I agree with the OP.

We already have more than enough 'MMO's' that downplay or outright ignore the inherent strengths and uniqueness of the Massively Multiplayer format.

Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

I'm definately on the "Give me a World." side...but honestly there IS room for both and everything in between. People are different and they have different tastes. People even enjoy different things dependent on thier mood. In other words, alot of people here in the states enjoy Italian food, but very few people enjoy nothing but Italian food. In the same vein, very few people enjoy just one style of game. However in terms of MMO's people may not neccesarly have TRIED that many different sorts or even know they exist, so they stick with what thier used to. It's also the case that people usualy want quality in whatever type they get. Someone may like Chinese food in addition to Italian food...but they AREN'T going to like bad Chinese food...and if the only times they've sampled Chinese food it was bad, they may (naturaly) think all Chinese food is bad.

A bit of the frustration with those of us on the "Give me a World." side is that for the past few years the vast majority of what has been produced is the "Game" style MMO. There is a pretty straight-forward reason for that... "Worlds" are HARD to build and they are especialy hard to get right and be able to sustain...so companies have been afraid to take on the task of trying to build them. "Games" are much easier to build, so that's what companies have focused on. There is a problem on that side too, which has been increasingly discovered. The typical "SPRPG" style "Game" has limited replayability. Like I novel, once you've read through it, you are pretty much done. Even with a really great novel, you might have truely enjoyed reading it, avidly read through it, anticipate the next volume in the series. You might even read through it again at SOME point in the future, but you are unlikely to continiously read through it month after month for years on end. For the novel author and publisher that's perfectly fine. The way they are structured and budgeted,  they make a nice proffit from the initial sale. If you go off and do other things while you wait 2 or 3 years for the author to publish the next volume in the series, it's not a big deal. But for the MMO companies that's not true. The way they are traditionaly structured and budgeted, they require continious regular monthly revenue over the long term in order to be proffitable enough to be worth doing. Therefore it becomes a race between the MMO Developer to create new content to keep the player interested over the long term and the player to consume that content. It's a race that the Developer tends to lose and lose badly, especialy in many of todays MMO's when the amount of resources it takes to create content (e.g. Voice Overs, Cinematics, High Quality Art assets) has increased. In the old days, when there were very few MMO's out on the market, that might not of mattered so much. Players were willing to tolerate the "dry spells" because there weren't many other options for them, so they found ways to amuse themselves and hang around...more inspite of the game then because of it. Today though...with so many other options, the player runs off to the next new thing on the market, taking thier cash with them, and they rarely come back.

That's why, fortunately us (or at least those of us that enjoy this style), Developers and Publishers are starting to talk about "Worlds" again....because "Worlds" if done right tend to be much more self-sustaining. Alot of the content grows organicaly from the players themselves and from the systems which drive the game world. The Developers don't find themselves stuck in a losing race to keep up with content for the players. Developers can still introduce content into those "Worlds" if they want, but because they aren't the sole source of it, they can workl at a pace which is sustainable. So good news (IMO) for the future for those of us interested in "Worlds" to play in. The thing we need to be a bit cautious about is that "Worlds" are ALOT more complicated to build and build well. It remains to be seen if some of the Developers used to producing "Game" style MMO's are upto the challenge. YMMV.

I disagree.

I think we can expand the gaming mechanic and produce better games.

I like 'world' games as well but I want the underlying mechanic to improve more.

Originally posted by DSWBeef

Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

Well then I hope for best for you.  I guess I can relent a little and say ONE Sand box  :)   AFter all one is all your Sandy types need right?   I think it needs a better name though  :)

Your idea is cool but you already have that sandbox game you are saying and it's real life.Cant be more sandbox than this :)

Serieusly? You consider real life a game?

Perhaps you are unaware that you are on a game forum and we talk about games, specific genre of games. These sandbox type games we long for do NOT reflect real life, I can't single handed build you a spaceship, I am not able to plant several shops where ever I want, I don't go on scavinging hunts, I don't slay monsters or alien creatures in real life, I don't craft all sorts of armor, weapons, items.

You know I got a business, a wife, a family, friends, other hobby's and many more things I love in real life, apart from the business the other things I do not want in my sandbox experiance, same like I don't want my sandbox experiance to reflect real life.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Yeah I remember the massive urban sprawl in UO and SWG.

