Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by jramsay61

this thread absolutely sucks now. qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

 

 

 

 

True. I keep reading obvious BS, saying I said "this and that" (like VG was more linear than FE -never said that. I actually said it has more restricted classes, which is true). Somehow I'm not surprised my argument has been distorted again....

If that's the way some folks "argue", there is no point to continue.

DB

 

This is totally irrellevant to the OP, but I can't help but reply. You said that Vanguard has more restrictive classes than FE. However, what you don't recognize is that Vanguard offers many classes, which covers almost every playstyle. In FE, you assign AP and call what you've come up with a build. There's only so many viable builds in FE, that you can make, and still be able to successfully play the game. Those builds, could be renamed classes, and you'd have less than Vanguard offers. So regardless if Vanguard pigeon holes you into classes, Vanguard still offers more variety of playstyles than FE does.

Ok, I highlighted the 2 things in your text that classify the compulsive achiever gamer mindset, who can only imagine to have everything "maxed out". Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand that, and by no means would I say any kind of playing is better or worse - the point is, having alts in a game will in NO way make a single 1 character more freeform, if it has 1 or 2 restricted classes.
 

It is like saying: EVE crafting/mining is soo freeform, and offline skill learning is soo cool, I wish we had it in a fantasy game. Your reply above means would say: we can't, but for that, you can play WOW :)

Hope you get my point...

DB

Originally posted by jramsay61

 

per nate: do rephrase my original question, does FE share more similarities with wow, or darkfall?

1) World Design:FE is closer to Darkfall. There are no barriers around, no sudden zone transition, there's a wasteland all around you and the only barrier are the radiation and huge cliffs around the gamezone area. Game world is huge and pretty much free and open.

2) Gameplay: FE is closer to WoW PvE server: You can't get ganked in FE. There are PvP areas but you can avoid them. PvP areas contain better harvesting nodes and if you capture the town, you spawn NPC's of your faction that give you missions for solid rewars. Apart from that, FE is a progression from level 1 to level cap. The game system promotes you to do missions instead of grind. Missions do precious AP rewards (AP = points you spend to improve skills - you can see them as talents in WoW). Darkfall gameplay is completely different.

3) Graphics: FE is closer to Darkfall. It's rather realistic, very minimalistic and mainly empty. There are a few instances in FE, but they have a reasonable use and doesn't really interfere with playing.

4) Crafting: None of the above. FE has crafting queue system. You just set up what you want to craft and you can do whatever you like. Majority of the items takes 1-15 minutes to make, but compicated things like vehicles can take days.

5) Character Building: In the middle. FE does not have classes, but have levels. Yuo improve your skills directly with APs. Unfortunately, skills are capped by your level - probably to avoid min-maxing, nevertheless it reduces the possible builds. When you click on a mob, you can see its power - same goes with other players in PvP zone.

6) Interaction with world: Closer to WoW. Everything outside of PvP areas is immovable, unmodable. You can't destroy anything, you can't kill mission NPCs or other players, you can't build and place anything. In PvP zones, you can capture a town that will spawn the NPCs of your faction as I already mentioned.

What else do you wanna know?

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by nate1980

 

This is totally irrellevant to the OP, but I can't help but reply. You said that Vanguard has more restrictive classes than FE. However, what you don't recognize is that Vanguard offers many classes, which covers almost every playstyle. In FE, you assign AP and call what you've come up with a build. There's only so many viable builds in FE, that you can make, and still be able to successfully play the game. Those builds, could be renamed classes, and you'd have less than Vanguard offers. So regardless if Vanguard pigeon holes you into classes, Vanguard still offers more variety of playstyles than FE does.

Ok, I highlighted the 2 things in your text that classify the compulsive achiever gamer mindset, who can only imagine to have everything "maxed out". Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand that, and by no means would I say any kind of playing is better or worse - the point is, having alts in a game will in NO way make a single 1 character more freeform, if it has 1 or 2 restricted classes.
 

It is like saying: EVE crafting/mining is soo freeform, and offline skill learning is soo cool, I wish we had it in a fantasy game. Your reply above means would say: we can't, but for that, you can play WOW :)

Hope you get my point...

DB

Nonsense, nonsense. You said you played Vanguard but this post of yours doesn't show that.

In Vanguard you put points you get every 25% of your level to your attributes. Even as a sorcerer, you can max out your strength and try to melee things. Want to compare the amount of builds this way? You can gimp yourself in Vanguard just like you can in FE. We're talking about playable builds and combinations.

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by nate1980

 

This is totally irrellevant to the OP, but I can't help but reply. You said that Vanguard has more restrictive classes than FE. However, what you don't recognize is that Vanguard offers many classes, which covers almost every playstyle. In FE, you assign AP and call what you've come up with a build. There's only so many viable builds in FE, that you can make, and still be able to successfully play the game. Those builds, could be renamed classes, and you'd have less than Vanguard offers. So regardless if Vanguard pigeon holes you into classes, Vanguard still offers more variety of playstyles than FE does.

Ok, I highlighted the 2 things in your text that classify the compulsive achiever gamer mindset, who can only imagine to have everything "maxed out". Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand that, and by no means would I say any kind of playing is better or worse - the point is, having alts in a game will in NO way make a single 1 character more freeform, if it has 1 or 2 restricted classes.
 

