Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Onomas

This post is stupid and obviously that author has no clue. There have only been a handful of sandboxes that have been released and half of those arent open for all pvp or even based on pvp, heck even some have no combat at all in them.

 

The basic misconception that sandbox = full loot gankfest killem all type game is what hurts sandboxes. Sandboxes are about freedom and player content, not about pvp. People that associate pvp as a key aspect of sandboxes just look foolish.

The question you need to ask yourself then, is why do most gamers associate sandbox with FFA PvP and full loot?  It is because in the post WoW era, most fantasy sandboxes have been designed for PvP'ers.  Murderers.  Wolves.  Hardcores.

 

Before the gamer boom that WoW created, most people had experience with EQ1, UO, SWG, AC and games with similar systems.  They understood that sandboxes offer more than just PvP.  They offered social content.  They offered personal ownership, such as houses and boats.  They offered mini-games.  Weddings.  An ability to be a master crafter, without fighting a single person or creature.  Treasure hunting.  Exploring.  Vast PvE options.  The ability to create and affect the players and world that you inhabit.  And so much more.

 

Modern gamers just do not generally comprehend that there is something more to games than phat epic loots and being max level.  They don't understand that the journey is more than just quest grinding and following the proverbial carrot.  It's a shame too. 

And this is why we need more games like that, as an older gamer i was blessed to be apart of those epic mmo's. The ones today just make my stomache turn and i cant sit down and play such limited single player games that they have become. Seems like they turned true mmorpg's into console style rpgs and thats what everyone thinks mmo's should be like.

Why anyone would fight, whine, cry, moan, etc about hundreds of features in a game, fully open world for you to do what you want whenever you want and rather have limitationsm no social features, no exploration, and sit there and rerun dailies, warzones, and raids over and over is beyond me. I think our society has lost all creativity and needs it fed to them these days

And themepark games have open pvp as well, so its kinda pointless to plasture sandboxes as the ruthless gankfest game when themeparks do it as well ;).

Originally posted by DAS1337

Guys, name a single feature that can only be termed as sandbox or thempark.  Yes, there are features that are generally found in a sandbox, or generally found in a themepark MMO.  The point of the article however, is that these features that you are arguing about, don't necessarily have to be locked into either game type.  Either game type can have any of these systems and still work.

 

 

If you are going to define a genre you have to look at what they all have in common. That's the basis. Pure and simple. You can add whatever feature you want after that and still have a sandbox game or a hybrid. Those features are not "must haves" to define the genre

What does these sandbox games have in common that sets them a part from other genres when it comes to features

EvE

Terraria

Minecraft

DF

Mortal

Garys Mod

Skyrim + creation kit

Archeage

Ryzom

The answer is pretty simple and therein lies the answer.

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by DAS1337

Guys, name a single feature that can only be termed as sandbox or thempark.  Yes, there are features that are generally found in a sandbox, or generally found in a themepark MMO.  The point of the article however, is that these features that you are arguing about, don't necessarily have to be locked into either game type.  Either game type can have any of these systems and still work.

 

 

If you are going to define a genre you have to look at what they all have in common. That's the basis. Pure and simple. You can add whatever feature you want after that and still have a sandbox game or a hybrid. Those features are not "must haves" to define the genre

 

What does these sandbox games have in common when it comes to features

 

EvE

Terraria

Minecraft

DF

Mortal

Garys Mod

Skyrim + creation kit

Archeage

The answer is pretty simple and therein lies the answer.

There are also plenty of things that these games don't have in common.  Which is also the point.  There are many features that you can list from these games that can work in themeparks.  Which again, is the point of the article.  Sitting here and trying to define what a sandbox is will last 100 more pages.  We will then be no closer to where were are now because there isn't a good definition.  Everyone has their own ideas and none of them are truely accurate.  It's also not the point of this thread.  This thread is meant to create constructive criticism for the sandbox genre and to promote creative thinking in the hopeful evolution of said genre. 

