Hey everyone, relatively new here (reading the forum for a few weeks, this is the first post). I have some questions regarding peoples opinions on sandboxes and where that opinion comes from. The reason I am asking this is because alot of posts/topics on this forum leave me with nothing but questions (im not a "veteran" of games but ive definitaly played my fair share).

1) Sandbox = no quests

Where does this thought process come from? It seems to me that in a sandbox world, you would be left to your own devices (or that of another player) to create things to do (or quests). Is it because it isn't given by an npc, coded somehow, or offer a tangible reward to you and x number of other players?

2) Full Loot PVP Sandbox = Gank fest

Now having never played "mmos" that offer full loot full pvp (though I have played online multiplayer servers where this is allowed), I don't seem to grasp this relation between full loot and ganking. When I think full loot pvp one of the first thoughts that comes to mind is hijacking some trade caravan along the northern pass of whereever the hell mountains. Along with participating in large scale wars for control of land. Why is it that this "ganking" seems to be the main thought on peoples minds when full loot pvp is brought up?

3) Player Made Houses = Shanty Towns

This one is pretty self explanatory. With a free reign to build wherever and whatever you like, why do people automatically say that it will create shanty towns and see it as a negative game mechanic? Instead of looking at it as say "I can build my house over there by that tree, or by the stream, or even halfway up that mountain"

4) No Gold = No Economy

Why is it that people (or just "you") feel that if there wasnt gold (or currency rather) in the game that the economy would be non existant and if gold was available (through mining and minting metals) that it would create a "banker class"

Thats just a few of the questions floating around in my head right now. Please try and refrain from flaming or trolling me. Just abit of a curious person is all.

1. Quests. Nearly all sandboxes I have played have some sort of quest system. Many as a sort of tutorial. The reason quests don't mesh with sandboxes is that they provide gold/equipment outside of the normal game play, therefore affecting the economy.

2. PvP rulesets create gankfests. I believe full loot just attracts a certain type of player.

3. Generally you have to create rules for the lowest common denominator.  People will put houses in the most annoying/ludicrous/PITA place they can if not restricted.

4. Never heard this concept myself.

The reason why these misperceptions exist about Sandboxes is the vast majority of MMORPG players now are relatively new.  Only the ones that have been around to actually play extensively in "The Old Days" of the genre know the differences between then and now.

Sandbox MMORPGs are for most parts, pretty much extinct.  Only 1 of decent quality exists, and even then has had some recent turmoil with the direction the developers wanted to go.

Originally posted by Warmaker

The reason why these misperceptions exist about Sandboxes is the vast majority of MMORPG players now are relatively new.  Only the ones that have been around to actually play extensively in "The Old Days" of the genre know the differences between then and now.

Sandbox MMORPGs are for most parts, pretty much extinct.  Only 1 of decent quality exists, and even then has had some recent turmoil with the direction the developers wanted to go.

1)  A sandbox can have quests or not.  The important thing is that it has to be open-ended, so that it isn't a game if, you must do these quests to advance.

2)  Free for all pvp tends to turn into ganking.  Sandbox and full loot have nothing to do with it.  If a 3 on 1 battle with all four characters equally strong tends to turn into the 3 killing the 1, then players will tend to form larger groups in order to perform better in battle.  And that's how you get ganking.

3)  Most players tend to be offline most of the time.  If most players with houses are offline, then any town that players have built looks mostly empty.

4)  An official currency makes transactions easier if it is implemented well, but there also need to be NPCs that accept it in order for it to have any value.  You can have an economy without an official currency.  See A Tale in the Desert, for example.

1. I think a sandbox can have quests...If it makes someone feel better call it a hybrid...I am more interested in sandbox type features for the depth, quest rails and instances don't do much for me.