It is like saying: EVE crafting/mining is soo freeform, and offline skill learning is soo cool, I wish we had it in a fantasy game. Your reply above means would say: we can't, but for that, you can play WOW :)

Hope you get my point...

DB

 

Nonsense, nonsense. You said you played Vanguard but this post of yours doesn't show that.

In Vanguard you put points you get every 25% of your level to your attributes. Even as a sorcerer, you can max out your strength and try to melee things. Want to compare the amount of builds this way? You can gimp yourself in Vanguard just like you can in FE. We're talking about playable builds and combinations.

I only played VG for the first month, as it was completely void of players.... I just listed it as it's a game with fixed classes.
 

Can any class wear all kinds of armor, use every item in game, and learn every type of spell in VG (given it has the required attributes?)

DB

Edit: BTW: you will never understand me, as "gimped" is not even a term I comprehend. I did and would never care about my skill setup in WOW, never cared much about traits in LOTRO, and never planned my skills to learn in EVE. I do what I feel like to in a game, and this is why FE is nice for me at the moment.

As I said before, I have no issues for those looking for the "ultimate build" in every game - it's their fun. I'm just happy that there are still games where that's totally not necessary for having fun.

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by nate1980

 

This is totally irrellevant to the OP, but I can't help but reply. You said that Vanguard has more restrictive classes than FE. However, what you don't recognize is that Vanguard offers many classes, which covers almost every playstyle. In FE, you assign AP and call what you've come up with a build. There's only so many viable builds in FE, that you can make, and still be able to successfully play the game. Those builds, could be renamed classes, and you'd have less than Vanguard offers. So regardless if Vanguard pigeon holes you into classes, Vanguard still offers more variety of playstyles than FE does.

Ok, I highlighted the 2 things in your text that classify the compulsive achiever gamer mindset, who can only imagine to have everything "maxed out". Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand that, and by no means would I say any kind of playing is better or worse - the point is, having alts in a game will in NO way make a single 1 character more freeform, if it has 1 or 2 restricted classes.
 

It is like saying: EVE crafting/mining is soo freeform, and offline skill learning is soo cool, I wish we had it in a fantasy game. Your reply above means would say: we can't, but for that, you can play WOW :)

Hope you get my point...

DB

 

Nonsense, nonsense. You said you played Vanguard but this post of yours doesn't show that.

In Vanguard you put points you get every 25% of your level to your attributes. Even as a sorcerer, you can max out your strength and try to melee things. Want to compare the amount of builds this way? You can gimp yourself in Vanguard just like you can in FE. We're talking about playable builds and combinations.

I only played VG for the first month, as it was completely void of players.... I just listed it as it's a game with fixed classes.
 

Can any class wear all kinds of armor, use every item in game, and learn every type of spell in VG (given it has the required attributes?)

DB

Actually, all the classes tend to wear different armor in Vanguard. In FE, everyone, no matter what build they are, wears the best armor with the best stats. Everyone in FE can use everything, but since 99% is less than optimal, you find everyone wearing the EXACT same thing in the endgame. Itemization is absolutely horrible in FE. It's one of the major drawbacks IMO.

And everyone has an OPTION to learn every "spell" in FE. But once they chose to go with a build, they are not going to learn ALL of the "spells". Just like a druid is not going to learn a spell that a sorcerer does.

Originally posted by jramsay61

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by jramsay61

this thread absolutely sucks now. qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

 

 

 

 

Alright then, let's refocus. What exactly is your question, and why are you asking it? Be precise.

Your first question, which started the thread, was whether or not FE was a sandbox game. Obviously, this question is hard to answer, since there's no official definition of sandbox and there are multiple unofficial definitions that vary enough to be controversial. This is where knowing the purpose of the question is needed. If the purpose of your question is to help you decide if the game allows enough choice to satisfy you, then you're asking the wrong questions.

 

per nate: do rephrase my original question, does FE share more similarities with wow, or darkfall?

I have played WoW and done end-game. I have not played Darkfall, but have read up on it, because I REALLY wanted to play that game. So with that said, my information is as reliable as any first hand observation combined with second hand knowledge can be.

Character Progression - FE falls in the middle of these two games. FE allows you to pick and choose which skills to focus on, but requires you to spend AP to advance those skills. You get some AP naturally as you play the game (killing, gathering, crafting), but you also get AP from quests, so many people feel you HAVE to do all quests to ensure you have enough AP. This is especially a requirement for people who mess up their point allocations, and need more points to cover the mistakes. People CAN pick and choose which skills to put AP into, thus giving the illusion of freedom of choice, BUT you will gimp yourself if you don't plan ahead and choose proven builds. Builds are both suggested through a drop down menu on the skills page, such as CHOTA and Rifleman build, but are also player invented. If you compare the amount of different and viable builds, the game is more restrictive playstyle-wise, than WoW.