A better way of doing this would be for us to brainstorm about things that we believe would be asinine to remove as a sandbox feature for a hyrbid, or evolved sandbox MMO.  What are the list of features that we cannot remove, otherwise the concept of sandbox is lost?  Arguing about something that cannot be agreed upon is not the answer.  This is where almost every sandbox/themepark thread gets derailed into petty insults and namecalling.  Intelligent conversation ceases, because people will not attempt to talk about how to fix something.  They'd rather bicker over who they think is right and wrong.

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by DAS1337

Guys, name a single feature that can only be termed as sandbox or thempark.  Yes, there are features that are generally found in a sandbox, or generally found in a themepark MMO.  The point of the article however, is that these features that you are arguing about, don't necessarily have to be locked into either game type.  Either game type can have any of these systems and still work.

 

 

If you are going to define a genre you have to look at what they all have in common. That's the basis. Pure and simple. You can add whatever feature you want after that and still have a sandbox game or a hybrid. Those features are not "must haves" to define the genre

 

What does these sandbox games have in common when it comes to features

 

EvE

Terraria

Minecraft

DF

Mortal

Garys Mod

Skyrim + creation kit

Archeage

The answer is pretty simple and therein lies the answer.

There are also plenty of things that these games don't have in common.  Which is also the point.  There are many features that you can list from these games that can work in themeparks.  Which again, is the point of the article.  Sitting here and trying to define what a sandbox is will last 100 more pages.  We will then be no closer to where were are now because there isn't a good definition.  Everyone has their own ideas and none of them are truely accurate.  It's also not the point of this thread.  This thread is meant to create constructive criticism for the sandbox genre and to promote creative thinking in the hopeful evolution of said genre. 

 

A better way of doing this would be for us to brainstorm about things that we believe would be asinine to remove as a sandbox feature for a hyrbid, or evolved sandbox MMO.  What are the list of features that we cannot remove, otherwise the concept of sandbox is lost?  Arguing about something that cannot be agreed upon is not the answer.  This is where almost every sandbox/themepark thread gets derailed into petty insults and namecalling.  Intelligent conversation ceases, because people will not attempt to talk about how to fix something.  They'd rather bicker over who they think is right and wrong.

Yes there are many things that can work in a themepark and a sandbox but does those things define them? or do they just add to the experience.

What I'm talking about is why we call them sandboxes. Not what they can or can't contain. For instance you can add a quest system to a sandbox and it will still be a sandbox. FFA PvP can function in both sandbox and themeparks. I don't believe it will be popular but it can function for the intended audience. A skill based character system free of classes can exist in a themepark as well as a sandbox. Same goes for a rigid class system with little to no wiggleroom of character customization

My point was none of those things are defining systems or defining features that makes or labels each genres. What defines themeparks and what defines sandbox games are what sets both of them apart. Themeparks does not allow you to alter the gameworld permanently but sandboxes do. That's what really sets both of them apart. The playermade content that you can physically see in the game. Everything else is just icing on the cake or shit depending on what side of the fence you are on

Why brainstorm? Nothing will come of it and everyone has their own opinion about mmo's, sandbox, themepark, and so much more. People like those dumbed down games of today because.......well i dont realy now. Other than they dont like thinking, using their skill, hate open games, beats me....... you tell me. Game companies wont invest in a true epic sandbox because to many want to be like WOW and have everything handed to you without any risk what so ever.

Most of us have similar ideas as to what sandbox and what themepark features are.  The issue is that in most cases, these features generally do not mingle with each other.  They do not usually overlap.  This, I believe we can agree on.  This however does not matter.  As the point of this thread, again, is not to have a debate as to what features are sandbox or themepark.  The point here is to have conversation as to how these features can co-exist within a game to make it better.  What features can be married to evolve the sandbox genre and make it more popular.  A discussion about those things would be far more beneficial to us than sitting here, trying to define what features belong where.  Or why they are defined as this or that.

