Because too many think sandbox = ganking, and then develop their game to allow this.

Originally posted by Palazious

I think the biggest problem with sandbox attempts so far is the FFA PVP as well.

One of the core attractions of a sandbox IMO, is the ability to do as you wish when you want, weather it be crafting, exploring, building, socializing, even questing or raiding. 

 

---

Originally posted by asdar
Think of a world where everyone that wanted to could form up their own quests. Sounds great, but what would happen is that players would immediately make quests for friends to do for in-game gold.

---

---

Originally posted by asdar
I like housing, let's let players build houses where they want. Players intentionally block doors to other players houses.

---

---

Originally posted by asdar
I like designs, and designing armor. Players start making x-rated designs and running around in game with them.

---

---

Originally posted by asdar
It's gotten so that you can't give the players sand or they'll ruin the very thing they want. You can't have a sandbox game when there's so many cats running around wanting to do their business in any sandbox that's available.

---

Originally posted by Palazious

I think the biggest problem with sandbox attempts so far is the FFA PVP as well.

One of the core attractions of a sandbox IMO, is the ability to do as you wish when you want, weather it be crafting, exploring, building, socializing, even questing or raiding. 

Sandbox is just not having a predefined path to play through versus themepark plays through a certain character path and progression.

IMO, the more that someone tries to define "sandbox" into something else the further from 'sandbox' the definition gets. 

With MO and DF the emphasis was on FFA PVP which made it so that your choices were very restricted and not much fun.  I played both of these and the results were pretty crappy with basically a few top notch pvp guilds running everyone else off of the servers.  Not fun for those not in those groups and not good for server population. 

I'm not sure where the whole "Sandbox = FFA PVP" came from but its given sandbox a bad rap to many folks.  Its just as much nonsense as "Sandbox = no zones" (all MMOs have zones... some use seemless zoning) or "Sandbox = No levels"

Eve had it right with FFA PVP in certain areas so that PvP became a choice.  I love PvP but not while I have a crafting window up.  Eve allows PVP to be a 'choice' which is sandbox.

IMO, Whatever AAA developer that finally makes a proper sandbox will do very well with it.

I'll be keeping my eyes on Archeage.  I hope it stays true to what its goals are and the devs are able to pull it off.

 

There are many types of Sandbox designs..  FPS FFA is just one of them. And yes.. many newer people tend to associate sandbox with FFA PvP.

Secondly, to you it may seem that all MMORPG have "zones".. but you have to understand the technological difference between loading in all the content from a different blade server, (while your character moves about the game world)  -VS-  loading assets @ node line but not the game world, just the dynamic content that is currently in the area. (ie VG)

There server structure and type clearly defines what the Developers can & cannot do with the mechanics within their game. That is why the early pre-planning stages set the tone for the whole development project.

When designing a MMORPG, the developers YEARS BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS... need to know what type of server structure they are going to use. Because that alone determines and defines what will be allowed in game. It also lets the investors know if the MMORPG being planned is going to cost $600,000 to make, or $40 million.

The server structure & Hardware the game runs on, determines if the game is Sandbox, or themepark. Streaming and 64bit OS will allow for some immersive style MMO in the near future, zones (per se') will get even more difficult to define.

Note: you don't have to zone... to hit an artifical zone wall. (it has 2 meanings)

Many poeople simply do not undersatand WHY themepark MMOS exist (the technological limitation) and WHY they continue to be developed. Most of these people don't understand any of this, because they don't understand the progeny of how technology and MMO grew up together.

Today's Themeparks use cheap servers, because using Zones & instances can easily cut the over-all start up cost by 80%, or more.  (Thousands -vs- Millions)

Lastly, as we moved through technology, many leading Developers will come up with some unique things with their server structure (RIft, for example). There will always be games that think outside the box and try to deliver Sandbox content within a zoned world. Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence.

Originally posted by Phelcher

Originally posted by Palazious

I think the biggest problem with sandbox attempts so far is the FFA PVP as well.

One of the core attractions of a sandbox IMO, is the ability to do as you wish when you want, weather it be crafting, exploring, building, socializing, even questing or raiding. 

