There's no death, so wide open PvP only makes it gamey, not sandbox. You need some form of risk to the PKers to make it sandbox. Death is not a risk, since there is none. Looting is not a risk, since loot can be replaced.

Originally posted by Amaranthar

There's no death, so wide open PvP only makes it gamey, not sandbox. You need some form of risk to the PKers to make it sandbox. Death is not a risk, since there is none. Looting is not a risk, since loot can be replaced.

Your logic is retarded.  It would mean the same thing in the real world, since someone else can replace you, and your possessions can always be replaced.

The importance is not what can be replaced or the " infinite lives ", but the time that is lost doing whatever you were doing. 

Originally posted by Amaranthar

 Death is not a risk, since there is none. Looting is not a risk, since loot can be replaced.

Logic fail?

What is a risk to you then? If dying or losing stuff isn't, what the hell is?

You mean worldy? Sandbox is a type of player defined gameplay. Like city building. If you cant destroy the buildings its still a sandbox. PVP with looting is just pvp with looting. With no penalty it is casual.

I agree with OP in the sense that death lately in mmo's has next to no meaning, and even if you could be looted, all you have to do is replace your gear.

I don't think a sandbox game requires these features, but I think they are nice additions if its pvp oriented.

Eve is a great example of how a sandbox should be, while implementing gear loss with death.

A PvE oriented sandbox would have to be a little different, personally I think Ryzom was a great example of a PvE sandbox done well (though under rated)

Originally posted by Amaranthar

There's no death, so wide open PvP only makes it gamey, not sandbox. You need some form of risk to the PKers to make it sandbox. Death is not a risk, since there is none. Looting is not a risk, since loot can be replaced.

Looting is most certainly a risk.  I'll never forget the day I tried to have my first Atlan dagger made in AC on Darktide.  I spent WEEKS farming for those damned ingots.  I was so excited when I finally had enough to make my new weapon, but I needed to find an alchemist to finish up the job.

I can still remember lurking in the shadows, trembling in fear that someone would see me, as I waited for the rendezvous with the alchemist.  Needless to say, the bad guys found me before the alchemist did.  I'm sure they were pretty happy with the haul they made that day.  I was so upset!  You have NO idea.

I would say true sandbox requires full PvP and looting, yes.

The way I've understood sandbox is that you can do anything, so if you where restricted not to attack someone and loot them it wouldn't be as much sandbox as in a game which you could do that.

On the other hand one might say that no/ lack of crafting also is a restriction in the sandbox, but I allways go with PvP interaction before PvE crafting.

No a sandbox does not require pvp or pvp looting.  Both those options are preferences not requirements.  This is the unfortunate trap that many recent sandbox attempts have fallen into and part of the reason why any sandbox game hasn't gained any traction.

No matter how loud the whiners cried UO post trammel was still a sandbox.  Less now then it was right after trammel but still one of the best sandboxes out there still.

double

Originally posted by Vanpry

No a sandbox does not require pvp or pvp looting.  Both those options are preferences not requirements.  This is the unfortunate trap that many recent sandbox attempts have fallen into and part of the reason why any sandbox game hasn't gained any traction.

No matter how loud the whiners cried UO post trammel was still a sandbox.  Less now then it was right after trammel but still one of the best sandboxes out there still.

Then your definition of sandbox must be very restricted... then Lotro might as well be sandbox

Originally posted by Vanpry

No a sandbox does not require pvp or pvp looting.  Both those options are preferences not requirements.  This is the unfortunate trap that many recent sandbox attempts have fallen into and part of the reason why any sandbox game hasn't gained any traction.

No matter how loud the whiners cried UO post trammel was still a sandbox.  Less now then it was right after trammel but still one of the best sandboxes out there still.

QFT

Being a big PVPer myself, and a huge fan of open world PVP and player drop looting (full or partial), I agree with this completely. To me, a sandbox is a game that lets players develop their own world and make changes in it in some fashion, meanwhile allowing each player to play how they want and be unique. For my definition, Fallen Earth fits it almost perfectly. I do wish for more PVP and they have some PVP changes that were announced at PAX, but it won't be exactly what I want... but that's ok.

Put shortly: A sandbox is a game where players are given the tools to craft their own world. That doesn't mean half assed, making those tools right is probably harder than making a normal game.

Originally posted by Inzra

Originally posted by Vanpry

No a sandbox does not require pvp or pvp looting.  Both those options are preferences not requirements.  This is the unfortunate trap that many recent sandbox attempts have fallen into and part of the reason why any sandbox game hasn't gained any traction.

No matter how loud the whiners cried UO post trammel was still a sandbox.  Less now then it was right after trammel but still one of the best sandboxes out there still.

 

Then your definition of sandbox must be very restricted... then Lotro might as well be sandbox

No not even close.  My definition of sandbox isn't as restrictive as yours.  A sandbox could be a pvp or pve game.  Being able to attack anyone simple because you feel like it doesn't make it a sandbox game.  But all the developers keep following this misguided direction and keep ending up with games built for griefing.

Originally posted by Vanpry

Originally posted by Inzra

Then your definition of sandbox must be very restricted... then Lotro might as well be sandbox

 

No not even close.  My definition of sandbox isn't as restrictive as yours.  A sandbox could be a pvp or pve game.  Being able to attack anyone simple because you feel like it doesn't make it a sandbox game.  But all the developers keep following this misguided direction and keep ending up with games built for griefing.

Then they probably share my definition which is more freedom to do things.

Just because you get griefed doesn't mean you have to, like you don't have to craft just because you can.