Originally posted by Onomas

Why brainstorm? Nothing will come of it and everyone has their own opinion about mmo's, sandbox, themepark, and so much more. People like those dumbed down games of today because.......well i dont realy now. Other than they dont like thinking, using their skill, hate open games, beats me....... you tell me. Game companies wont invest in a true epic sandbox because to many want to be like WOW and have everything handed to you without any risk what so ever.

This is the mindset that derails threads.  Instead of blaming those who enjoy themeparks for ruining the sandbox experience, you should think about why sandbox games are not popular.  Themepark games have evolved a great deal over the years, the issue is that sandbox games have not in most cases.  It's not because they can't, it's because of old sandbox gamers refusing to compromise.  They refuse to have these discussions.  It's the unwillingness to look at something from an unbias point of view that is the problem.  Let's not do that.

Originally posted by DAS1337

Most of us have similar ideas as to what sandbox and what themepark features are.  The issue is that in most cases, these features generally do not mingle with each other.  They do not usually overlap.  This, I believe we can agree on.  This however does not matter.  As the point of this thread, again, is not to have a debate as to what features are sandbox or themepark.  The point here is to have conversation as to how these features can co-exist within a game to make it better.  What features can be married to evolve the sandbox genre and make it more popular.  A discussion about those things would be far more beneficial to us than sitting here, trying to define what features belong where.  Or why they are defined as this or that.

This i 100% agree on

As I said earlier. For FFA full loot PvP to be more appealing some sacrifices would have to be made by the purist crowd the (tits or gtfo) types. For those that didn't get that reference 'all or nothing' crowd

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by DAS1337

Most of us have similar ideas as to what sandbox and what themepark features are.  The issue is that in most cases, these features generally do not mingle with each other.  They do not usually overlap.  This, I believe we can agree on.  This however does not matter.  As the point of this thread, again, is not to have a debate as to what features are sandbox or themepark.  The point here is to have conversation as to how these features can co-exist within a game to make it better.  What features can be married to evolve the sandbox genre and make it more popular.  A discussion about those things would be far more beneficial to us than sitting here, trying to define what features belong where.  Or why they are defined as this or that.

This i 100% agree on

 

As I said earlier. For FFA full loot PvP to be more appealing some sacrifices would have to be made by the purist crowd the (tits or gtfo) types

You mean the 'If you don't like it, quit' types?

What's a more appealing way to present FFA PvP and full loot?  I think the most obvious way is to present FFA PvP in a way similar to how WoW did it.  After all, WoW is where most gamers started.  Safe cities, followed with uncontested starter zones, followed by some contested zones in the mid-levels, to completely unsafe zones after that.  You then create territory control, contested dungeons, and other open world combat in areas that are away from places that the casual gamer would gather in.  Faction PvP is not much different from FFA PvP at all.  Full loot doesn't have to be full loot.  It can be partial loot, like I suggested in an earlier post.  You can lose your inventory, but not your equipped items.  Add in item decay and you have a reason to restock and resupply.  You create a supply and demand, full player driven economy.  You can still keep your really good items for a while, but eventually they will need replaced.  It will help lessen the affect of murderous players.  Combat will not be as scary and unwanted.  I believe this is a good start, a good compromise, and something a new hybrid sandbox team should look into. 

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Onomas

Why brainstorm? Nothing will come of it and everyone has their own opinion about mmo's, sandbox, themepark, and so much more. People like those dumbed down games of today because.......well i dont realy now. Other than they dont like thinking, using their skill, hate open games, beats me....... you tell me. Game companies wont invest in a true epic sandbox because to many want to be like WOW and have everything handed to you without any risk what so ever.

This is the mindset that derails threads.  Instead of blaming those who enjoy themeparks for ruining the sandbox experience, you should think about why sandbox games are not popular.  Themepark games have evolved a great deal over the years, the issue is that sandbox games have not in most cases.  It's not because they can't, it's because of old sandbox gamers refusing to compromise.  They refuse to have these discussions.  It's the unwillingness to look at something from an unbias point of view that is the problem.  Let's not do that.