Even at peak hours, 9/10 houses were empty as people were out in the world.

There was I think 1 or 2 cities in total in SWG on my server that were actually populated during peak hours - the rest were ghost towns. I don't remember any organized towns in UO - just lots and lots of houses with no one barely ever in them.

People think open world housing is the savior for building community in a game - they are wrong.

Open world housing in the UO/SWG style creates islands, or pockets, of community - but they are completely seperate from each other.

Micro-community A spends all their time in City A, Micro-community B in city B, and the rest in NPC towns etc.

The REAL answer is housing like what Black Desert is doing - what I've been advocating for for quite a while.

Fable-like housing - all the houses and shops at launch are already in game, and owned by NPC's and already in the established towns and cities. Players buy houses from NPC's.

People who live there actually live there. Plenty of NPCs and traveling players to keep things lively and use services provided by home/shop owners.

Local communities, global game. Win/Win.

SWG's housing problem was a GAME DESIGN PROBLEM.  As I have said a million times on this site, they screwed up their design early on, and the game was known for having people who would come and go, sometimes with months between.  They did not simply want to start deleting house full of loot and resources when they wanted players to come back.  

There is no *programming* reason, an in-world housing system has to be made with the same mistakes SOE made.  You are confusing game design decisions with what is possible.

In fact, there is a certain project, which will remain unnamed, that just released a patch for that housing system that eliminates the issue.  Also, games like LOTRO solved the problem of abandoned houses in their game by requiring people to manually pay rent, instead of attaching the rent to their bank accounts, and also by packing up all of their loot and stuff in 'escrow' accounts where they could come back to the game at any time and retrieve their things if they lost their house.

I get the feeling, though some of you are gamers, that you think far too much in absolutes when it comes to game design.  We are talking about code here.  No past game system design is carved in stone for all eternity.

Originally posted by DSWBeef

Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

I'm keeping an eye on Greed Monger, but one of the issues I worry about is the same problem Xsyon had.  They may potentially end up with a crafting simulator with no game.  Just killing mobs isn't good enough.  There must be some sort of gameplay framework and opposing positions for the players to follow.  The example I've used in the past was Star Wars Galaxies having the Galactic Civil War, with very clear and opposing factions.

Xsyon likely made the mistake of assuming the players would naturally do this, but by in large, people are pretty mellow, especially the kind of people who are attracted to a sandbox game like this.  They aren't going to just get together in groups and go attack people without some kind of driver.  What they may end up with is isloated PvP and ganking like Xsyon did.

I'm watching the game, and I'm going to give them some money too, but I have some huge concerns.  I wish they would have an online Q&A or something.

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by DSWBeef

Thats why im in love with Greed Monger so much atm. On launch day theres nothing but wilderness, monsters and players. the players build the world. Hell the devs are even letting us name it the world we are on. They will also allow us to wirte stories and if its good enough it will be pusblished as part of the official game canon. 

This is what ive been looking for. Players define the world, they define the lore, they define what its all about really. 

I'm keeping an eye on Greed Monger, but one of the issues I worry about is the same problem Xsyon had.  They may potentially end up with a crafting simulator with no game.  Just killing mobs isn't good enough.  There must be some sort of gameplay framework and opposing positions for the players to follow.  The example I've used in the past was Star Wars Galaxies having the Galactic Civil War, with very clear and opposing factions.

Xsyon likely made the mistake of assuming the players would naturally do this, but by in large, people are pretty mellow, especially the kind of people who are attracted to a sandbox game like this.  They aren't going to just get together in groups and go attack people without some kind of driver.  What they may end up with is isloated PvP and ganking like Xsyon did.

I'm watching the game, and I'm going to give them some money too, but I have some huge concerns.  I wish they would have an online Q&A or something.

This is why I think it's important to combine both themepark and sanbox design elements in a way that provides engaging systems.  Systems can add depth that content churn does not and, if well designed, will let players contribute to the content.

Having some "themepark" in the sandbox, so to speak, provides a framework for players to build on.  It keeps players on a more level playing field.  Having some "sandbox" in the themepark provides depth and a dynamic vibrant community driven feel to the game.  It's blending those to create engaging systems that should be the goal and is where we should be heading in game design.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.

---

 

I am sorry to inform you but that is not what freedom is.

Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.

That is not what freedom is?