Originally posted by Inzra

Originally posted by Vanpry

Originally posted by Inzra

Then your definition of sandbox must be very restricted... then Lotro might as well be sandbox

 

No not even close.  My definition of sandbox isn't as restrictive as yours.  A sandbox could be a pvp or pve game.  Being able to attack anyone simple because you feel like it doesn't make it a sandbox game.  But all the developers keep following this misguided direction and keep ending up with games built for griefing.

 

Then they probably share my definition which is more freedom to do things.

Just because you get griefed doesn't mean you have to, like you don't have to craft just because you can.

Now that's funny.  If you think freedom is just the ability to be a dick you have a very interesting take on it.  A sandbox is the ability to find your own path.  Maybe if people would grow out of this narrow minded thinking of what a sandbox game is maybe one will be able to actually get off the ground.

Originally posted by Inzra

I would say true sandbox requires full PvP and looting, yes.

The way I've understood sandbox is that you can do anything, so if you where restricted not to attack someone and loot them it wouldn't be as much sandbox as in a game which you could do that.

On the other hand one might say that no/ lack of crafting also is a restriction in the sandbox, but I allways go with PvP interaction before PvE crafting.

A FFA pvp system is actually much more restricting than a sandbox with pvp areas or a flagging system.

Think about it. IN a FFA system all the pvpers are free to do what they want but its the non- pvp gamers that have to run and hide. they;re the ones that are restriced to what zones they could go into.

Now with set pvp zones or flagging a Pvper is free to flag up or hang in pvp areas and pvp all day while the non-pvpers get to do what they want without feeling restricted.

Unless you consider not having juicy pver targets to kill a restriction? in that case your just a griefer and any real pvper wants the best possible fight and challenge in their pvp experience (fighting other real pvpers).

In reality all a sandbox needs is a flexible character progression and development system (skill allocation) and its a sandbox.

A sandbox can have quests, dungeons, raids, pvp areas, crafting, roaming boss hunts and all that other shit that themeparks have. its the skill system that sets it apart from a themepark.

Originally posted by Vanpry

 

Now that's funny.  If you think freedom is just the ability to be a dick you have a very interesting take on it.  A sandbox is the ability to find your own path.  Maybe if people would grow out of this narrow minded thinking of what a sandbox game is maybe one will be able to actually get off the ground.

You might as well say people have a narrow minded thinking of what FFA PvP is...

Just because people get griefed doesn't mean you have to be griefed all the way long.

It's just that if you suck at PvP, you might actually have to think outside the box to handle things, but because that is so "far out" compared to finding resources and crafting, or doing a very hard quest, then alot of people just give up...

Open PvP is just a challenge, it's not a road block.

Originally posted by Vanpry

No a sandbox does not require pvp or pvp looting.  Both those options are preferences not requirements.  This is the unfortunate trap that many recent sandbox attempts have fallen into and part of the reason why any sandbox game hasn't gained any traction.

No matter how loud the whiners cried UO post trammel was still a sandbox.  Less now then it was right after trammel but still one of the best sandboxes out there still.

Imo, you do need PVP and looting to be a "true" sandbox because the murderer types have to be catered to as well.

With that being said, I think the problem these days is that devs do not make sandbox games with multiple viable options to shape the game world whether it be PVE, PVP, crafting, trading, exploring, etc..( all those little things UO has).  Instead they make a FFA pvp game with some of these things tacked on effectively making the "world" shaped by only PVP and nothing else to any significance.

Answer:
No, it doesn't. It is irrelevant to sandbox mechanics.

Originally posted by bustaj

Imo, you do need PVP and looting to be a "true" sandbox because the murderer types have to be catered to as well.

With that being said, I think the problem these days is that devs do not make sandbox games with multiple viable options to shape the game world whether it be PVE, PVP, crafting, trading, exploring, etc..( all those little things UO has).  Instead they make a FFA pvp game with some of these things tacked on effectively making the "world" shaped by only PVP and nothing else to any significance.

So you can't have pvp zones and be true pvp?  Or is it you need to kill unwilling people to kill to make it a true pvp?  Sorry but post trammel UO was still a great sandbox game.  In it's current state it has lost some of it sandbox goodness but it is still one of the best sandbox games out.

What you OMFG pvp rules you carebear people need to realize is no sandbox game featuring ffa pvp will ever gain any traction.  Wouldn't it be better to have a sandbox game with pvp zones or flags then no sandbox game at all?  I don't understand the sandbox pvper mentality.  Look at the other good sandbox game Eve.  It does not allow people to act like asses throughout the entire game either.

Originally posted by Vanpry

So you can't have pvp zones and be true pvp?  Or is it you need to kill unwilling people to kill to make it a true pvp?  Sorry but post trammel UO was still a great sandbox game.  In it's current state it has lost some of it sandbox goodness but it is still one of the best sandbox games out.

What you OMFG pvp rules you carebear people need to realize is no sandbox game featuring ffa pvp will ever gain any traction.  Wouldn't it be better to have a sandbox game with pvp zones or flags then no sandbox game at all?  I don't understand the sandbox pvper mentality.  Look at the other good sandbox game Eve.  It does not allow people to act like asses throughout the entire game either.

Well it's certainly not full PvP, and I don't think there too many that are "willing" to die in a fight, so usually dieing in PvP will be unwilling.

And I don't care how popular a game is, or the graphics quality, or animation, - I'l choose my game based on the gameplay first of all.

Sandbox the way I see it is to have as little restrictions from the game as possible, then the "restrictions" from the players have to be able to be coped with.

Since PvP can be coped with, I see no reason to restrict it by denying PvP in certain areas.

As for carebear... You got tons of games with PvP restrictions, not that many games with open real PvP...