Not realy, i asked a question because even I, can not think of why people would rather have themepark games that feel, look, and play the same. We have had these conversations a thousand times, and not many attack themepark games, but almost all themepark lovers attack so much of a sandbox game. Out of fear, out of unknowing, out of not understanding a true sandbox? you tell me. Sandbox = open, features, player choice, player content, player housing, and everything else you can imagine. Themepark = nice quests, eye candy, re-runs of dailies, warzone, and raids for content, no social aspect, and limitations on everything.

After hearing all the misconceptions for both sides i still feel a sandbox beats any themepark. We just need more of them, get the word out, and stick to its roots. But most comanies want to be like WOW. So no matter how much we sit here and debate this, the game wont be made even if you have a million plus people wanting it.

What I mean is those advocating FFA full loot PvP will have to accept some limitations to the system. It simply doesn't work in its purest form. In order for full loot to function then gear has to be rediculously easy to get. This renders gear a pointless feature of the game. If you can regain your gear as easy as losing it then to me personally. Gear has little meaning in a game let alone a pointless thing to loot in the first place. If loot is harder to obtain people don't want to lose it. It's a balance you can't maintain while appealing to a bigger group of people.

As you said I can see partial looting working. Or full loot with the option to insure x amount of items. If you put skill or level restrictions on what range you can attack people in, you make it more friendly towards newer players but alienate some purists. I personally think that's the better option towards getting the best of both worlds while giving it broader appeal.

There are other systems that help, or hurt FFA PvP and looting mechanics though.  Systems such as murder penalties, death penalties, penalties for killing players that can't defend themselves.  This is something else that has to be discussed, because it is a large reason why themepark gamers don't like sandboxes.  Should there be a murder system?  If so, how should it work?  Would restricting combat by levels work?  If you attack and kill a player under five levels than you, will you take permenant stat loss?  Will there be levels in the game at all, or just skill points and stats?  I personally thiink there should be both.  I feel that your level should determine your base stats and overall experience, which affects who you can and can't attack.  Your skill points should determine how efficient you are at any given talent within the game.  This means that crafters will not be fair game to players who kill.  You can RP to your hearts content.  You can fish on your boat without pirates being able to take your ship.  New players will remain safe for a decent period of time from veterans.  Again, these ideas may not be the best.  But they are logical and reasonable, and they are a start. 

These are the conversations we should be having more often as a gaming community.  Don't think that designers and developers don't read any of this stuff.  If a lot more of us approached this conversation like this, someone would notice.

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Onomas

Why brainstorm? Nothing will come of it and everyone has their own opinion about mmo's, sandbox, themepark, and so much more. People like those dumbed down games of today because.......well i dont realy now. Other than they dont like thinking, using their skill, hate open games, beats me....... you tell me. Game companies wont invest in a true epic sandbox because to many want to be like WOW and have everything handed to you without any risk what so ever.

This is the mindset that derails threads.  Instead of blaming those who enjoy themeparks for ruining the sandbox experience, you should think about why sandbox games are not popular.  Themepark games have evolved a great deal over the years, the issue is that sandbox games have not in most cases.  It's not because they can't, it's because of old sandbox gamers refusing to compromise.  They refuse to have these discussions.  It's the unwillingness to look at something from an unbias point of view that is the problem.  Let's not do that.

Not realy, i asked a question because even I, can not think of why people would rather have themepark games that feel, look, and play the same. We have had these conversations a thousand times, and not many attack themepark games, but almost all themepark lovers attack so much of a sandbox game. Out of fear, out of unknowing, out of not understanding a true sandbox? you tell me. Sandbox = open, features, player choice, player content, player housing, and everything else you can imagine. Themepark = nice quests, eye candy, re-runs of dailies, warzone, and raids for content, no social aspect, and limitations on everything.