Sandbox is just not having a predefined path to play through versus themepark plays through a certain character path and progression.

IMO, the more that someone tries to define "sandbox" into something else the further from 'sandbox' the definition gets. 

With MO and DF the emphasis was on FFA PVP which made it so that your choices were very restricted and not much fun.  I played both of these and the results were pretty crappy with basically a few top notch pvp guilds running everyone else off of the servers.  Not fun for those not in those groups and not good for server population. 

I'm not sure where the whole "Sandbox = FFA PVP" came from but its given sandbox a bad rap to many folks.  Its just as much nonsense as "Sandbox = no zones" (all MMOs have zones... some use seemless zoning) or "Sandbox = No levels"

Eve had it right with FFA PVP in certain areas so that PvP became a choice.  I love PvP but not while I have a crafting window up.  Eve allows PVP to be a 'choice' which is sandbox.

IMO, Whatever AAA developer that finally makes a proper sandbox will do very well with it.

I'll be keeping my eyes on Archeage.  I hope it stays true to what its goals are and the devs are able to pull it off.

 

 

There are many types of Sandbox designs..  FPS FFA is just one of them. And yes.. many newer people tend to associate sandbox with FFA PvP.

 

Secondly, to you it may seem that all MMORPG have "zones".. but you have to understand the technological difference between loading in all the content from a different blade server, (while your character moves about the game world)  -VS-  loading assets @ node line but not the game world, just the dynamic content that is currently in the area. (ie VG)

 

There server structure and type clearly defines what the Developers can & cannot do with the mechanics within their game. That is why the early pre-planning stages set the tone for the whole development project.

When designing a MMORPG, the developers YEARS BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS... need to know what type of server structure they are going to use. Because that alone determines and defines what will be allowed in game. It also lets the investors know if the MMORPG being planned is going to cost $600,000 to make, or $40 million.

The server structure & Hardware the game runs on, determines if the game is Sandbox, or themepark. Streaming and 64bit OS will allow for some immersive style MMO in the near future, zones (per se') will get even more difficult to define.

 

 

Note: you don't have to zone... to hit an artifical zone wall. (it has 2 meanings)

Many poeople simply do not undersatand WHY themepark MMOS exist (the technological limitation) and WHY they continue to be developed. Most of these people don't understand any of this, because they don't understand the progeny of how technology and MMO grew up together.

Today's Themeparks use cheap servers, because using Zones & instances can easily cut the over-all start up cost by 80%, or more.  (Thousands -vs- Millions)

 

Lastly, as we moved through technology, many leading Developers will come up with some unique things with their server structure (RIft, for example). There will always be games that think outside the box and try to deliver Sandbox content within a zoned world. Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence.

 

Very interesting, and I'll take your word for it on the technical side.  But not on the definition side.  You are putting your own definition of a themepark and sandbox and the individual does not get to do that.  Words are defined by the collective, and while there unfortunately is no one overall definition for sandbox and themepark there are some points that a majority agree on.

Yes the server architecture and hardware does limit the features.  However as has been shown over and over again through countless threads, a feature list does not make a sandbox - else wow would be a sandbox as it has many features (not all but many) that a sandbox has.

Fact 1- there are games that the majority consider to be sandbox that have zones.  Your particular definition of sandbox is moot.  Because these games exist, we can definatively say that the presence or absence of a zone line is not the defining or even a major feature of sandbox or themepark.  You can say that it may be harder but you can't say it can't be done, it has been done. 

"Even so, they just have less "cheese" to hide. But, that doesn't make the game a sandbox though, but just a themepark with a sandbox feel, or presence."  This is just your own subjective definition of sandbox - nothing more.

Fact 2 = Vanguard may have handled there zone lines different, however they are still zones.  There is an invisible line that you cross where the game pauses (sometimes for minutes at a time) and loads up the resources of the world.  Yes you can see the resources on either side of the zone but they are merely a backdrop, you can't interact with them.  They call them chunk lines but there were implemented for the same reason as the old zone lines, and work the same way as the old zone lines (meaning the game still pauses to load up the resources), ergo they are zones.

Venge

Originally posted by Adamantine

Gah.