2. Full loot PvP is often a gankfest that limits subs, I am a old UO player, and I played on many PvP servers in games, but some of the systems in modern mmos, like the quest/rail mmos, FFA PvP is just like railing in the cattle for slaughter...The opposing faction knows where you have to be for the most part, and many of the stealth classes can stealth even once attacked and not be brought out by damage...risk/reward is off....Some games do an ok job, and I have heard of some emu servers coming up with creative ways (not perfect, but much better than most) to balance things.  I think you can find a non-population killing balance.

3. UO even started to limit house building, which I am fine with...SWG had a poor system that didn't deal with abandoned houses...I liked Vanguards system of housing areas...I would of like some of them to be smaller areas, but I think it is a good compromise for game design...Instanced housing, some love it, but I hate it...It feels more like a bank vault to me, than something with character and 'real' in a game...I am fine with open/unrestricted, but also defined areas....In Vanguard the more desirable places were more expensive for the lots....Would love to see UOs housing system in a modern mmo though, no one has come close to it imo...Being able to design your house, brick by brick.

4. Ones I play have gold, so no experience with the non-gold ones...I would think a bartering system would be fine too, I mean in the end its the same thing imo.

5. You didn't ask, but crafting/harvesting/exploring and other things, like diplomacy (from Vanguard) are things that if done well, give you depth and quality game alternatives.  I really like Vanguard's crafting/harvesting.  If crafting is obsolete for the most part, you might as well not add it, and sadly it is in most games.

I see a 'hybrid' as being the first step to getting more sandbox, and it seems a decent amount of games are headed in that direction.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Warmaker

The reason why these misperceptions exist about Sandboxes is the vast majority of MMORPG players now are relatively new.  Only the ones that have been around to actually play extensively in "The Old Days" of the genre know the differences between then and now.

Sandbox MMORPGs are for most parts, pretty much extinct.  Only 1 of decent quality exists, and even then has had some recent turmoil with the direction the developers wanted to go.

 

Those games games are still there. For people to play.

 Yes, and everyone has to play WoW, that wants to play a themepark, is that what you are suggesting?

Some people like 'vanilla WoW'...not the newer WoW...Same for those sandboxes that are still there...Games often change their identity when they grasp for more subs, and change the feel to the games in the process...I never played WoW (except for beta), but I played UO for year, don't like the new skill combos and systems, plus I liked it pre-trammel...I do go play it here and there, even with the 2D client, but I then remember why I left...

I am sure they could make a pill you could live on for nutrition, should everyone just take it and be happy?

Originally posted by EsmerraMMO

Hey everyone, relatively new here (reading the forum for a few weeks, this is the first post). I have some questions regarding peoples opinions on sandboxes and where that opinion comes from. The reason I am asking this is because alot of posts/topics on this forum leave me with nothing but questions (im not a "veteran" of games but ive definitaly played my fair share).

 

1) Sandbox = no quests

Where does this thought process come from? It seems to me that in a sandbox world, you would be left to your own devices (or that of another player) to create things to do (or quests). Is it because it isn't given by an npc, coded somehow, or offer a tangible reward to you and x number of other players?

 

2) Full Loot PVP Sandbox = Gank fest

Now having never played "mmos" that offer full loot full pvp (though I have played online multiplayer servers where this is allowed), I don't seem to grasp this relation between full loot and ganking. When I think full loot pvp one of the first thoughts that comes to mind is hijacking some trade caravan along the northern pass of whereever the hell mountains. Along with participating in large scale wars for control of land. Why is it that this "ganking" seems to be the main thought on peoples minds when full loot pvp is brought up?

 

3) Player Made Houses = Shanty Towns

This one is pretty self explanatory. With a free reign to build wherever and whatever you like, why do people automatically say that it will create shanty towns and see it as a negative game mechanic? Instead of looking at it as say "I can build my house over there by that tree, or by the stream, or even halfway up that mountain"

 

4) No Gold = No Economy

Why is it that people (or just "you") feel that if there wasnt gold (or currency rather) in the game that the economy would be non existant and if gold was available (through mining and minting metals) that it would create a "banker class"

 

Thats just a few of the questions floating around in my head right now. Please try and refrain from flaming or trolling me. Just abit of a curious person is all.