Adventuring- In WoW, the most viable way to progress is to adventure by way of quests and/or dungeons. PvP is a lesser, but possible alternative. Grinding is in no way a good way of adventuring, although it gives a completely non-linear feel to the game. In Darkfall, it sounds as though you're able to go where you want, but you may get ganked by higher skilled mobs. I really couldn't tell you. In FE, the best way to adventure is through quests, which there are many quest hubs all over the map. There's no one telling you which hub to to do first or to do all of one hub and none of the others. So you're given less direction concerning which quests should be done when, except for the level of the quest. There are more quests available than you need to level up, but many people were doing all of the quests out there, regardless if they were below their level, because they granted AP. However, the world is huge and you can travel for miles exploring the world as you see fit. Just remember that you will need to go back and do those quests if you want to maximize your AP, which in turn allows you to create a better or more varied build.

Crafting - You gather materials from nodes found throught the land, like in WoW, you then click on the recipe to make the item, and wait in "real time" as the item is made. Aside from the real time part, the game isn't much different than WoW in that department. Well, there is the fact that you make practically everything you wear and use, versus WoW, where you can craft everythign you use, use quest rewards, or what you loot from mobs and dungeons.

Any other questions? Something I missed? I only speak of what I know (or think I know). Otherwise I'll just tell you I don't know and why I don't know. I won't pretend to know something I don't.

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Thillian

Your argument wasn't distorted, It was a couple of times, last one from you was saying I compared VG in terms of gameplay to FE, which I never did., a because you said no argument yet. Very mature... :) And no, saying everything in FE is optional (Distort #2: I never said that) or that you can sell things on auction so its player driven economy (selling things in auction IS player-driven economy, be strong...it's just not true for the whole game yet.) is not an argument. Fact is, S2, S3 faction towns have vendors that sell 95% of all the stuff you need to gather. (This is why it's only partially player-driven yet, and I have agreed on this many times. Maybe read my posts for a change.) Their price does not meet player demand and is fixed. (no, it's not. Only if everyone would always use the vendor for everything, and would not even gather. Argument is flawed.)Hence, there is no player driven economy. The economy as a whole is not, but there is already player influence. 95% of the supply is not taking demand into any sort of consideration.  That's a guess, that might and might not be true.

Fact is if you skip missions, you miss out 30% of your character progression (I heard that it's 20%, if you mean AP, but see my other comment on that) .So it's like Lotro with cap level 60, where you could only grind up to level 42, and the rest you had to quest because grinding wouldnt give you any XP at all. (ok, getting out of arguments, so need to bring up other games, got it. No, in Lotro you needed to kill anything between 200-350 of same level mobs per level to grind. Of course, it was boring. Nobody argues that LOTRO is a questers game though, so not sure what the point is.  Saying its optional is ridiculous. Ridiculous, or not, it's true. It's not an argument. Nope, it's a fact, you're right. :) Because obviously, everything is optional everywhere. And that is exactly the point of every game! Optional to play, and optional to do everything or nothing. IF you feel compelled/obliged to have all the AP, it's your choice to quest grind. it's a question of mindset.

Re-read your post again when you listed a couple of games being more linear than FE which included Vanguard.

 

 

Again, I only said VG has restricted classes, while FE has freeform class build.. maybe this time you get it :D Never mentioned gameplay comparison.

DB

wow, you managed to contradict yourself again in the same post.
 

You never said everything in FE is optional, yet your last sentence said "And that is exactly the point of every game! Optional to play, and optional to do everything or nothing"

It is optional to level up in Lotro, you can stay level 1 and run around naked in Bree as I previously told you. Everything is optional everywhere. So if someone criticizes FE that getting AP's from missions makes it mission driven is valid. To tell him that "well its optional" is not a valid counter-argument. It's not argument at all.

When I compared the AP mission with Lotro. With AP missions you get 1180 APs, without around 820. Which means you lose these 30% from your power. In lotro, let's say cap level is 60. (1180 AP). You could only reach level 42 (820 AP) by grinding and the remaining 18 levels (360 AP) you only could get by questing. So it would force you if you want to enjoy the content you paid for to do quests, just like FE forces you to do missions - hence - character progression is MISSION DRIVEN.

You didn't say its not player driven economy. In fact, from the very early posts of yours you kept saying it is player based and I can quote you many times. Then when you realized, that the supply does not meet the demand in the game (because supply is infinite - represented by fixed vendors with fixed prices), it means its obviously not player driven, you suddently changed it to "partially player driven"

Originally posted by colddog

 

Actually, all the classes tend to wear different armor in Vanguard. In FE, everyone, no matter what build they are, wears the best armor with the best stats. Everyone in FE can use everything, but since 99% is less than optimal, you find everyone wearing the EXACT same thing in the endgame. Itemization is absolutely horrible in FE. It's one of the major drawbacks IMO.

 

And everyone has an OPTION to learn every "spell" in FE. But once they chose to go with a build, they are not going to learn ALL of the "spells". Just like a druid is not going to learn a spell that a sorcerer does.

Well, I could wear level 90 armor, but so far I am still wearing a level 45 one, with worse stats, because better armor gimps my coordination, which is an important skill. Still, it is MY decision , and not the game saying "samurai-only", for that armor.

I think we were discussing freedom here....

DB

What a thread..

Just so we can prove that FE is not a sandbox, not a hybrid, but a full fledge Theme park mmorpg like WoW and LotRO.