Skyrim is a themepark.

First thing people need to figure out before discussing sandboxes is probably what sandbox games are in the first place.

Sandboxes are simulations that work according to certain rules. The player himself has to build the world, which is changed by the actions of the players. The game itself is dynamic.

Themeparks are preconfigured games that tell specific and static stories. The player just experiences the content of the game, but cannot change it. The game itself is static.

Questions like if the game is skillbased or if the game is linear are completely secondary. Yeah, sandboxes cannot be linear, obviously; but themeparks arent required to be linear, either, and both sandboxes as well as themeparks might be classbased or skillbased, there is absolutely no hard link between these concepts and how you design the character progression.

 

This a great description, get right to the heart of the matter.  However, I think in order to make a sandbox a) fun and b) profitable c) playable ......it would certainly have to borrow some base structures from themeparks. IMO  

Having just watched a handfull of vids on Archeage I can say with 100% certainty it will be sandbox. I couldn't determine if it will be 100% FFA but I really hope not.  Nothing is FFA. I can't stroll up to your house and build a shed on your front lawn, it shouldn't be any different in an MMO world. I buy a deed for a plot in game, I have room to build a house, grow a garden plant some trees whatever. Pay my taxes, it's "my land" and my taxes give me protection under the law that say so. They showed a rapid view of a house that was abandoned as it fell in to disrepair so I think you might see weather impact the need to fix the roof or mend a fence and so on meaning you wont have the issues of SWG where you could just plunk your house down anywhere and pay up maintenance for a year.

They suggest in the videos that pretty much everything will be crafted and alot of the sandbox people will like that. From houses to cities to boats to everything. They mentioned I think servers will be PvE and PvP so I doubt griefers will be able to drag the game down like alot of other player manipulated worlds. They haven't mentioned a pay method yet, that can make it or break it. Graphics were scenery m'eh and avatar - 'groan' but those can be advanced upon when the core of the game is good. Typical example, cleavage. In this game? They shouldn't have it because what they have now is worse than none. It looks like someone overproofed bread and the loaves over lapped. Facial is 2003 and body is 2D but again, they can improve those aspects of the game.

If Archeage meets it's expactations from within, it will be the big little sandbox that worked.

The  solution is ... get CCP to make a sandbox MMO like Eve Online but have it in another type of setting. 

Then you'll have a MMO that will work. 

The game mechanics are perfect. At the end real time skills being learned is one of the best ways to  have a game that's great for both hardcore and casual. Sure the wait sucks but if you and other players agree that you both liek FFA PvP  then t hats g reat people  say that not everyone l ikes... but then wh y do I hear so many peopel crave for it.

Right now it 's up to Eve Online, Darkfall Online, and Mortal Online...

Eve Online - Stay the way you are but evenutally  expand on having humanoids land on planets and do their thing in planets using yoru avatar... (this will take YEARS)

Darkfall Online - Dude... seriouslly release 2.0 and  try to make the skills a little bit different in terms of not having every sincgle character use the same w eapons and spells. 

Mortal Online - Fix your tutorial system and get a higher population somehow.

I think the demand for Sandbox will eventually be heard. I see a lot of people begging for it and I think one day someoen will listen and our dreams will come true...

In my eyes though I think Sandbox games are only really truly working for Single Player games (with the exception of Ultima Online) 

Because the vocal minority screaming about features that most gamers no longer want for example ffa pvp, full loot, nothing but slow travel (which is completely stupid since the grand daddy of sandboxes UO had recall runes) to name a few.

Because developers have rose colored glasses when they are remembering their young in these games.  UO can't be recreated because the core (the community) is not the same.  MMO are no longer roleplay games the are competative roleplay games.

Originally posted by Bladestrom
Slow travel gives scope to a world, I for one want slow travel,with certain public transport back. Summon stones and queues have been enormously damaging to virtual world immersion.

I am all for slowing down progression and stopping to smell the roses, but running past the roses just to get to the game I am trying to play has no value added.  Slow travel is nothing more then a time sink and if slow travel is your big plan to slow down progression you have some serious issues. 

I have never been big on exploring so running around just to run around does nothing for me.