1) Sandbox = no quests

This is a bit more complicated than just this simple statement. UO started out as a pure Sandbox, and didn't have quests. That's probably the main reason for this claim. Players "just lived" in Sosaria. And it worked very well except for the "rampant PKing". No one needed quests. They just got together and did a wide variety of things. Other than the wide open PvP, it was a very casual sort of game play. Dungeon romps, a very good economic game for crafting and trade, mini-game events (chess matches, archery contests, player organized dueling contests and arena battles, etc.), trade fairs, poetry and story telling events, player run taverns, etc. Players "just lived".

But you can have quests in Sandbox games. But there's a problem. With so many other players running around, whatever your quest objective is, those other players will interrupt it. They will kill the quest MOB objective, or take the quest item objective. This is why Themepark games have gone to Instances, to get away from that problem. EQ started as a Themepark without instances, and players ended up waiting hours for their turn to run a quest objective for it to respawn, and some players weren't polite enough to wait their turn (making the problem even bigger). This is why WoW was what Themepark games were destined to become.

2) Full Loot PVP Sandbox = Gank fest

Because this is what some players will do. Anytime they see other players, they will attack them. They are dedecated PvPers, and they don't intend to lose their battles, so they organize and develop strategies that work. They might be only 5% of the player base, but they will seem like they are everywhere because against other player types, they will dominate this aspect. And they will have loads of fun doing it, and play...a lot.

In UO, NPC cities had town guards and were safe zones. You couldn't get out of most towns without getting killed by a much smaller percentage of PKers running around out there. Well, you could, if you were lucky. Moners and Lumberjacks were hunted down as PKers made "runs" through areas to see what they could kill and loot.

That was early UO, and things changed over time, so there's a lot more to this story. I don't want to write a book though.

3) Player Made Houses = Shanty Towns

You need a truly huge game world to allow players to build anywhere, unless you design around this. The thing is, every player wants and expects to have a nice house. And it creates all sorts of issues. If a player built city has 300 players, and 300 houses, how far do you want to walk to get in and out of town even with a huge world? Mind you, this would be all-the-freakin'-time.

4) No Gold = No Economy

Umm, so what if there's a "Banker Class"? There could be control problems with it if it's not done right. But this is a classic example of players not seeing the potential of a social mechanic in our MMORPGs. In such a system, the coins players minted would have to be items in the game world, and protecting them (and their value if they are not gold pieces but backed by gold bouillion would have to be part of game play.

Just adding to my last post...all these things can be done, but they have to be done right. Everything designed into a game comes with ramifications, and a lot of thought has to go into anything done. Especially in a Sandbox game world, where everything affects everything else.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

But you can have quests in Sandbox games. But there's a problem. With so many other players running around, whatever your quest objective is, those other players will interrupt it. They will kill the quest MOB objective, or take the quest item objective. This is why Themepark games have gone to Instances, to get away from that problem. EQ started as a Themepark without instances, and players ended up waiting hours for their turn to run a quest objective for it to respawn, and some players weren't polite enough to wait their turn (making the problem even bigger). This is why WoW was what Themepark games were destined to become.

That's a problem of bad quest design, and has nothing to do with sandbox versus theme park.

Ive played alot of both sandbox and theme park. in truth you cant seem to compare them, they are different games with different styles. i like theme park for getting the sense of being on a adventure and having a purpost (though its been awhile since any of these cookie cutter crap games have given me this sense) and sandbox makes you feel like your either a solo god living day to day or apart of something bigger.

now for the OP

1) not all sandbox games needs quests, it helps but it isnt required.

2) PvP without consiquense does turn into a gank fest. FoM did a good job of making for people who just wanted to run around and shoot things by making them the enemy of every non ganker in the game. they got hated, and killed often. usually quitting after a month or 2, not to mention allways having the police faction constantly hunting them down.