Here's something from dictionary about freedom:

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat? If this kind of carebearism starts, that people start to twist the actual words and their terms to defend their ways, mods will soon have a lot of stuff to edit.

The freedom to oppress is not freedom. Freedom is exactly what Gdemami says: Those who want to fight are able to and those who don't, don't have to. In this case, freedom is consensual PvP.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat?

---

 

If I cannot refuse to fight and you force me into PVP against my will, my power to determine actions is met with a restraint.

 

If something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining.

Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.

---

 

I am sorry to inform you but that is not what freedom is.

Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.

That is not what freedom is?

Here's something from dictionary about freedom:

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat? If this kind of carebearism starts, that people start to twist the actual words and their terms to defend their ways, mods will soon have a lot of stuff to edit.

The freedom to oppress is not freedom. Freedom is exactly what Gdemami says: Those who want to fight are able to and those who don't, don't have to. In this case, freedom is consensual PvP.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat?

---

 

If I cannot refuse to fight and you force me into PVP against my will, my power to determine actions is met with a restraint.

 

 

If something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining.

 

Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by MindTrigger
 Also, games like LOTRO solved the problem of abandoned houses in their game by requiring people to manually pay rent, instead of attaching the rent to their bank accounts, and also by packing up all of their loot and stuff in 'escrow' accounts where they could come back to the game at any time and retrieve their things if they lost their house.

While I agree with you in the concept, the example is not a good one, the community in LotRO is asking for a housing revamp since years now... What you write is correct, the rent is paid manually, when you have only 1 paid week left you got a notice, and then the house gets locked up (and your stuff goes to escrow). BUT the house remains on your name, just locked.

This resulted in the years that you barely can find an empty house to buy, and most neighborhoods are empty ghost towns. So if you want to move in with your kinmates, there's a high chance you can't, and not because they're living a vivid neighborhood, but because it's full with long-ago locked houses on inactive accounts.

Originally posted by Kenze

 

"Freedom cannot exist in the absence of law. People living in a state of anarchy are not free. They live under the random tyranny of any warlord, gang, or predator who can overpower them. They also live within the prison of their own distrust for their fellow men. A code of clear, fairly administered laws enhances our ability to trust, and cooperate with, people we don’t know personally. Of course, laws restrict our actions, by punishing us for engaging in illegal activities… but they also enhance our freedom, by allowing us to work more easily with each other, and trade with confidence. "

Thats why i like to read Conan ,nobody cant attack anything,everybody is just trading pizzas,i hope games will be soon like that, cant attack NPCs and NPCs cant attack  me,perfect. Just missing the point that in these games you dont really die,you are not raising any kind of family or whatever theres missing.

---

Originally posted by Po_gg

---

Originally posted by MindTrigger  Also, games like LOTRO solved the problem of abandoned houses in their game by requiring people to manually pay rent, instead of attaching the rent to their bank accounts, and also by packing up all of their loot and stuff in 'escrow' accounts where they could come back to the game at any time and retrieve their things if they lost their house.

---

While I agree with you in the concept, the example is not a good one, the community in LotRO is asking for a housing revamp since years now... What you write is correct, the rent is paid manually, when you have only 1 paid week left you got a notice, and then the house gets locked up (and your stuff goes to escrow). BUT the house remains on your name, just locked.

This resulted in the years that you barely can find an empty house to buy, and most neighborhoods are empty ghost towns. So if you want to move in with your kinmates, there's a high chance you can't, and not because they're living a vivid neighborhood, but because it's full with long-ago locked houses on inactive accounts.

---

This system sounds cool with a little tweak. If players don't log in for a couple weeks, they get a redund on their house and stuff is put in escrow. They can get a new house upon return.

Oh for people saying sandbox = pvp, please stop. Completely unrelated. Sandbox is a world where the player decides what to do; themeparks tell players what to do.

---

Originally posted by Neherun

If something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining.

 

Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

---

It is your assumptions, your logic, your flaws. I did not imply any of what you said.

Originally posted by Arclan

 

Originally posted by Po_gg

This resulted in the years that you barely can find an empty house to buy, and most neighborhoods are empty ghost towns. So if you want to move in with your kinmates, there's a high chance you can't, and not because they're living a vivid neighborhood, but because it's full with long-ago locked houses on inactive accounts.