A sandbox mmo to me in a game that is a single sharded (everyone shares the same living space as opposed to hundreds of different servers like WoW) world  with the main aspect is Player vs Player but on an extremely large scale. Where nations of players band together to fight other nations for territory, resources, respect, reputation. Where the economy is entirely player driven. Where everything is player made or constructed/built (similar to Minecraft). Where nothing is "safe" forever (nations rise and fall, things decay when not maintained). Where you can terraform but not compeletly destroy the world by doing so and terraformed land would slowly return to normal over a long period if there was no real activity going on around it.

There would also be lots of PvE elements like farming, mining, fishing, hunting, extremely(!) large tradeskill/crafting system.

Nations could build massive castles, bridge over rivers, build roads to increase travel speeds all of which would decay and eventually collapase and become nothing again if there was no activety on or around them.

You could hire NPC's to man your castle walls, or defend your settlements, patrol your roads, or defend your resources (farms) equip them with armor, weapons, bows, etc. They could even go hunting with you and you can bring them to help siege/raid an enemy (think lighting their crops on fire to cause food shortages from crops). Player made siege weapons. Higher masons etc to keep your structers from decaying.

The world would be huge and constantly exanding to give room for new nations. Huge oceans with islands that you can explore for. Massive ships.

I can go on and on. It would take a lot of money and time to develope a game like this, which is why it hasn't really been done.

Originally posted by Talint

Hello MMORPG Community,

 

So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game.  I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers.  Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides)  And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this.  Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas.  Take Skyrim for example.  The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level.  You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something.  If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same.  Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.

 

Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.

 

Talint

One of the main reasons for the lack of success of "sand box" type games, is that the Dev's and players insist on equating "sand box" with FFA gankfest.  Thats a rather limited demographic in the modern western markets.  As long as there are Goonie types, any game that panders to them is going to seriously niche itself. 

Another reason is that "sand box" tends to lend itself to small Dev teams, with limited funding. Thats a nasty cycle that feeds back on itself. 

Originally posted by Bladestrom
Slow travel gives scope to a world, I for one want slow travel,with certain public transport back. Summon stones and queues have been enormously damaging to virtual world immersion.

Slow travel is great for adding scope to a world, but it's something that has to be accounted for in the overall design of the game.

• If your game has frequent / unavoidable deaths then slow travel from respawn point is BAD.  If your game allows you to generally minimize deaths through skill and good choices or provides good getaway mechanisms then slow travel from respawn can be GOOD.
• If your game has critical resources only available in few / far away spots then slow travel is BAD.  For example a far-away AH / trainer / vendor / bank that the player must visit often will make slow-travel tedious.  If players can 'live' in an area of the world for days at a time then slow travel is GOOD as it enhances the feeling of size of the world.
• If your game has a progression that leads you to moving through multiple zones in a single session of play then slow travel is BAD.  If progression naturally lets you roam an area for several days then slow travel can be GOOD.
• If your players have to travel to an instance for a quick 30 min group slow travel is BAD.  If dungeons and groups are meant to last for hours, supporting the idea of replacements for any leavers then slow travel can be GOOD.

Also, slow travel should either have limited fast travel alternatives OR afk-slow-travel alternatives.  For example EVE travel is slow but we have a (slower) auto-pilot (with the added risk of ganks).  In UO travel was slow but skills and reagents could provide teleportation (further at risk through rune theft); mounts could speed movemenet but could also easily die resulting in a gold loss and a slow walk to the vendor.  In EQ travel was slow but items / spells could speed it up and limited teleportation locations could speed up travel with the help of certain classes.

Originally posted by jerlot65

Originally posted by Talint

Hello MMORPG Community,

 

So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game.  I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers.  Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides)  And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this.  Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas.  Take Skyrim for example.  The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level.  You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something.  If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same.  Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.

 

Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.

 

Talint

I'm starting to think sandboxes are failing because players and developers on the sandbox bandwagon equate sandbox to hardcore. 
 

If you had a good sandbox game with the the benefits and ease of use of a popular themepark game you would have a winner.  But for some reason ease of use and sandbox never goes hand in hand with game devs.

   A Minecraft mmo?