Originally posted by BigHatLogan

Originally posted by Thorqemada

 

---

Originally posted by kishe
UO, Eve Online and SWG are only true sandbox MMOs ever released.
 
Rest have been half arsed indie MMOs that have just explained lack of content for being "Sandbox"

---

 

This and the misimplementation of meaningless pvp with no risk-reward balance demanding much more time and passion from the builders and defenders than the destroyers who, if fail, simply come another day.

The builders and destroyers are the same people in a real sandbox.

SWG was amazing in things you could do, build on the map, houses, harvestors, bases, towns.    I liked this because I could RP a crafter more than just sitting at a crafting table and rinsing and repeating.    I dont think any other game ever got as complex as the old system was.    It did get watered down with the NGE, but thier where some things added in that I did like.  

Problem with SWG sandbox is was they built it then never did anything with it for years.   They could have done so much with that game, it truely is a example of regrets in the MMO gaming world.    Not saying it was perfect at start thier could have been much more done in the planning that would have made it work much better.  

The problems with a sandbox is it is a complex game model that does take alot of thought and you need it to be almost perfect or the whole thing starts to drift.    Example:  the game economy is probably the hardest thing to manage for a developer.    EVE like SWG was; is based on combat missions for income.     EVE is the bank, they pay out money for missions.   Problem with that is players start to feel thier working for the crafters.   

After a time the crafters get so bloated with credits they become hated by the combat pve players.    EVE countered this with PLEX the crafters can convert the money into game time.     Credits in EVE in theory come in and go out, SWG never had a credit sink like this.   Game inflation was a major problem in SWG, by the end of the game things you used to buy cheap costed a great deal.   

Their wasnt any incentive to craft in SWG after the NGE, thier was no more decay which made it a one time sale.    As new player numbers decreased so did the number of crafters decrease.    Game balance is a tuff thing for sandbox games; and that is the reason I think thier are not more of them out thier.   And why it becomes less and less fun for players if the game itself is broken or slowly becomes broken over time.

Someday someone will make a working sandbox, as game engines become more complex in that it becomes easier for developers to make complex game models you might see something that hits the spot for all those that are waiting for a good sandbox.

I voted for the reason of FFA PvP but really it is the poor quality and lack of fun that drives me away. I've played some with FFA PvP but it must have a way to avoid PvP if you want up until you can compete with others. MO and DF at day 1 have their newcomers driven away from the community by gankers unless you join a guild and level in seclusion. FFA PvP can work with enough rules and restrictions but the ones that don't give it a horrible rep. Just like open world PvP. You could still have a light death penality but it is dinished if you died in an unfair fight.

 I dont play sandboxes because....

The players suck. 99% of sanboxes are all about FFA Open World PvP with Full Loot, which attracts the wrong kinda crowd for me to have fun. 

Originally posted by UsulDaNeriak

Originally posted by Boardwalker

I only play one sandbox, EVE. To me, it's the best MMO out there, and not just because it's a sandbox. And to everyone who says EVE is  a "gankfest", it's not--I've been ganked a total of 2 times in 6 years, which is way less than in most other games I've played.

The division of hi-sec, lo-sec, and null sec is a great approach to way to divide those who don't want to pvp regularly from those who do, without totally removing an element of danger necessary in such a free-form game.

this is the first key-succes-factor for a sandbox. you have to divide the world into huge areas for PVE only and full PvP. if not, most people wont play it.  your game will become deserted and your PvP guilds will not get enough recruits. you would be astonished, how many people finally try and play PvP even if they started the game just in order to play the PVE-content in their huge safe-zones.

the second key succes-factor is quality & functionality. the feature-list of these indygames are looking great. but most of it will never be implemented or is buggy as hell. EVE started with much less features than today and of course it had bugs. but overall it was sufficient to stay in game and have fun. from this point EVE growed steadily.

so the road to success for an AAA-sandbox is clear. unfortunately no company had tried to do it in the last decade. well, you could count EVE as AAA in the menawhile, even if it did not start as one.

this opinion fits very well to the result of the poll above.

Seconded. Also an Eve vet here. And I do occasionally try to find other games...it's a shame that pretty much every other "sandbox" MMO I've tried or looked up is pretty much a hulking glob of radioactive donkey shit, for virtually every reason listed on the poll.

Originally posted by Boardwalker

Originally posted by Axehilt

Other:

• Open PVP is awful (before accounting for full-loot PVP, which makes it even worse)
• Sandboxes are empty.  They're big worlds, with a few things to do, but very little gameplay.
• Sandboxes work best as singleplayer or small-scale multiplayer, where your impact on the world can be large without disrupting others' experience (and without being disrupted in return.)
• Sandboxes thus far have had really shitty moment-to-moment gameplay. (Like EVE where you spend most of your time AFK traveling or AFK mining or falling asleep in combat (where you can almost AFK, but not quite.))

 

That's really the path to a successful sandbox: making the moment-to-moment crafting (or whatever) so fun that you just want to stay in the game playing it.  With EVE or Darkfall you have these big, shallow wastes of time instead.

You and I must play different versions of EVE.

No kidding. From the sounds of it all he did was mining and missioning, and AFK missioning at that.

Axehilt, if what I just said was true, newsflash: that's perhaps 10% of what is in Eve. You can't make a grand sweeping statement about the entirety of a game when you've only played a tiny fraction of what it has to offer.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Naa, there are always people who will argue specifics to degrees that are beyond the general ideals of anything. That doesn't matter. It's an excuse.

I don't agree; If your customers can't agree on what the basic semantic constuct means, they can't agree to buy your game.

Poor Bob's so confused about which MMO he's supposed to be building, no chance his boss is going to OK the money for it.

You make a good point but so does Amaranthar.

You talk about perception in a sense where the Devs are trying to make a game up to the expectations of the players, but that only shows that many Devs do not know themselves what it should be and are trying to identify it through the players.

Did Richard Garriot (and associate Devs) browse MMORPG forums to find out what the players wanted when he made UO?

No he just made it as he felt it, from his own insight, and people liked it because it felt alive.

So this is where I agree with Amaranthar, a Dev wishing to make a Sandbox will make a good one, the ones that have been made and have given a bad name to the Type of MMO is because, in my opinion, were made by Devs that were after money and tried to cater to what players wanted.

Now I am not saying to not be transparent with players and not listen to player suggestions or even get some ideas from them on how to approach things, good ideas do not fall from the sky anyways, good ideas come when ideas have sex together so it is good to expose discuss and get ideas from many places, but you also need to have some passion and a vision about what you want to create.

And frankly maybe the simple truth is that many of todays Devs just do not wish to make a Sandbox game, otherwise they would be able to sell their ideas and concepts to Investors.

In my case I don't really care if a game is a sandbox or themepark as long as it is good.

But most sandboxes have lacked a lot in polish so right now I don't play any. If a good sanbox releases I will play it (WoDO).

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

Originally posted by Boardwalker

Originally posted by Axehilt

Other:

• Open PVP is awful (before accounting for full-loot PVP, which makes it even worse)
• Sandboxes are empty.  They're big worlds, with a few things to do, but very little gameplay.
• Sandboxes work best as singleplayer or small-scale multiplayer, where your impact on the world can be large without disrupting others' experience (and without being disrupted in return.)
• Sandboxes thus far have had really shitty moment-to-moment gameplay. (Like EVE where you spend most of your time AFK traveling or AFK mining or falling asleep in combat (where you can almost AFK, but not quite.))

 

That's really the path to a successful sandbox: making the moment-to-moment crafting (or whatever) so fun that you just want to stay in the game playing it.  With EVE or Darkfall you have these big, shallow wastes of time instead.

You and I must play different versions of EVE.

No kidding. From the sounds of it all he did was mining and missioning, and AFK missioning at that.

Axehilt, if what I just said was true, newsflash: that's perhaps 10% of what is in Eve. You can't make a grand sweeping statement about the entirety of a game when you've only played a tiny fraction of what it has to offer.

Whats the other 90%?

Im not trying to be cute here but ask out of curiosity as I had the same experience with EVE Axehilt had.

What do I need to do in EVE for it to be fun?

Also, why is it not made clear that what I'm experiencing is only 10% and where I get the other 90% of the game?

Is there some tutorial I'm missing?

Originally posted by Loke666

In my case I don't really care if a game is a sandbox or themepark as long as it is good.

But most sandboxes have lacked a lot in polish so right now I don't play any. If a good sanbox releases I will play it (WoDO).

Don't get your hopes up on WoD...

Originally posted by AdamTM

Whats the other 90%?

Im not trying to be cute here but ask out of curiosity as I had the same experience with EVE Axehilt had.

 

What do I need to do in EVE for it to be fun?

Also, why is it not made clear that what I'm experiencing is only 10% and where I get the other 90% of the game?

Is there some tutorial I'm missing?

It depends on what you want to do. Check out this link for an idea of some of the things that you can do in EVE.

There are ingame tutorials and out-of-game tutorials that can help you get started, depending on what you want to do. Here are just a couple of the oof game tutorials, and there are many, many others that are available:

- Beginner's Guide
- Exploration
- Planetary Interaction

Contact me ingame I can help you get going with ISK and whatever else that you need.

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

Originally posted by Boardwalker

You and I must play different versions of EVE.

No kidding. From the sounds of it all he did was mining and missioning, and AFK missioning at that.

Axehilt, if what I just said was true, newsflash: that's perhaps 10% of what is in Eve. You can't make a grand sweeping statement about the entirety of a game when you've only played a tiny fraction of what it has to offer.

Well we covered that I'm not interested in terrible PVE (AFK travel, AFK mining, mostly-AFK missioning.)

But I'm also not interested in terrible PVP (zerging and progression-whoring, with player decisions being almost meaningless.)

And I'm certainly not interested in terrible PVP where the penalty for losing is that you're forced to engage in terrible PVE to recoup money and ships.

That's the root of EVE's niche appeal.  Most people just want good games which freely offer great moment-to-moment gameplay, and (perhaps most importantly) focus on player decisions every session.

Originally posted by AdamTM

Whats the other 90%?

Im not trying to be cute here but ask out of curiosity as I had the same experience with EVE Axehilt had.

Indirectly I suppose we've pointed out another reason sandbox MMOs shoot themselves in the foot: hiding 90% of their fun.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Well we covered that I'm not interested in terrible PVE (AFK travel, AFK mining, mostly-AFK missioning.)

But I'm also not interested in terrible PVP (zerging and progression-whoring, with player decisions being almost meaningless.)

And I'm certainly not interested in terrible PVP where the penalty for losing is that you're forced to engage in terrible PVE to recoup money and ships.

That's the root of EVE's niche appeal.  Most people just want good games which freely offer great moment-to-moment gameplay, and (perhaps most importantly) focus on player decisions every session.

I disagree with your assessment of both pve and pvp in EVE, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by raistlinm
The components in sand box gameplay that I enjoy are offered by themepark games as well if one is willing to look for it.  While sand box only seems to mean that there is not going to be any kind of world content at all.

No one ever mentions EQ2.   Its 75% themepark with 25% sandbox.   Crafting and housing, but now they added in design your own dungeon so maybe 70-30.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Kiljaedenas

Originally posted by Boardwalker

You and I must play different versions of EVE.

No kidding. From the sounds of it all he did was mining and missioning, and AFK missioning at that.

Axehilt, if what I just said was true, newsflash: that's perhaps 10% of what is in Eve. You can't make a grand sweeping statement about the entirety of a game when you've only played a tiny fraction of what it has to offer.

Well we covered that I'm not interested in terrible PVE (AFK travel, AFK mining, mostly-AFK missioning.)

But I'm also not interested in terrible PVP (zerging and progression-whoring, with player decisions being almost meaningless.)

And I'm certainly not interested in terrible PVP where the penalty for losing is that you're forced to engage in terrible PVE to recoup money and ships.

That's the root of EVE's niche appeal.  Most people just want good games which freely offer great moment-to-moment gameplay, and (perhaps most importantly) focus on player decisions every session.

While I agree with the ideal of "great moment to moment game play", I don't think it's required to be in the form of instant ready quests all the time. I'm just sayin', I don't know exactly how you mean that.

And I wanted to throw in also that player decisions might be better put as player self direction. Choice to play what you want, to set your own goals, as in "self directed".

Originally posted by Suraknar

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Naa, there are always people who will argue specifics to degrees that are beyond the general ideals of anything. That doesn't matter. It's an excuse.

I don't agree; If your customers can't agree on what the basic semantic constuct means, they can't agree to buy your game.

Poor Bob's so confused about which MMO he's supposed to be building, no chance his boss is going to OK the money for it.

You make a good point but so does Amaranthar.

You talk about perception in a sense where the Devs are trying to make a game up to the expectations of the players, but that only shows that many Devs do not know themselves what it should be and are trying to identify it through the players.

Did Richard Garriot (and associate Devs) browse MMORPG forums to find out what the players wanted when he made UO?

No he just made it as he felt it, from his own insight, and people liked it because it felt alive.

So this is where I agree with Amaranthar, a Dev wishing to make a Sandbox will make a good one, the ones that have been made and have given a bad name to the Type of MMO is because, in my opinion, were made by Devs that were after money and tried to cater to what players wanted.

Now I am not saying to not be transparent with players and not listen to player suggestions or even get some ideas from them on how to approach things, good ideas do not fall from the sky anyways, good ideas come when ideas have sex together so it is good to expose discuss and get ideas from many places, but you also need to have some passion and a vision about what you want to create.

And frankly maybe the simple truth is that many of todays Devs just do not wish to make a Sandbox game, otherwise they would be able to sell their ideas and concepts to Investors.

 

Add WoW to the list of those who didn't let player arguments stop them. EQ had all sorts of arguements over how to fix their issues, but Blizzard just went ahead and found their own answers, did it very well for a Themepark design, and reaped the harvest.

Hell, if everyone "didn't" because they couldn't get an idea from conflicting arguments, we'd never get anywhere with anything. It takes those uncommon leaders, those rare people with inspirations, to make things better than before. This industry, sadly, is empty of inspiration and full of fixation on what's been done.

Originally posted by Boardwalker

I disagree with your assessment of both pve and pvp in EVE, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Well it's not really about whether you and I agree, and more about this being the fundamental stumbling block to a sandbox being wildly successful.