3) im skipping afew and jumping to economy. i do believe that having some form of currency is vital in these games. not because of the bartering system or any of that crap. it adds another dimention to the game. FoM had a group of people who only wanted to get filthy rich. they enjoyed the game for that reason, same with the people who wanted to own the market. FoM in my experiance has the best Player Run Economy ive seen.

1.  I would say "Sandbox = no fixed story" rather than "Sandbox = no quests".  The confusion comes because of the way stories unfold in the two styles of games.  In it's purest form, there is only one shared reality in a sandbox, while in a themepark each character is walking around in their own bubble of reality that is inconsistent with each other character.   Both games can have a quest to kill 10 rats.  In a sandbox, the inkeeper thanks the player for making a dent in the rat population (but you know the problem is still there).  In a themepark, the player is left with the impression that they have solved the rat problem, even though every single character playing through the area experiences the exact same quest.

2. Sandbox does not imply PvP (at least not when I use the word ... usage does vary from person to person and I can't claim sole ownership of the definition).  To me, this is a misconception that comes from the fact that early sandboxes *allowed* a little PKing, which inevitably leads to PKing completely dominating the culture of the game.  However, griefing does tend to be harder to control in a sandbox - those who are determined enough will figure out how to turn the sand into a weapon.

3. Players are not professional level builders.  If you allow player-designed structures, a lot of them are going to be the artistic equivilent of "hello world".   Since players are not logged in all the time and when they are tend to be off adventuring rather than tending house, you end up with large expanses of deserted urban sprawl.

4. As long as there is any form of trade whatsoever in a game, an economy will happen whether you want one or not. Every flamewar about economics that exists in the real world exists in peoples' opinions of game economies.

Yes, I have posted it before, but to make it short, you could make a computer AI that creates quests, based on world conditions, like whos in power (be it player/computer or even a combo of both in an aliance), or even as the result of a quest someone else did...Then make these unique for the player/group...You could have adventure quests, random spawning dungeons that act like old D&D modules that once finished collapse and soon decay away...Then new ones can pop up that are randomly generated with boss(es) in it that do the same...

Could have land control, taxes, farming, trade skills, then you could have if you wanted battle for controls in areas, and even have where kingdoms rise/fall, if you become vulnerable computer controlled kingdoms could attack you, just as player controlled ones, or even a pact between the two.....Those event could trigger all kinds of quests/events....

You could have different types of servers, ffa, flagged (guild based, those who wish to not partake in land struggles could not join guilds that do those activities, but would have to pay taxes or whatever to whoever controlled their land, as part of the reward to those conquring land, but not make it to where rates change)...

Their is a lot of things you could do, systems you could put in place, server types etc....To make it something anyone could play that wouldn't force them to do things that they didn't want to...

I am sure GMs would be needed for this type of game to run some events and help create stuff till the system AI was more polished, you probably would not create the perfect system off the bat that could handle everything at first....But their is no reason the AI couldn't be done.

edit:  I also prefer skill based, with a cap...I think it scales better than levels.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Warmaker

The reason why these misperceptions exist about Sandboxes is the vast majority of MMORPG players now are relatively new.  Only the ones that have been around to actually play extensively in "The Old Days" of the genre know the differences between then and now.

Sandbox MMORPGs are for most parts, pretty much extinct.  Only 1 of decent quality exists, and even then has had some recent turmoil with the direction the developers wanted to go.

 

Those games games are still there. For people to play.

This is a typical response of someone who just doesn't get it. So selfish.

To be honest there is really no reason why any of your points should work against a sandbox.

Quests giving loot, gold, and experience do not screw up economy. So long as crafted items are superior any extra gold put into the world will fit into the economy so long as sufficient gold sink is offered. Take Eve Online, now that incursions supply massive money increase, the items of other things have risen to take into account the inflation and are now settling out again. Plex is a great example - it has gone from 300 million upto 500 million now that people can farm enough ISK to afford their monthly subscription in 5 days.