For starters.. If you remove the level progression (1 to 45) and give rewards like AP over experience for level progression. Now do we have a FE Full blown sandbox in FE? Do we need players to build cities to confirm this has sandbox elements?

I know as of right now, you cannot buy vehicles like motorcycles, dune buggies, and interceptors in the game in which they need to be crafted by players. And what about the upcoming camps / homes or gun turrets that need to be made by players.

Anyways this game reminds me of Anarchy Online and that too was a old debate about AO being a sort of Sandbox type mmo as well. (AO hase a huge world to explore, complexity in the gameplay a deep storyline and you can  build your own cities).

I believe if anything that can be built by players or destroyed by players in a persisent gameworld, classifys some sort of sandbox type element. But this is strictly my opinion as well.

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by nate1980

 

This is totally irrellevant to the OP, but I can't help but reply. You said that Vanguard has more restrictive classes than FE. However, what you don't recognize is that Vanguard offers many classes, which covers almost every playstyle. In FE, you assign AP and call what you've come up with a build. There's only so many viable builds in FE, that you can make, and still be able to successfully play the game. Those builds, could be renamed classes, and you'd have less than Vanguard offers. So regardless if Vanguard pigeon holes you into classes, Vanguard still offers more variety of playstyles than FE does.

Ok, I highlighted the 2 things in your text that classify the compulsive achiever gamer mindset, who can only imagine to have everything "maxed out". Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand that, and by no means would I say any kind of playing is better or worse - the point is, having alts in a game will in NO way make a single 1 character more freeform, if it has 1 or 2 restricted classes.
 

It is like saying: EVE crafting/mining is soo freeform, and offline skill learning is soo cool, I wish we had it in a fantasy game. Your reply above means would say: we can't, but for that, you can play WOW :)

Hope you get my point...

DB

 

Nonsense, nonsense. You said you played Vanguard but this post of yours doesn't show that.

In Vanguard you put points you get every 25% of your level to your attributes. Even as a sorcerer, you can max out your strength and try to melee things. Want to compare the amount of builds this way? You can gimp yourself in Vanguard just like you can in FE. We're talking about playable builds and combinations.

I only played VG for the first month, as it was completely void of players.... I just listed it as it's a game with fixed classes.
 

Can any class wear all kinds of armor, use every item in game, and learn every type of spell in VG (given it has the required attributes?)

DB

Edit: BTW: you will never understand me, as "gimped" is not even a term I comprehend. I did and would never care about my skill setup in WOW, never cared much about traits in LOTRO, and never planned my skills to learn in EVE. I do what I feel like to in a game, and this is why FE is nice for me at the moment.

As I said before, I have no issues for those looking for the "ultimate build" in every game - it's their fun. I'm just happy that there are still games where that's totally not necessary for having fun.

I don't care about the ultimate build either. What anyone who plays a game should care about is being effective ENOUGH to play the game. Gimp is when you are not effective enough to kill things you should be able to kill.

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

What a thread..

Just so we can prove that FE is not a sandbox, not a hybrid, but a full fledge Theme park mmorpg like WoW and LotRO.

For starters.. If you remove the level progression (1 to 45) and give rewards like AP over experience for level progression. Now do we have a FE Full blown sandbox in FE? Do we need players to build cities to confirm this has sandbox elements?

I know as of right now, you cannot buy vehicles like motorcycles, dune buggies, and interceptors in the game in which they need to be crafted by players. And what about the upcoming camps / homes or gun turrets that need to be made by players.

Anyways this game reminds me of Anarchy Online and that too was a old debate about AO being a sort of Sandbox type mmo as well. (AO hase a huge world to explore, complexity in the gameplay a deep storyline and you can  build your own cities).

I believe if anything that can be built by players or destroyed by players in a persisent gameworld, classifys some sort of sandbox type element. But this is strictly my opinion as well.

 

 

 

Those vehicles, motorcycles and dune buggies are all made with vendor mats. That is why it is not a player driven economy.

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by colddog

 

Actually, all the classes tend to wear different armor in Vanguard. In FE, everyone, no matter what build they are, wears the best armor with the best stats. Everyone in FE can use everything, but since 99% is less than optimal, you find everyone wearing the EXACT same thing in the endgame. Itemization is absolutely horrible in FE. It's one of the major drawbacks IMO.

 

And everyone has an OPTION to learn every "spell" in FE. But once they chose to go with a build, they are not going to learn ALL of the "spells". Just like a druid is not going to learn a spell that a sorcerer does.

 

Well, I could wear level 90 armor, but so far I am still wearing a level 45 one, with worse stats, because better armor gimps my coordination, which is an important skill. Still, it is MY decision , and not the game saying "samurai-only", for that armor.

I think we were discussing freedom here....

DB

Yeah... you can do that in every other theme park MMO ever made.

"I don't like the way my armor looks. I'm going to wear something worse and underperform because there is not enough blue coloring on that piece of armor. And I want to look BLUE!!"

Yes, in almost every MMO, you can do this. It does not equal freedom. And it's just so silly to think that it does.

Originally posted by colddog

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

What a thread..

Just so we can prove that FE is not a sandbox, not a hybrid, but a full fledge Theme park mmorpg like WoW and LotRO.

For starters.. If you remove the level progression (1 to 45) and give rewards like AP over experience for level progression. Now do we have a FE Full blown sandbox in FE? Do we need players to build cities to confirm this has sandbox elements?

I know as of right now, you cannot buy vehicles like motorcycles, dune buggies, and interceptors in the game in which they need to be crafted by players. And what about the upcoming camps / homes or gun turrets that need to be made by players.

Anyways this game reminds me of Anarchy Online and that too was a old debate about AO being a sort of Sandbox type mmo as well. (AO hase a huge world to explore, complexity in the gameplay a deep storyline and you can  build your own cities).

I believe if anything that can be built by players or destroyed by players in a persisent gameworld, classifys some sort of sandbox type element. But this is strictly my opinion as well.

 

 

 

 

Those vehicles, motorcycles and dune buggies are all made with vendor mats. That is why it is not a player driven economy.

Time=money, and it takes a long time to build those higher end vehicles. A lot of people aren't going to have the patience or correct skills to make them. And if they want those vehicles, they are going to have to bite the bullet and pay what ever the hell the crafter puts them up on the AH for. Sure a crafter can buy mats from a merchant or AH, but they can also scavenge them to increase profits. Besides not every merchant sells every mat at every town. There is a convenience factor as well. To dismiss the economy as completely not player driven is incorrect. You seem to be looking at the whole thing from just one angle.

Originally posted by colddog

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

What a thread..

Just so we can prove that FE is not a sandbox, not a hybrid, but a full fledge Theme park mmorpg like WoW and LotRO.

For starters.. If you remove the level progression (1 to 45) and give rewards like AP over experience for level progression. Now do we have a FE Full blown sandbox in FE? Do we need players to build cities to confirm this has sandbox elements?

I know as of right now, you cannot buy vehicles like motorcycles, dune buggies, and interceptors in the game in which they need to be crafted by players. And what about the upcoming camps / homes or gun turrets that need to be made by players.

Anyways this game reminds me of Anarchy Online and that too was a old debate about AO being a sort of Sandbox type mmo as well. (AO hase a huge world to explore, complexity in the gameplay a deep storyline and you can  build your own cities).

I believe if anything that can be built by players or destroyed by players in a persisent gameworld, classifys some sort of sandbox type element. But this is strictly my opinion as well.

 

 

 

 

Those vehicles, motorcycles and dune buggies can all be made with vendor mats. That is why it is not a player driven economy.

there fixed  for ya

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by Thillian

Your argument wasn't distorted, It was a couple of times, last one from you was saying I compared VG in terms of gameplay to FE, which I never did., a because you said no argument yet. Very mature... :) And no, saying everything in FE is optional (Distort #2: I never said that) or that you can sell things on auction so its player driven economy (selling things in auction IS player-driven economy, be strong...it's just not true for the whole game yet.) is not an argument. Fact is, S2, S3 faction towns have vendors that sell 95% of all the stuff you need to gather. (This is why it's only partially player-driven yet, and I have agreed on this many times. Maybe read my posts for a change.) Their price does not meet player demand and is fixed. (no, it's not. Only if everyone would always use the vendor for everything, and would not even gather. Argument is flawed.)Hence, there is no player driven economy. The economy as a whole is not, but there is already player influence. 95% of the supply is not taking demand into any sort of consideration.  That's a guess, that might and might not be true.

Fact is if you skip missions, you miss out 30% of your character progression (I heard that it's 20%, if you mean AP, but see my other comment on that) .So it's like Lotro with cap level 60, where you could only grind up to level 42, and the rest you had to quest because grinding wouldnt give you any XP at all. (ok, getting out of arguments, so need to bring up other games, got it. No, in Lotro you needed to kill anything between 200-350 of same level mobs per level to grind. Of course, it was boring. Nobody argues that LOTRO is a questers game though, so not sure what the point is.  Saying its optional is ridiculous. Ridiculous, or not, it's true. It's not an argument. Nope, it's a fact, you're right. :) Because obviously, everything is optional everywhere. And that is exactly the point of every game! Optional to play, and optional to do everything or nothing. IF you feel compelled/obliged to have all the AP, it's your choice to quest grind. it's a question of mindset.

Re-read your post again when you listed a couple of games being more linear than FE which included Vanguard.

 

 

Again, I only said VG has restricted classes, while FE has freeform class build.. maybe this time you get it :D Never mentioned gameplay comparison.

DB

wow, you managed to contradict yourself again in the same post.
 

You never said everything in FE is optional, yet your last sentence said "And that is exactly the point of every game! Optional to play, and optional to do everything or nothing" Yes, and it IS true on the basic level. However, I have also said, that character development IS essential. I kind of assumed everyone gets it.... sorry. We were discussing the ways/methods of advancement here, as well as gamepley-

It is optional to level up in Lotro, you can stay level 1 and run around naked in Bree as I previously told you. Everything is optional everywhere. So if someone criticizes FE that getting AP's from missions makes it mission driven is valid. To tell him that "well its optional" is not a valid counter-argument. It's not argument at all. No, the option is to decide, which way you wish to progress. Missions/grind/crafting/skill learning.... what else is there? How do you advance in a true sandbox? Is there one? Yes, that's was mind point in an earlier post: there are only so many ways to progress in any game. In your definition an MMo would not set ANY predefined ways for advancement, is that what you are saying? How would that be possible? It really fascinates me. Nice try with LOTRO on derailing the topic, but won't work, sorry :)

When I compared the AP mission with Lotro. With AP missions you get 1180 APs, without around 820. Which means you lose these 30% from your power. In lotro, let's say cap level is 60. (1180 AP). You could only reach level 42 (820 AP) by grinding and the remaining 18 levels (360 AP) you only could get by questing. So it would force you if you want to enjoy the content you paid for to do quests, just like FE forces you to do missions - hence - character progression is MISSION INFLUENCED AS WELL. (fixed it for you :) Totally flawed, as usual. In Lotro, you only advance through XP. In FE XP = AP, plus the AP you get from missions. I said a million times, will say it again, know you won't get it, but still: you DO NOT need all the AP in FE to play. You ONLY need it, when you feel you would be gimped otherwise. That's in the mindset, again. You can level your toon in FE to cap with no missions, that's the main flaw here.

And I'm not even touching the future level cap extension..... a true sandbox should never put a barrier on character development, would you agree? So no skill/level caps, and no AP caps are designed. Which means, missions can be totally left out, since there will ultimately be no longerm level cap :D Oh well, bad news for the rush-to-max-to-gank-in-PVP kids its bad news :D

You didn't say its not player driven economy. In fact, from the very early posts of yours you kept saying it is player based and I can quote you many times. Then when you realized, that the supply does not meet the demand in the game (because supply is infinite - represented by fixed vendors with fixed prices), it means its obviously not player driven, you suddently changed it to "partially player driven"

Ok, then please go and check back my very first comment in this topic. Got it? Now think again.

Yeah, I said exactly: player driven economy is NOT THERE YET.

Please stop your dirty tricks of influencing non-commenting readers of this topic, this is a low I will not go down to :)

Or you might simply try reading other people's comments.

These insertions are just there for you to think. Now at least it's clear and obvious that you are a liar, and therefore will not comment on any of your posts in the future.
 

DB

Originally posted by rodingo

Originally posted by colddog

Originally posted by HiGHPLAiNS

What a thread..

Just so we can prove that FE is not a sandbox, not a hybrid, but a full fledge Theme park mmorpg like WoW and LotRO.

For starters.. If you remove the level progression (1 to 45) and give rewards like AP over experience for level progression. Now do we have a FE Full blown sandbox in FE? Do we need players to build cities to confirm this has sandbox elements?

I know as of right now, you cannot buy vehicles like motorcycles, dune buggies, and interceptors in the game in which they need to be crafted by players. And what about the upcoming camps / homes or gun turrets that need to be made by players.

Anyways this game reminds me of Anarchy Online and that too was a old debate about AO being a sort of Sandbox type mmo as well. (AO hase a huge world to explore, complexity in the gameplay a deep storyline and you can  build your own cities).

I believe if anything that can be built by players or destroyed by players in a persisent gameworld, classifys some sort of sandbox type element. But this is strictly my opinion as well.

 

 

 

 

Those vehicles, motorcycles and dune buggies are all made with vendor mats. That is why it is not a player driven economy.

Time=money, and it takes a long time to build those higher end vehicles. A lot of people aren't going to have the patience or correct skills to make them. And if they want those vehicles, they are going to have to bite the bullet and pay what ever the hell the crafter puts them up on the AH for. Sure a crafter can buy mats from a merchant or AH, but they can also scavenge them to increase profits. Besides not every merchant sells every mat at every town. There is a convenience factor as well. To dismiss the economy as completely not player driven is incorrect. You seem to be looking at the whole thing from just one angle.

I understand what you're saying. But as time goes on and more and more people are crafting at a high level, prices will come down. The vendor mat prices will be very similar to what the price for something will be. The vendor price is the eventual price ceiling. Since people can harvest mats, the price will actually end up going lower than that price ceiling over time. But eventually it should never be over the dev price.

Perhaps there are less problems right now 1 month after release, but as this develops, price ceilings will become more and more noticeable.

Originally posted by rodingo

Originally posted by colddog

 

Those vehicles, motorcycles and dune buggies are all made with vendor mats. That is why it is not a player driven economy.

Time=money, and it takes a long time to build those higher end vehicles. A lot of people aren't going to have the patience or correct skills to make them. And if they want those vehicles, they are going to have to bite the bullet and pay what ever the hell the crafter puts them up on the AH for. Sure a crafter can buy mats from a merchant or AH, but they can also scavenge them to increase profits. Besides not every merchant sells every mat at every town. There is a convenience factor as well. To dismiss the economy as completely not player driven is incorrect. You seem to be looking at the whole thing from just one angle.

This is simply not true. Again, your definition doesn't mean anything. Every game out there has a player driven economy with your definition. Every game out there has certain items you need to craft or gather and then sell.

Player driven economy is like a free trade economy with no barriers no state interferences. In FE -> You've got supply of items obtainable from vendors that have an infinite supply and fixed price no matter what the demand is.

Yes, all that is required to have player driven economy in this game, is to remove the vendors. Let gatherers set their prices based on the availability and the demand.

