you also think your gaming experiences are 100% amazing every single moment. They're not. There are boring sections. There are times where you fail challenges. So don't worry about enforcing the lows, they're going to happen either way.
"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 laokoko
"if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
That's 5 features, like almost everyone else that responded to this thread.
My #1 feature that would get me to play a sandbox MMO? If it had FFA pvp, would be some type of strict justice system. If you chose to kill other players, that's fine. But there needs to be some kickback for it. A reputation system, where you kill PC's and you lose permanent rep, lose enough rep and you become KOS to all NPC's. Add in the ability to put out a bounty system like SWG had, and you have a pretty nice justice system.
In a non FFA PvP sandbox, my #1 would have to be a large number of non-combat activities that actually had real benefit to my character. Give me a real reason to need to hang out in bars/cantinas/etc. Something like entertainer from SWG, but taken to the next level. Because, lets be honest, in swg we all just went afk in cantinas to get the buffs. Make the non-combat activities entertaining, highly interactive, and social.
What's the matter? Did a Dungeon Master not give you a re-roll once? Are you scarred for life now?
Once upon a time....
Easy to gather resources and spend wealth on multitude of options. Hire npcs, building castles etc
Solo player can build empire over time considering how easy it is to gather resoucres.
A system that allows players to grow exponentially would mean there is a group that eventually wins and conquers everyting through allainces and a server is reset eventually. Think similar to civilizations and how there are different ways to win through dipomacy, trade and brute force. Maybe a commerative reward among other rewards for being conquerors.
Have in game systems to make each new race to conquering dynamic with npc alingments, different events etc
Destructible houses
Player created content such as 'tower denfese; mini games, house creating, music creating, dungeon creating, arena creating etc
Gambling
Gore, blood and decapitation - not necessary but there is a lack of this niche with a mature themed mmo with gambling
NPC movement and dynamic systems - reiterating this since it really is that big of a deal and a system large enough worth its own mention
mini games - gambling, pvp arena tournaments, racing
mounted combat
At this point, the game is plentiful in mechanics that even story is not important in a single player sense.
Open world raids/dungeons
day/night cycle
good and fun combat - and balanced pvp for duels among different classes
Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble
Very cool. Good luck!
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
one single thing: non-combat options
what i mean by that is not necessarily activities that don't involve combat but activities where combat is just one option; once you have this then you unlock the opportunity to have a lot of non-combat abilities like: charm, social skills, stealth, speed, pacification etc.
for example delivering a message to an npc at the top of an undead tower a player could fight their way to the top if they wanted to or depending on what non-combat skills they picked they might climb up the outside, use a levitate spell, stealth or invisibility, bribery, pacify, disguise etc
Thanks for your input, on a side note, do you realize you mentioned gambling no less then 4 times in that single post? There are groups that can help you
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
There are a couple of things that pop in mind right away...
1 : A true sandbox experience , not the hybrid sand/theme park junk that is popping up.
2 : A non-leveled based system..for example a skill based system like UO has. Would stop alot of "end game" talk.
Oh and a fair cash shop system...because obviously there are many broke people out there to pay for a monthly mmo....so obviously it's going to be a f2p mmo.
This says it all, which I agree, and yet nothing specific. We all could have a different view of what "fun" is in an MMO, even in something more specific as a sandbox. Heck, we can't even all agree on what in total makes a sandbox MMO. What I got from the quote, without putting words into Axehilt's mouth, is that instituting too many, or too harsh, punishments is not fun for some but rather not succeeding itself is punishment enough. The content can still be difficult and exciting without harsh penalties for failure and I think that was the point.
As far as the football analogy I think that has to do, again, with preferences. Collaboration can be just as fulfilling to some as competition and can depend on game types. I myself love PvP in mediums made specifically for it (MOBAs, battlegrounds, etc.) but would rather it be optional in open world MMOs. I know for some OWPvP is mandatory for enjoyment which I respect and am glad there are options out there for everyone.
Right, and as normal people it's understood that things don't have to go out of their way to deliver punishment in order to have that contrast and variation.
Playing games for fun is at odds with playing games to experience excessive pain. A pursuit of fun is normal. A pursuit of pain is masochism.
We're not talking about removing failure: In Football, one team loses. That's where it ends. When you lose there is not some additional punishment where you lose 10% of your material assets to the other team.
So Football is a perfect example of a game having only as much penalty as is necessary, and no more. Anything more is masochism.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver