Originally posted by lizardbones

---

Originally posted by Dewm

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  
The sandbox features are tied to the FFA PvP as well. At least the sandbox features I would be interested in. It's only a sandbox on the third, PvP continent. There are a lot of people who'd like to be a farmer in game, and a lot of people who want to be a marauder in game, but not nearly as many want to be both.  

---

 

 I don't know how you WOULDN'T count it as a sandbox.

• FFA PVP
• HUGE crafting list, including houses and boats and other mounts...
• Housing anyone?
• Large open world not guided by a deadset questline..
• Planting gardens trees and orchards (sp?)
• Builing castles and seiging them..

....I mean really.. if this isn't a sandbox, then there is no such thing as a sandbox.

I wasn't saying it wasn't a sandbox. It is a sandbox. The thing is, those features, the housing and farming, are all tied to the third continent. You can't build a house on the first or second continents. Guess where the FFA PvP is and guess where one of the game features is tearing down another player's house? You guessed it. The Third Continent.

This doesn't make it not a sandbox, but it does limit the appeal somewhat.

Now again, this could all change. I don't think it will though. The FFA PvP thing seems to be stuck in some developer's heads as the only way to bring a sandbox to the MMORPG market.

Although it was a duct-tape solution at the time, I think the next great sandbox will look and function a lot like the two-facet shards of Ultima Online. 

I'm a UO fan and an avid PVPer. I barely ever set foot in Trammel. However, if we take an unbiased and objective look back at UO from UO:R to present day, UO's Trammel facet is an excellent example of a functioning, feature-rich and engaging sandbox-style virtual world in a predominantly PvE-only (there is consensual PVP) environment. 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

 

Could you possibly be more close minded? You really don't get it do you? The game isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest, you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. You can manipulate the world in ways like no other game on the market today. Clueless.......

Could you possibly be more close minded? You reallyl don't get it do you? WOW isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest (and do LFD, mob grind, or many other possible ways to play), you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. Clueless .....

No one has done it yet for the sandbox in almost 15 (?) years. I've played Eve Online off and on, didn't try SWG, but neither one seemed casual friendly. A good example of casual friendly is having a level 12 character in GW2 (takes an hour or two), and get level boosted to 80 for pvp. Play a couple quick matches and log off. No significant time investment required.

Originally posted by Normike

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by stevebmbsqd

 

Could you possibly be more close minded? You really don't get it do you? The game isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest, you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. You can manipulate the world in ways like no other game on the market today. Clueless.......

Could you possibly be more close minded? You reallyl don't get it do you? WOW isn't just the quest. By not doing the quest (and do LFD, mob grind, or many other possible ways to play), you are still playing the game. That is why it is a sandbox. Clueless .....

No one has done it yet for the sandbox in almost 15 (?) years. I've played Eve Online off and on, didn't try SWG, but neither one seemed casual friendly. A good example of casual friendly is having a level 12 character in GW2 (takes an hour or two), and get level boosted to 80 for pvp. Play a couple quick matches and log off. No significant time investment required.

I agree with what you are looking for, but I have to wonder why even have these power gaps with levels if you're not going to use them.

1. Give big bonuses in power with level increases
2. Scale them to neutral when used
3. Allow new special attacks and powers, but also scaled to neutral

• Problem! When new players join battle and throw the scale out of whack.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

I'm a UO fan and an avid PVPer. I barely ever set foot in Trammel. However, if we take an unbiased and objective look back at UO from UO:R to present day, UO's Trammel facet is an excellent example of a functioning, feature-rich and engaging sandbox-style virtual world in a predominantly PvE-only (there is consensual PVP) environment. 

I think it could work too. And might benefit other sandbox titles, by exposing new players to the style who may then try other games.

---

Originally posted by JC-Smith

---

Originally posted by Loktofeit
I'm a UO fan and an avid PVPer. I barely ever set foot in Trammel. However, if we take an unbiased and objective look back at UO from UO:R to present day, UO's Trammel facet is an excellent example of a functioning, feature-rich and engaging sandbox-style virtual world in a predominantly PvE-only (there is consensual PVP) environment. 

---

I think it could work too. And might benefit other sandbox titles, by exposing new players to the style who may then try other games.

---

I've only played themeparks but I gravitate toward themeparks that have non-combat options for progression that aren't just "tacked on." I would absolutely try out a sandbox MMORPG that gave me the guarantee that I would not have to engage in PvP unless I desired. I enjoy PvP but have only in rare occurrences found any enjoyment in PvP in MMORPGs as it is usually skewed by RPG mechanics.

Originally posted by Cephus404

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Odd then that is nothing remotely resembling how I concluded Skyrim. I DID end the civil war, by choosing to actively support the NORDS... I could have opted for the Empire or to remain neutral instead but I didn't.  I did NOT kill Alduin...he and his dragons are still plagueing the lands. I did not become "arch-mage", my character being superstiteous generaly wants as little to do with magic as is possible....hence I didn't pursue anything remotely "mage-like". I did NOT join the Thieves Guild...in fact I actualy killed quite a few of thier members instead, as my character does not like Thieves. I did NOT join the Companions, as my character didn't feel like wasting his time with a bunch of Mercenaries when there was the Empire to wrest Skyrims independance from and  alot of snooty Thalmor to hew in twain. I did take time out to help some of the common folk of Skyrim out with their problems with bandits and various other threats.

At this point, I'm sure that you are going to tell me that I was "playing the game all wrong". To which I will respond that at no point in time did I find that the Developers fail to accomodate, support or provide for my style of play or the choices I made with my character. So unless you actualy represent Skyrims Developers in some sort of official fashion, I will maintain that you are the one who fails to understand the games design intent and features.

It has nothing to do with playing the game wrong, you didn't play the game.  There are specific questlines that you play through.  You cannot play through the Alduin questline without killing Alduin.  The only way to avoid doing it is not to play it at all.  You simply cannot play the questline and come to any other conclusion than is pre-programmed.  By the same token, you cannot play the civil war questline and not end the war.  There were two options, you could support the Imperials or the Nords, but both bring you to the same ultimate conclusion.  The war ends.  No other way around it.

The only way around those conclusions is not to play those questlines at all, exactly as I said.

Exactly how could you do otherwise in a game that isn't HUMAN MODERATED?  It's kinda the definition of a COMPUTER game. In a COMPUTER game, ANY computer game (or really any other application) the CODE must be able to account for the users actions or the application generates an unhandled exception and crashes. If that's your definition of sandbox then it's a nihlistic arguement since it precludes the possibility of ANY computer game (unless I suppose, we develop sentient AI's) from being a sandbox. That's complete non-sense.

I can assure you that I very much did play the game....for hours upon hours...and the way I played it was fully supported by the design. I was free to interact with the game environment in the way I chose and the choices I made had a permanent lasting effect on the game environment. If that's not "sandbox" then nothing IS.

The idea that it's not "sandbox" because if you play the story lines to conclusion you'll reach one of a number of conclusions for that particulary story-line that is "pre-programmed" is absurd.... News Flash....it's a COMPUTER PROGRAM braniac.... unless you've developed a self-programming AI, anything you do within it WILL BE pre-programmed.

Heck, even in a litteral sandbox with a real human being, all the conclusions to your play are "pre-programmed", you've got a FINITE number of grains of sand and a FINITE number of ways you can combine those grains according to the laws of physics..... that means that there are also a FINITE number of permutations you get from playing with the sand....it's just that  FINITE number is so large, the human brain can't comprehend it....so it appears INFINITE but it's really not.