And yes, every town in S2 and S3 that has an auction hall, also have all vendors selling most of the material.

Originally posted by colddog

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by colddog

 

Actually, all the classes tend to wear different armor in Vanguard. In FE, everyone, no matter what build they are, wears the best armor with the best stats. Everyone in FE can use everything, but since 99% is less than optimal, you find everyone wearing the EXACT same thing in the endgame. Itemization is absolutely horrible in FE. It's one of the major drawbacks IMO.

 

And everyone has an OPTION to learn every "spell" in FE. But once they chose to go with a build, they are not going to learn ALL of the "spells". Just like a druid is not going to learn a spell that a sorcerer does.

 

Well, I could wear level 90 armor, but so far I am still wearing a level 45 one, with worse stats, because better armor gimps my coordination, which is an important skill. Still, it is MY decision , and not the game saying "samurai-only", for that armor.

I think we were discussing freedom here....

DB

 

Yeah... you can do that in every other theme park MMO ever made.

 

"I don't like the way my armor looks. I'm going to wear something worse and underperform because there is not enough blue coloring on that piece of armor. And I want to look BLUE!!"

 

Yes, in almost every MMO, you can do this. It does not equal freedom. And it's just so silly to think that it does.

We both know, that this has nothing to do with the FACT that VG (as most themepark games lol) have class-bound armors. Even at low level.

But again, we both know if you can't argue, you can only admit or bring up another topic. Yet again :D

DB

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by colddog

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

Originally posted by colddog

 

Actually, all the classes tend to wear different armor in Vanguard. In FE, everyone, no matter what build they are, wears the best armor with the best stats. Everyone in FE can use everything, but since 99% is less than optimal, you find everyone wearing the EXACT same thing in the endgame. Itemization is absolutely horrible in FE. It's one of the major drawbacks IMO.

 

And everyone has an OPTION to learn every "spell" in FE. But once they chose to go with a build, they are not going to learn ALL of the "spells". Just like a druid is not going to learn a spell that a sorcerer does.

 

Well, I could wear level 90 armor, but so far I am still wearing a level 45 one, with worse stats, because better armor gimps my coordination, which is an important skill. Still, it is MY decision , and not the game saying "samurai-only", for that armor.

I think we were discussing freedom here....

DB

 

Yeah... you can do that in every other theme park MMO ever made.

 

"I don't like the way my armor looks. I'm going to wear something worse and underperform because there is not enough blue coloring on that piece of armor. And I want to look BLUE!!"

 

Yes, in almost every MMO, you can do this. It does not equal freedom. And it's just so silly to think that it does.

 

We both know, that this has nothing to do with the FACT that VG (as most themepark games lol) have class-bound armors. Even at low level.

But again, we both know if you can't argue, you can only admit or bring up another topic. Yet again :D

DB

wut

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 Even sandbox games have quests.  This is obviously a hybrid with the way the skill progression is, the way the non-linearity of quest options and level options, the are much more expansive then themepark games as you have a choice to take a countless amount of different roads to reach an end.

 

Most skill based sand box games are in the same avenue of linearity as any theme park level progression.  To truly make something non level based isn't to take away levels, but to take away any progression at all and base any actual world progression on player skill.  It seems to me that when you start at 1 and you end at 60 thats considered linearity... you do that in sandbox games to, so while we're defining the two genre's lets just get one thing straight.  Theme Park.  Sandbox. hardly anyone can tell the difference anymore. If its fun, play it.

qft

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by rodingo

Originally posted by colddog

 

Those vehicles, motorcycles and dune buggies are all made with vendor mats. That is why it is not a player driven economy.

Time=money, and it takes a long time to build those higher end vehicles. A lot of people aren't going to have the patience or correct skills to make them. And if they want those vehicles, they are going to have to bite the bullet and pay what ever the hell the crafter puts them up on the AH for. Sure a crafter can buy mats from a merchant or AH, but they can also scavenge them to increase profits. Besides not every merchant sells every mat at every town. There is a convenience factor as well. To dismiss the economy as completely not player driven is incorrect. You seem to be looking at the whole thing from just one angle.

 

This is simply not true. Again, your definition doesn't mean anything. Every game out there has a player driven economy with your definition. Every game out there has certain items you need to craft or gather and then sell.

Player driven economy is like a free trade economy with no barriers no state interferences. In FE -> You've got supply of items obtainable from vendors that have an infinite supply and fixed price no matter what the demand is.

Yes, all that is required to have player driven economy in this game, is to remove the vendors. Let gatherers set their prices based on the availability and the demand.

And yes, every town in S2 and S3 that has an auction hall, also have all vendors selling most of the material.

I dont think you quite understood what I said. When something takes weeks to build,..that has the tendency to effect price, which is based off of effort and time. The fact that the mats can be bought from a merchant doesn't mean squat.  It's NOT like other mmos, except for maybe EVE, where crafting a low level dagger takes about the same amount of time as a high level sword of 1000 truths. It's the time factor you are not wrapping your mind around. And like I said," time=money " which is not a term I coined so I'm sure a lot of real businessmen well tell you that the definition actually DOES mean something. So I guess you think crafters are not going to have more money than non-crafters? And if you agree with me on this, I hope you realize that the crafters made that money from time+effort. Hell even people that argue for the value of raids and the loot that comes from them well tell you it's because of time+effort. The key word there is "time".