Onto the ganking in sandboxes being a problem. Most people who haven't played a sandbox think that full loot and the ability to kill anyone at any time quickly equals a level 85 rogue one shotting them and taking everything. Some rules must be followed in that world, ones that I employ in Eve Online. Equip what you can afford to lose, go into dangerous areas with enough people to keep safe and make sure if you get blown up you have ships and ISK to replace the loss. 

The housing becoming shanty towns is always a concern even for me, I am pro sandbox but a ton of houses all over the world tends to look a bit silly. In my opinion though I still wouldn't have this element policed I take the  good with the bad!

When considering the economy look no further than Eve Online. It has the best economy of any MMO, with no equal.

* F*** it, NVM *

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Amaranthar

But you can have quests in Sandbox games. But there's a problem. With so many other players running around, whatever your quest objective is, those other players will interrupt it. They will kill the quest MOB objective, or take the quest item objective. This is why Themepark games have gone to Instances, to get away from that problem. EQ started as a Themepark without instances, and players ended up waiting hours for their turn to run a quest objective for it to respawn, and some players weren't polite enough to wait their turn (making the problem even bigger). This is why WoW was what Themepark games were destined to become.

That's a problem of bad quest design, and has nothing to do with sandbox versus theme park.

That may be true (may not be true too, considering the bulk quest system required for Themepark games), but it's irrelevant. That sort of "bad" quest design is the staple of Themepark games.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Amaranthar

But you can have quests in Sandbox games. But there's a problem. With so many other players running around, whatever your quest objective is, those other players will interrupt it. They will kill the quest MOB objective, or take the quest item objective. This is why Themepark games have gone to Instances, to get away from that problem. EQ started as a Themepark without instances, and players ended up waiting hours for their turn to run a quest objective for it to respawn, and some players weren't polite enough to wait their turn (making the problem even bigger). This is why WoW was what Themepark games were destined to become.

That's a problem of bad quest design, and has nothing to do with sandbox versus theme park.

That may be true (may not be true too, considering the bulk quest system required for Themepark games), but it's irrelevant. That sort of "bad" quest design is the staple of Themepark games.

Some games have a problem with quest stealing, and some don't.  There are a lot of ways around it, and instancing isn't the only one.  For example, in Champions Online, if a quest asks you to kill a boss, and several other players are there and you all do significant damage to the boss, then you all get credit for the quest--even if you weren't grouped.

Originally posted by EsmerraMMO

Hey everyone, relatively new here (reading the forum for a few weeks, this is the first post). I have some questions regarding peoples opinions on sandboxes and where that opinion comes from. The reason I am asking this is because alot of posts/topics on this forum leave me with nothing but questions (im not a "veteran" of games but ive definitaly played my fair share).

 

1) Sandbox = no quests

Where does this thought process come from? It seems to me that in a sandbox world, you would be left to your own devices (or that of another player) to create things to do (or quests). Is it because it isn't given by an npc, coded somehow, or offer a tangible reward to you and x number of other players?

 

2) Full Loot PVP Sandbox = Gank fest

Now having never played "mmos" that offer full loot full pvp (though I have played online multiplayer servers where this is allowed), I don't seem to grasp this relation between full loot and ganking. When I think full loot pvp one of the first thoughts that comes to mind is hijacking some trade caravan along the northern pass of whereever the hell mountains. Along with participating in large scale wars for control of land. Why is it that this "ganking" seems to be the main thought on peoples minds when full loot pvp is brought up?

 

3) Player Made Houses = Shanty Towns

This one is pretty self explanatory. With a free reign to build wherever and whatever you like, why do people automatically say that it will create shanty towns and see it as a negative game mechanic? Instead of looking at it as say "I can build my house over there by that tree, or by the stream, or even halfway up that mountain"

 

4) No Gold = No Economy

Why is it that people (or just "you") feel that if there wasnt gold (or currency rather) in the game that the economy would be non existant and if gold was available (through mining and minting metals) that it would create a "banker class"

 

Thats just a few of the questions floating around in my head right now. Please try and refrain from flaming or trolling me. Just abit of a curious person is all.