This system sounds cool with a little tweak. If players don't log in for a couple weeks, they get a redund on their house and stuff is put in escrow. They can get a new house upon return.

The problem is that the house remains on the player's name. And if the owner don't log in (or log in, just don't care about his house anymore), the house stays locked. Apparently Turbine is unable to separate it :)

Just guessing, but I think now the escrow is somehow linked to the house, because if you pay later, your house opening up with all your stuff. And those rare occasions when they say something on the subject, they're stating that housing is not a priority right now, so probably it will stay this way in the future too.

(another guess, maybe they don't want to separate it. In your model, if you don't pay, stuff goes to escrow, and player lost his house with a refund, that's basically a free storage for the rarely used stuff... and Turbine is very careful with the precious inventory spaces :) )

Originally posted by Po_gg

Originally posted by MindTrigger
 Also, games like LOTRO solved the problem of abandoned houses in their game by requiring people to manually pay rent, instead of attaching the rent to their bank accounts, and also by packing up all of their loot and stuff in 'escrow' accounts where they could come back to the game at any time and retrieve their things if they lost their house.

While I agree with you in the concept, the example is not a good one, the community in LotRO is asking for a housing revamp since years now... What you write is correct, the rent is paid manually, when you have only 1 paid week left you got a notice, and then the house gets locked up (and your stuff goes to escrow). BUT the house remains on your name, just locked.

This resulted in the years that you barely can find an empty house to buy, and most neighborhoods are empty ghost towns. So if you want to move in with your kinmates, there's a high chance you can't, and not because they're living a vivid neighborhood, but because it's full with long-ago locked houses on inactive accounts.

The main problem with the housing in Lotro is that it's not much more than additional storage for most people.  Like most other instanced housing, it's largely worthless.

Still, any problems with these systems are just design issues.  The original complaint by BadSpock was the old problem SWG had with myriad abandoned homes taking up space and littering the countrysides.  You can also attribute this to the NGE though, when most people left en masse days after the changes.  

At any rate, these are still mostly design decisions.  I have no problem bellieving in-world housing can be done correctly as long as the system is fleshed out from the get-go.

Originally posted by Kenze

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Neherun

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

Its called freedom, that guy wanted you killed, so he killed you.

---

 

I am sorry to inform you but that is not what freedom is.

Freedom implies there is equal right for those who are unwilling to fight as those who are willing.

That is not what freedom is?

Here's something from dictionary about freedom:

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat? If this kind of carebearism starts, that people start to twist the actual words and their terms to defend their ways, mods will soon have a lot of stuff to edit.

The freedom to oppress is not freedom. Freedom is exactly what Gdemami says: Those who want to fight are able to and those who don't, don't have to. In this case, freedom is consensual PvP.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Neherun

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

 

How does this apply to your argument that those who are unwilling to fight should have the right to refuse the right of combat?

---

 

If I cannot refuse to fight and you force me into PVP against my will, my power to determine actions is met with a restraint.

 

 

If something happens when both ends agree, its not considered a freedom (of choice), its a result of negotiation, where both parties agree. Freedom isn't a result of bargaining.

 

Your logic is flawed on so many levels I cannot even grasp your mindset.

 

 

 

 

 

"Freedom cannot exist in the absence of law. People living in a state of anarchy are not free. They live under the random tyranny of any warlord, gang, or predator who can overpower them. They also live within the prison of their own distrust for their fellow men. A code of clear, fairly administered laws enhances our ability to trust, and cooperate with, people we don’t know personally. Of course, laws restrict our actions, by punishing us for engaging in illegal activities… but they also enhance our freedom, by allowing us to work more easily with each other, and trade with confidence. "

I ain't sure if you're being serious anymore. Troll or not, I'll reply out of boredom.

First, laws in any form do not restrict us from doing anything, they give us incentives not to do something. So your concept of "Law = freedom" doesn't make sense at all. Also, the whole concept of anarchy is freedom, and arguably, the problem with anarchy is that there are zero incentives not to do something, thus "everything is in the state of anarchy". 

Laws do not enhance our freedom in anyway, they give us consequences for doing something, we still have the freedom of choice whether we decide to engage in action considered illegial. Next time you walk through red traffic lights, see if some artificial barrier suddenly tells you "no, you cannot do that". And you'll wait for the green light. I seriously wish to see such a higher force invetervention.