*edit*

I will say, however, that I would also like to see mats removed from vendors. But then the prices would sky rocket for a while. Maybe the devs are just seeding the economy to get it boosted at first, which isn't neccasarily a bad thing.

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco 

 

We both know, that this has nothing to do with the FACT that VG (as most themepark games lol) have class-bound armors. Even at low level.

But again, we both know if you can't argue, you can only admit or bring up another topic. Yet again :D

DB

FE has "class-bound" armor too, it's called Armor Use. If you do not pump enough AP into Coordination, Endurance and your Armor Use skill, then you are not able to wear all the armor that exists. It's basically the same mechanic, just a different spin.

Originally posted by rodingo

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by rodingo

Time=money, and it takes a long time to build those higher end vehicles. A lot of people aren't going to have the patience or correct skills to make them. And if they want those vehicles, they are going to have to bite the bullet and pay what ever the hell the crafter puts them up on the AH for. Sure a crafter can buy mats from a merchant or AH, but they can also scavenge them to increase profits. Besides not every merchant sells every mat at every town. There is a convenience factor as well. To dismiss the economy as completely not player driven is incorrect. You seem to be looking at the whole thing from just one angle.

 

This is simply not true. Again, your definition doesn't mean anything. Every game out there has a player driven economy with your definition. Every game out there has certain items you need to craft or gather and then sell.

Player driven economy is like a free trade economy with no barriers no state interferences. In FE -> You've got supply of items obtainable from vendors that have an infinite supply and fixed price no matter what the demand is.

Yes, all that is required to have player driven economy in this game, is to remove the vendors. Let gatherers set their prices based on the availability and the demand.

And yes, every town in S2 and S3 that has an auction hall, also have all vendors selling most of the material.

I dont think you quite understood what I said. When something takes weeks to build,..that has the tendency to effect price, which is based off of effort and time. The fact that the mats can be bought from a merchant doesn't mean squat.  It's NOT like other mmos, except for maybe EVE, where crafting a low level dagger takes about the same amount of time as a high level sword of 1000 truths. It's the time factor you are not wrapping your mind around. And like I said," time=money " which is not a term I coined so I'm sure a lot of real businessmen well tell you that the definition actually DOES mean something. So I guess you think crafters are not going to have more money than non-crafters? And if you agree with me on this, I hope you realize that the crafters made that money from time+effort. Hell even people that argue for the value of raids and the loot that comes from them well tell you it's because of time+effort. The key word there is "time".

What are you talking about? I was not neglecting the fact that crafters will be able to sell their final products. I said the game has not player driven economy. The reasons are above, just re-read what I said.

 Rail ride.

FE don't have enough tools to be considered a sandbox. 

FE is too CPU intensive for how it looks. Performance is not up to par to what a decent FPS game needs.

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by rodingo

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by rodingo

Time=money, and it takes a long time to build those higher end vehicles. A lot of people aren't going to have the patience or correct skills to make them. And if they want those vehicles, they are going to have to bite the bullet and pay what ever the hell the crafter puts them up on the AH for. Sure a crafter can buy mats from a merchant or AH, but they can also scavenge them to increase profits. Besides not every merchant sells every mat at every town. There is a convenience factor as well. To dismiss the economy as completely not player driven is incorrect. You seem to be looking at the whole thing from just one angle.

 

This is simply not true. Again, your definition doesn't mean anything. Every game out there has a player driven economy with your definition. Every game out there has certain items you need to craft or gather and then sell.

Player driven economy is like a free trade economy with no barriers no state interferences. In FE -> You've got supply of items obtainable from vendors that have an infinite supply and fixed price no matter what the demand is.

Yes, all that is required to have player driven economy in this game, is to remove the vendors. Let gatherers set their prices based on the availability and the demand.

And yes, every town in S2 and S3 that has an auction hall, also have all vendors selling most of the material.

I dont think you quite understood what I said. When something takes weeks to build,..that has the tendency to effect price, which is based off of effort and time. The fact that the mats can be bought from a merchant doesn't mean squat.  It's NOT like other mmos, except for maybe EVE, where crafting a low level dagger takes about the same amount of time as a high level sword of 1000 truths. It's the time factor you are not wrapping your mind around. And like I said," time=money " which is not a term I coined so I'm sure a lot of real businessmen well tell you that the definition actually DOES mean something. So I guess you think crafters are not going to have more money than non-crafters? And if you agree with me on this, I hope you realize that the crafters made that money from time+effort. Hell even people that argue for the value of raids and the loot that comes from them well tell you it's because of time+effort. The key word there is "time".

 

What are you talking about? I was not neglecting the fact that crafters will be able to sell their final products. I said the game has not player driven economy. The reasons are above, just re-read what I said.

We aren't talking about IF a crafter can sell their products. But the fact that they can set the price to whatever they want, irregardless of what mat can be bought a vendor. That sounds like player driven to me. If the crafters are setting prices for their time and effort, and thats not player driven, then what the hell is? By your definition, no game has a player driven economy.