First of all, congratulations for having the balls to ask these questions, as most contributors here would take them as self-evident without actually analyzing the problems for themselves.

1) This is plainly false. Your experience should tell you that single player sandbox games such as the elder scrolls series have quests, as do the single player linear RPGs. There's nothing that says that sandbox MMOs can't have quests, and in fact, all MMOs should have quests of some sort. Preferably something more interesting than the standard 'collect bear arses' fetch quests that have become so popular in the industry. Sandbox games actually have the ability to provide quests offered by other players, which is something no themepark MMO has ever managed (to the best of my knowledge).

What these people probably mean is that there is no story in sandbox MMOs, which is only half correct. There's no tailored, linear story like what you would get in SWTOR or WoW, but I'm of the opinion that if you want to be the hotshot hero in your own story, you should piss off and play a single player game. Sanbox games are about creating your own story that is distinct from everybody else's.

2) This is a minefield, exacerbated by the fact that 50% of all human beings are of below average intelligence by definition. Statistically, 50% of the people posting on this board don't understand the issues that they're discussing. This happens to be one of those issues.

The real problem is that game design is a complicated process. Let's say that we have two players, Adam and Bill, and they're playing a game in which full loot PVP happens. Both Adam and Bill want the best armor in the game, but they go about in two different ways. Adam spends days gathering resources, leveling his crafting skills, and finally crafts a beautiful set of armor. Bill goes out, finds an awesome weapon, and waits. When Adam finishes his set of armor, Bill kills him, and steals it for himself.

Those who are anti-full loot will say that this is unfair, because Adam put a lot of work into his armor. This happens to be true. Those who are in favor of FFA full-loot PVP will say that Adam was a moron for not taking greater care given the rules of the game. This is also true; Adam should have anticipated that someone would want to steal his new gear. The heart of the matter is that Adam had far more to lose in a confrontation than Bill did, and not many games compensate for that. EVE does by providing insurance and cloning mechanisms to allow for the replacement of lost goods, and pirates are unable to go into high level space. I would do something similar; say in a fantasy game, have a karma rating that affects your death penalty. If you like killing others, when you die they can loot your corpse. If you have a good rating, your corpse is protected for a short time, giving you a chance to get back and escape.

The real issue is one requiring clever game design, but that requires in-depth thought. The reality is that ful loot games stimulate an emotional connection in the player, because of the inherent risk involved. They have the benefit of forcing the player to pay attention to the game and the world, rather than the numbers on their armor, and fr what they represent, I will champion them till my last breath. Unfortunately, mine happens to be a minority opinion, but then I've never been one to worry about being iconvenienced in a computer game. Maybe it's generational thing.

3) Typically, games that allow player housing in the game world tend to run out of space. Sooner or later, everyone gets a house, and this becomes a problem when you have 10 000 or 20 000 players on a server. It becomes even more problematic as people retire from the game, leaving their unused house there to take up space.

Instanced housing is one solution, but we can do better than that. Let's say that you want housing in a game like WoW. Why not have a mechanism by which a player (or group of players) can summon a floating piece of land that they can build on, i.e. a floating island. That way you don't run into the problem of overcrowding on the ground, and you get interesting set pieces in terms of floatig landmasses that can be fought over. Another interesting mechanic would be to have apartments in major cities that could be rented. Naturally, you would also need some sort of decay or auctioning mechanism for the houses of inactive players.

4) Short answer, most people on here don't understand economics at all. Economies aren't created, they evolve. If you don't have a currency, you'll get a barter ecnonomy, which is just as valid as any other type of economy. As for the creation of a banker class, that's equally unfounded, and I have no idea how someone could have come up with that misconception.

Unfortunately, the level of discourse on this forum is quite low, as it caters to a young audience that struggles with basic grammar. There are some decent posters on here, but try to take everything you read with a grain of salt, because most people on here have a very shallow understanding of the things they're talking about.