After hearing all the misconceptions for both sides i still feel a sandbox beats any themepark. We just need more of them, get the word out, and stick to its roots. But most comanies want to be like WOW. So no matter how much we sit here and debate this, the game wont be made even if you have a million plus people wanting it.

You can't be discouraged, there are still a lot of us out there.  These people just haven't experienced a good one, and there's reason for it.  A good one hasn't been made in a long time.  If we can't bring them to us, then we need to try and bridge the gap. 

Originally posted by Onomas

Originally posted by DAS1337

Originally posted by Onomas

Why brainstorm? Nothing will come of it and everyone has their own opinion about mmo's, sandbox, themepark, and so much more. People like those dumbed down games of today because.......well i dont realy now. Other than they dont like thinking, using their skill, hate open games, beats me....... you tell me. Game companies wont invest in a true epic sandbox because to many want to be like WOW and have everything handed to you without any risk what so ever.

This is the mindset that derails threads.  Instead of blaming those who enjoy themeparks for ruining the sandbox experience, you should think about why sandbox games are not popular.  Themepark games have evolved a great deal over the years, the issue is that sandbox games have not in most cases.  It's not because they can't, it's because of old sandbox gamers refusing to compromise.  They refuse to have these discussions.  It's the unwillingness to look at something from an unbias point of view that is the problem.  Let's not do that.

Not realy, i asked a question because even I, can not think of why people would rather have themepark games that feel, look, and play the same. We have had these conversations a thousand times, and not many attack themepark games, but almost all themepark lovers attack so much of a sandbox game. Out of fear, out of unknowing, out of not understanding a true sandbox? you tell me. Sandbox = open, features, player choice, player content, player housing, and everything else you can imagine. Themepark = nice quests, eye candy, re-runs of dailies, warzone, and raids for content, no social aspect, and limitations on everything.

After hearing all the misconceptions for both sides i still feel a sandbox beats any themepark. We just need more of them, get the word out, and stick to its roots. But most comanies want to be like WOW. So no matter how much we sit here and debate this, the game wont be made even if you have a million plus people wanting it.

That's not how I see things go on forums

The conversations usually go like this

The sandbox player: You themepark players have so many quality themeparks to choose from while our genre gets ignored time and time again

Themepark player: Your sandbox games alienates and punishes more than welcome new players. It attracts the worst kind of players

The sandbox player: That's just a small portion of the playerbase. Most are not even like that and you have ways to avoid it by not going to obvious gank spots. Besides you can get new gear easy enough.

Yadda yadda yadda.

The current FFA PvP does alienate the general crowd no matter how much you love sandboxes. If you want your genre to recieve the love themeparks get you are going to have to accept some compromises to the way things are done particularly to the PvP side of things. If you don't like that idea then accept that your genre is stuck where it is. It has no appeal other than to the niche crowd as it stands now

So instead of playing the victim try and come up with ways how sandbox games can attract more people. I can tell you for almost certainty that "bounty" systems and the like is far from enough

EVE gives you the choice...they have protected areas in empire space. Places you can do any and all things carebear, and that's great. Darkfall on the other hand doesn't give players a chance before being thrown to the wolves and takes way too long to have the skills to be viable in PVP. The grind is rediculous and the skills and attributes make a huge difference in PVP. EVE did things in a way that allows new players to work thier way up before worrying about the guy next to you killing you and taking away everything you have. Darkfall did not...Darkfall is failing miserably and EVE is blooming...go figure.

Originally posted by Starpower

What I mean is those advocating FFA full loot PvP will have to accept some limitations to the system. It simply doesn't work in its purest form. In order for full loot to function then gear has to be rediculously easy to get. This renders gear a pointless feature of the game. If you can regain your gear as easy as losing it then to me personally. Gear has little meaning in a game let alone a pointless thing to loot in the first place. If loot is harder to obtain people don't want to lose it. It's a balance you can't maintain while appealing to a bigger group of people.

 

As you said I can see partial looting working. Or full loot with the option to insure x amount of items. If you put skill or level restrictions on what range you can attack people in, you make it more friendly towards newer players but alienate some purists. I personally think that's the better option towards getting the best of both worlds while giving it broader appeal.

