Trending Games | Rift | Defiance | Darkfall: Unholy Wars | Neverwinter
Network: Gamertube FPSguru RTSguru
| 120 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
10/21/12 5:51:17 AM#41
Originally posted by busdriver Just curious; do you really expect corporations to discard profit (on that magnitude)? Idealism is a cool thing. It would be great if our MMO companies went back to MUD-sized player bases and income models. But looking at it realistically, I don't really expect corporations to throw away cash voluntarily. There's no 'social conscience' to appeal to. ---------- Of course, you could claim that you're giving them more profits; 1 toon/1account means they have to pay for multiple accounts! But I expect the beans wouldn't quite count out that way. Nor would players 'trapped' in a bad spec or just-nerfed class be thanking you very much. |
|
|
10/21/12 5:54:10 AM#42
Originally posted by Apraxis Vanguard downfall was not the features of the game it was the client, Vanguard has some great features. Smed has already said that EQNext will look more like EQ and Vanguard than EQ2. Taking some features is not the same as redoing, he didn't say he was redoing Vanguard. Did you play EQ?  |
|
|
10/21/12 6:08:45 AM#43
Yeap.. i played EQ Vanilla for a few month.. and i didnt like it. But that is not the point. Not everyone likes the same thing, and it is completely ok. And, just out of curiosity. Vanguard failed because of the client? Why wasnt the client fixed in the first place? Or why do you think if the redo Vanguard(feature wise) they will do now the client right, or any other problem it might got? And as much as i remember, no SoE game was really polished at release. Nor EQ, SWG, EQ2 neither Vanguard. But in the beginning ppl were a lot more forgiving then now. I am not sure if SoE is even capable of releasing a polished game. Of course, i could be proven wrong. We will see. |
|
|
10/21/12 6:19:06 AM#44
Originally posted by Apraxis Lol Vanguards client not being fully working at release is neither here or their,it is what it is. Again you are assuming Smed said all Vanguards features, he means some features will be taken and expanded. He has also said that EQNext will be going back to EQ not a follow up of EQ2. You have a problem with SOE so you will never be convinced, i don't care if your convince or not lol, i'm looking forward to Smeds remake of EQ with features from both EQ and Vanguard and features that we may not have seen yet. Again Vanguard has some great features, we all know how it went at releaee, that's old news and not what this is about.
|
|
|
10/21/12 6:20:20 AM#45
Can someone explain to me why if an mmo is not crafting focused then that makes it a Theme Park mmo?
|
|
|
10/21/12 6:25:20 AM#46
I would love to see a 'master list' of Sandbox rules. I'm curious as to what they actually are.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game. |
|
|
10/21/12 6:27:58 AM#47
Originally posted by Roxtarr yes and will be the joke of the year |
|
|
10/21/12 6:34:51 AM#48
Originally posted by Larloch Ok. i will try. Basicly. It is about static vs. dynamic. Dynamic means you can change the world. One point to change the world is to create objects(like a house, or the usual armor/weapons) and place it in the world(house, building streets, cities), and withit changing the world. If you dont have any mechanismn(like crafting) to change the world, to place objects in the world, or alter objects in the world it will be static. With other words it doesnt change over time. Therefore it isnt a sandbox. Why it is then a themepark? If it is static, it is designed from the game designer from stretch and thing were placed in the world like they want, it is like building up a theme park, where other ppl can come in and enjoy what the designer have build up. Rushing through the content designers have build up for them.
|
|
|
10/21/12 6:45:22 AM#49
Originally posted by Apraxis Thanks I figured it would be something like that. I guess I simply don't agree that crafting should be the main catalyst for the evolution of a fantasy sandbox mmo world. |
|
|
10/21/12 6:49:59 AM#50
For me number 1 is the freedom to choose your alignment. I don't want to be shoed into a faction and be forced to be good or evil depending on race choice. If I decide I want to kill the next guy then so be it. With a good justice system in place you'll forge a tighter community to be sure as there will be a greater sense of danger in the world.