I completely agree. 

Even though I tend to not like the insurance systems.  And it's because it's a weird hardcoded feature that takes immersion away more than partial loot for me (preference), it's still a start. 

On the gear, it shouldn't be hard to get.  But it should mean something in combat.  That's the main thing.  You have to make it strong enough to be desirable, but not too strong to win battles before they start.  UO did it perfectly.  Most players wore GM crafter armour and weapons, and some of the richer players wore higher end magic gear, but rarely the best.  A partial loot system would allow for very good gear, but using it a lot will eventually break it.  You fix a problem with the hardcore sandbox feature, and keep the rest of the features associated in tact.  Such as killing for profit, economy/supply and demand, a reason to get gear, a reason to be a crafter, and enough risk involved to make for heart-pounding battles. 

I'll check back on this tomorrow.. hopefully the conversation progresses instead of regressing back into arguing and insult throwing =P

I'm not as young as I used to be...

Originally posted by DAS1337

There are other systems that help, or hurt FFA PvP and looting mechanics though.  Systems such as murder penalties, death penalties, penalties for killing players that can't defend themselves.  This is something else that has to be discussed, because it is a large reason why themepark gamers don't like sandboxes.  Should there be a murder system?  If so, how should it work?  Would restricting combat by levels work?  If you attack and kill a player under five levels than you, will you take permenant stat loss?  Will there be levels in the game at all, or just skill points and stats?  I personally thiink there should be both.  I feel that your level should determine your base stats and overall experience, which affects who you can and can't attack.  Your skill points should determine how efficient you are at any given talent within the game.  This means that crafters will not be fair game to players who kill.  You can RP to your hearts content.  You can fish on your boat without pirates being able to take your ship.  New players will remain safe for a decent period of time from veterans.  Again, these ideas may not be the best.  But they are logical and reasonable, and they are a start. 

 

These are the conversations we should be having more often as a gaming community.  Don't think that designers and developers don't read any of this stuff.  If a lot more of us approached this conversation like this, someone would notice.

I think some of those ideas could work as well as your post above this one.

I don't believe in penalty systems because you can work around them. Either the penalty is too steep making it a really undesireable thing to to, which results in something akin 'might as well not have the ability to do it' in the first place since nobody is going to even attempt it.

Or you have a balance where you have to weigh it if it's worth it. If you have a balance like that then some people are going to ignore the penalty and do it anyway. Then you stand with an undesireable situation where a new player is killed and loses his stuff. It's not really a comfort for him the ganker gets punished for it too.

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by DAS1337

There are other systems that help, or hurt FFA PvP and looting mechanics though.  Systems such as murder penalties, death penalties, penalties for killing players that can't defend themselves.  This is something else that has to be discussed, because it is a large reason why themepark gamers don't like sandboxes.  Should there be a murder system?  If so, how should it work?  Would restricting combat by levels work?  If you attack and kill a player under five levels than you, will you take permenant stat loss?  Will there be levels in the game at all, or just skill points and stats?  I personally thiink there should be both.  I feel that your level should determine your base stats and overall experience, which affects who you can and can't attack.  Your skill points should determine how efficient you are at any given talent within the game.  This means that crafters will not be fair game to players who kill.  You can RP to your hearts content.  You can fish on your boat without pirates being able to take your ship.  New players will remain safe for a decent period of time from veterans.  Again, these ideas may not be the best.  But they are logical and reasonable, and they are a start. 

 

These are the conversations we should be having more often as a gaming community.  Don't think that designers and developers don't read any of this stuff.  If a lot more of us approached this conversation like this, someone would notice.

I think some of those ideas could work.

I don't believe in penalty systems because you can work around them. Either the penalty is too steep making it a really undesireable thing to to, which results in something akin 'might as well not have the ability to do it' in the first place since nobody is going to aven attempt it.