I'm a unique and beautiful snowflake. |
|
|
10/21/12 6:54:41 AM#51
Originally posted by Larloch Crafting is definitely a cornerstone of a traditional sandbox, along with PvP. Crafters supply equipment and items of all kinds, from weapons and armor to constructions, to the PvPers to fight with. These can be destroyed to create a constant demand for crafting. PvPers fight over territory containing valuable resources for the crafters to make things with. These are used up in crafting to create a constant demand for the territories containing the materials. Those two demands interacting with each other is generally what creates the dynamic player-driven world of a sandbox. That being said, I'm sure it's not the only way to create a dynamic player-driven world. But it's one way that's been proven to work. We are the bunny. |
|
|
10/21/12 6:57:44 AM#52
Originally posted by defector1968 The whole point of sandboxes is rather the opposite, what rules? At this point I pretty much reflexively disagree with anybody who proposes a rule about what a "true" gamer or a "true" sandbox needs to be. The op avoided that "true" word, but he gave us the same thread. |
|
|
Kyleran
 Bitter Vet™
Joined: 9/13/06
Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV |
10/21/12 6:58:29 AM#53
Originally posted by Robokapp A recent thread I created polled players about whether they owned multiple accounts in a game and SWG was the hands down winner with several folks claiming to have 12, 16 and even 20 something accounts to get around this limitation of 1 character per account. So sort of a win win for the Devs and don't worry, people who want to spy will buy more than one account. Back to the OP. The OP is on the right track, but developing a proper MMO economy with sufficient money drains is a bit more complicated than having your gear wear out or break if controlling inflation is your goal. Look at the real world, hordes of economists try to figure out ways to control inflation and at the of the day, you actually want some level of it, just at a controlled, predictable rate. I believe at the end of the day, the agreement is having a slow, steadygrowth of the money supply is the way to go (vs Keynesian policies) and that's where it becomes challenging in MMORPG's. Since resources in MMO's tend to spring from no where, even if items degrade, it won't do much to control inflation so you have to put in other sinks. EVE does this by having a strong PVP model at its core to drive the economy, and they make sure that in most fights besides a ship being destroyed some portion of its modules and cargo burn with it. This permits them to fine tune it some, increase or decrease the destruction rate if you will. There are other ways EVE tries control the economy, (CCP has a full time staff economist to assist them) and even they can't totally kill inflation, but have done one of the best jobs I've seen in a MMORPG to do so over the long haul
"What gamers want ... is new game play patterns different from what they've experienced before" - Axehilt |
|
10/21/12 7:06:23 AM#54
Originally posted by Icewhite So... the #1 rule of sandboxes is that it has no rules? Which is one heck of a contradiction if I ever saw one. Not to mention that any game is, in essence, nothing more than a set of rules. From chess, as defined by the unique properties of the board and each piece, to any MMO, as defined by it's programming. Games are, by very definition, rules. A game without rules isn't a game at all, let alone a sandbox game. We are the bunny. |
|
|
10/21/12 7:17:26 AM#55
Originally posted by PittyH I disagree. The number one factor of a sandbox is freedom. Thats it, everything else is flavor text. Everyone has a idea of what to THEM makes a sandbox ideal but they are not rules for a sandbox. For example die hard PvPers would reckon that free for all PvP with full loot option is the key to a sandbox. A crafter would believe what you requested was key. A PvEer would expect greedom to go anywhere from the deepest depths of the ocean to the highest mountain peaks as essential. For me a Sandbox means freedom to play my way.
|
|
|
10/21/12 7:27:49 AM#56
just copy swg but with less bugs.
|
|
|
10/21/12 7:33:10 AM#57
Originally posted by gobla Nope. The #1 rule is: YOU don't get to tell ME how to play. More of an ideal, a goal really. Maybe the whole thread's blame is at the op's feet, for choosing hyperbole for a title... I suspect Smed's going to lean more towards SWG than towards EVE, given his 'druthers. |
|
|
10/21/12 7:43:10 AM#58
Originally posted by gobla Yet there's still materials which are worth fighting for and materials which are not worth fighting for. For example technetium is a "bottleneck" material which is crucial for T2 industry. Also, the profit to effort ratio varies greatly between materials. Mining trit is easy whereas other materials require more effort; however, often the effort does not reflect the profit you get. It is also worth to note that a significant portion of the ships and modules in the game are very unpopular or practically unused. This in turn affects demand and which materials are useful or not. "Lets make everything require everything" is not really a solution either, wouldn't you say? Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. -Author unknown, attributed to Mark Twain |
|
|
10/21/12 7:54:06 AM#59
Originally posted by Icewhite You as in the developers? In which case no game is a sandbox. In every single game the creators impose limits and restrictions in the confines of which gameplay exists. Or you as in other players? In which case every game fulfills that rule, as long as the player has even half a spine. In every single game you're free to do whatever the hell you want in the confines of gameplay, regardless of what other players feel. What you're saying is completely meaningless in regards to games. A sandbox is defined by it's box. The confines and restrictions in which the game takes place. That's what makes them interesting. All sand and no box and the entire game loses all it's meaning, not that you can even call it a game in that case. Meaningful choices require restrictions. Choosing between A and B only has meaning if the restriction that you can't have both exists. And if there's one thing that's at the core of a sandbox it's the choices of it's players and those choices only have meaning if there are rules telling them how to play, telling them what the consequences of their choices are. We are the bunny. |
|
|
10/21/12 8:01:08 AM#60
Originally posted by PittyH I wouldn't call them No. 1 and No. 2 - but overall they're pretty good design rules. In my book your No. 2 is even more important than your No. 1. As to the posts about 1 character/server. I would really, really like to agree - sadly it doesn't work anymore. Especially the more competitive players will use any means to gain a competitive advantage, i.e. multiple accounts, dual-boxing, armies of alts, botting, etc. I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions. |
|
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 18, 2013 8:03 PM
- Page Created in 0.796 seconds -