Or you have a balance where you have to weigh it if it's worth it. If you have a balance like that then some people are going to ignore the penalty and do it anyway. Then you stand with an undesireable situation where a new player is killed and loses his stuff. It's not really a comfort for him the ganker gets punished for it too.

One thing before I go.

If you allow for players to murder others for profit, it doesn't matter how undesirable it is for that player.  They will figure out a way to do it.  This is a good thing for everyone involved.  You want a lot of new players feeling as though they are safe.  You want casual gamers feeling as though they are mostly safe.  Allow for a small window in opportunistic killing, but overdoing it will make your gaming experience a living hell.  You can have wonderful PvP in the game, in the form of faction/guild warfare, naval warfare, siege warfare, and open world/resource node control points with real benefits for all of them.  The idea is to make what turns players away a hard thing to do.  One on one random encounters need to be limited by level restrictions and you must introduce mechanics that protect the sheep of the game world.  Don't make it impossible, just make it very hard to get around it without putting your character at serious risk.  In the event that you are being harassed, there need to be a significant amount of equally difficult or easy areas that you can PvE in, to your hearts content. 

And for goodness sakes, housing please?  Safe zones!

Okay I'm going to bed.

While I enjoyed the Pathfinder Online blogs, they miss some key elements and touched only on the PvE side of things.

Any true sandbox/ffa/full loot game needs to make PC killing a last resort necesity and not a sport. Look at how killboards are ruining EVE online. Defending your space is one things, killing just for the killboard score is another.

The ballance between prey and predator must be kept in check at all times, meaning that PvP will not be profitable in the long term. Also metagaming and out of game mechanics cannot be reasonably controlled (multiple accounts/alts). Thus interaction with a PK by other characters also needs to be controlled by game mechanics to prevent alts resupplying criminals.

EVE would be an ideal game in this regard, if the transition from risk/options from highsec to nullsec would be consistent. Currently you cannot build many things in highsec, but you have almost no risks. In nullsec you cannot build much more but have the same risks as nullsec. Nullsec has all the advantages of highsec (risk is not counted in as it is assumed to be there at all times) while having the most building options. Since there is a part of space where the transition is broken (there is a gap), the feedback mechanisms do not work properly.

Anyway sandboxed to be true to their name need FFA/full loot PVP. Gear loss is what drives the economy. Without that, the crafters have no reason to exist or be a viable profession. Without builders, there's nothing to destroy and the game quickly separates into 2 groups of mutualy exclusive play styles and thus all the world dynamics break.

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by Adalwulff

 Then your missing the whole point, because the definition of sandbox and themepark are at the very heart of this thread.

How can you argue that FFA full loot PvP is or isnt a part of sandbox, if you dont know what the definition of sandbox is?

I think everyone here has agreed on one thing, you dont need FFA full loot PvP, in order to call the game sandbox. No matter what your definition of sandbox is.

But, when players like you who narrowly define sandbox, it gets much tougher to answer the question, get it?

I don't see how building and creating permanent marks in a game and the option to remove all that is a narrow definition. It's a defining feature of ALL sandbox games which disqualifies GW2. It's that simple. Get it?

 

And your definition is wrong, as many people here are telling you.

You claimed not to be lumping FFA full loot PvP with sandbox games, but you are, here is a quote from you:

"The current FFA PvP does alienate the general crowd no matter how much you love sandboxes. If you want your genre to recieve the love themeparks get you are going to have to accept some compromises to the way things are done particularly to the PvP side of things. If you don't like that idea then accept that your genre is stuck where it is. It has no appeal other than to the niche crowd as it stands now "

Right there, your saying all sandbox games have FFA full loot PvP, you have no idea what a sandbox is, you back peddle constantly. With your narrow definitions, there is no way the question can be answered without labeling all PvPers as lowlife griefers looking for FFA full loot PvP.

I play games that only have PvP, but I have never liked FFA full loot PvP, and I would say most PvPers are like me. The mindless gankers you keep talking about are a small minority.